This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The falsifibility of your claims

#51Julian_CaesarPosted 5/29/2013 9:10:14 PM
From: DarkContractor | #050
So how I have historically approached the issue of God and what I have and have not been convinced by is irrelevant to whether or not I would be convinced by a miracle?


You've made it painfully clear what would/wouldn't convince you of a miracle. I'm trying to respond in kind by making it equally clear that your idea of "convinced of a miracle" is inherently dismissive of miracles by definition alone (NOT due to lack of evidence).

But what you consider to be my analogy is not my analogy, thus a strawman. I was focusing on the disproof of a substanceless claim.


And you used that substanceless claim (2+2=5) as an analogy for faith-based beliefs. Hence, analogy, and an inapplicable one, because you framed the analogy in terms of a truth system (math) which has strictly defined and provable right/wrong answers. Religion does not have those, therefore you cannot compare faith-based beliefs to math equations.

Again...it's not a strawman to point out that the example/analogy you used to make a point was completely inapplicable to the subject at hand. I'm not misrepresenting your argument, I'm exposing it.

For another example, I could make on zero basis that this topic does not exist. However, the evidence of this topic is in fact a falsification of that. I am arguing that a lack of logic and evidence (which still eludes me as to why you adhere to such a nonfruitful epistemology that yields no intellectual truth whatsoever) in your premise does not mean your premise is necessarily unfalsifiable.


That's partly correct. A lack of evidence does not mean that my premise is unfalsifiable, nor would a lack of logic. But my premise does contain logic; or rather, the logic which follows from my premise leads to certain conclusions which are perfectly reconcilable with what we observe (or don't observe) around us.

Of course the premise itself (that God exists) lacks evidence, but it does not "lack logic". Logic is not how we establish truths; rather, it is how we determine the relationships between truths. If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. Logic does not tell us that A is true, merely what happens after we assume A is true. Of course if we have another logic train which ends with "A is false", then we have a contradiction and perhaps A, B, C are all false. But what premise began that train, to say that A was false? Another assumption, and so on it goes.

With all that said, I have no problem admitting that "God exists" is an assumed, subjective truth, whose only "evidence" is of my own experience and not reproducible for the sake of confirmation. Where the "logic" comes into the discussion is that, given the nature of God as described in the Bible, "evidence" or lack thereof according to the standards of scientific inquiry is not sufficient to either establish or disprove that assumed truth. Thus any "lack of evidence" is not sufficient to disprove God's existence, neither could any evidence be found that would "demand" belief in God's existence.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#52Julian_CaesarPosted 5/29/2013 9:17:32 PM
In to which I challenge you to prove my skepticism is of the level you are claiming. You're initial proposal was a rhetorical of how I would refrain from rationalizing such a proof, as though to imply it is in my nature to do so. It does not follow that the people in Jesus' time rationalized miracles so therefore I will as well.


I have no proof, other than what I observe about the things you have said in this and other topics, and from I know about human nature in general. My questions were an attempt to get you thinking about why you supposedly reject Christianity/God from a "lack of proof", in order to reveal the truth that "lack of proof" is a logically deficient argument for rejection of Christianity/God.

you have zero choice but to consider that because I was never saved (You must not give into appeals to secularism, none of us were ever saved, Ephesians 4:30, 1 John 2:17) that I gave up control of my life to a higher being, repented of my sins, and stopped doing the things I wanted to do for the things that the Biblical Jesus would have wanted me to do, all without any supernatural assistance or a Sky Wizard to draw me from my rebellion, transform me, or humble me to enable me to have faith.


Now this paragraph makes more sense. Are you claiming to have reached "salvation" all on your own, without the help of God? Or am I misreading your prepositions?

From: DarkContractor | #050
You keep on making claims about what I have said and what I will do in the face of evidence. I do not think you know what I actually mean, however, and your ignorance on this subject combined with your confidence of my faultiness veils you from such a fact.


I stand by what I said about the "strawman", that you can't call something a strawman just because it calls out an inapplicable argument/analogy. But I'm much less sure about what you believe concerning God...so apologies there. I'm sorry.

I've only been responding to what I perceived to be your mindset concerning "evidence" and "faith"; what do you believe, then? How are they linked for you, belief in "evidence" and belief in God?
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#53SuibomPosted 5/29/2013 9:35:20 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


*Looks around*

*Waits*

...

...

*Looks around one more time*

*Waits.....*

*Nobody?!*

...

INCONTHEEEVABLE!!!!
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#54DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/31/2013 6:44:48 PM
Just saw you responded.
From: Julian_Caesar | #051
You've made it painfully clear what would/wouldn't convince you of a miracle. I'm trying to respond in kind by making it equally clear that your idea of "convinced of a miracle" is inherently dismissive of miracles by definition alone (NOT due to lack of evidence).


Okay demonstrate. How have I made it clear that this is not my usual standard?


And you used that substanceless claim (2+2=5) as an analogy for faith-based beliefs. Hence, analogy, and an inapplicable one, because you framed the analogy in terms of a truth system (math) which has strictly defined and provable right/wrong answers. Religion does not have those, therefore you cannot compare faith-based beliefs to math equations.

Again...it's not a strawman to point out that the example/analogy you used to make a point was completely inapplicable to the subject at hand. I'm not misrepresenting your argument, I'm exposing it.


Religion makes falsifiable claims. You're just making the non-seqitur that if they are based on faith they can still make falsifiable claims. I am looking at disproofs, not proofs. You analyzed my analogy and then rebutted on the basis that I was looking at proofs. Thusly, a strawman.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#55DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/31/2013 6:45:02 PM
That's partly correct. A lack of evidence does not mean that my premise is unfalsifiable, nor would a lack of logic. But my premise does contain logic; or rather, the logic which follows from my premise leads to certain conclusions which are perfectly reconcilable with what we observe (or don't observe) around us.

Of course the premise itself (that God exists) lacks evidence, but it does not "lack logic". Logic is not how we establish truths; rather, it is how we determine the relationships between truths. If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. Logic does not tell us that A is true, merely what happens after we assume A is true. Of course if we have another logic train which ends with "A is false", then we have a contradiction and perhaps A, B, C are all false. But what premise began that train, to say that A was false? Another assumption, and so on it goes.

With all that said, I have no problem admitting that "God exists" is an assumed, subjective truth, whose only "evidence" is of my own experience and not reproducible for the sake of confirmation. Where the "logic" comes into the discussion is that, given the nature of God as described in the Bible, "evidence" or lack thereof according to the standards of scientific inquiry is not sufficient to either establish or disprove that assumed truth. Thus any "lack of evidence" is not sufficient to disprove God's existence, neither could any evidence be found that would "demand" belief in God's existence.


Not necessarily. Because the extension of a logic could be the truth that something isn't, which can then falsify something else. I'll put it this way. You have your A-B-C. Somewhere, to use the same analogy, within that chain was a 2+2=5, then my separate chain that says it equals 4 falsifies that. The truth of something being a falsehood is still a truth that can be used to draw a relationship to something else.

I have no proof, other than what I observe about the things you have said in this and other topics, and from I know about human nature in general. My questions were an attempt to get you thinking about why you supposedly reject Christianity/God from a "lack of proof", in order to reveal the truth that "lack of proof" is a logically deficient argument for rejection of Christianity/God.


Yes it is. It's completely logical. Because accepting Christianity/God means accepting something I know to be true, and I cannot know it without evidence. (And I would say faith IS a logical fallacy).

Furthermore, I do not simply consider myself 'unconvinced'. I consider myself a gnostic atheist in regards to Christianity.

I've only been responding to what I perceived to be your mindset concerning "evidence" and "faith"; what do you believe, then? How are they linked for you, belief in "evidence" and belief in God?


I operate based conditional logics, textual criticism, and philosophical tests of probability. I define God as First Cause of which sentience is assigned to. Sentience is a grayer area for me, but I believe we can all area sentience includes some form of cognition.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#56myzz7Posted 5/31/2013 7:01:41 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]