richard dawkins wants to arrest the pope

[creamcorn]

give me ANY proof that there are no supernatural things like angels and god

it cannot be done. before you go "HA. gotcha there!" i will explain why.

you CANNOT prove a negative. it is impossible logically, philosophically, metaphorically. it simply cannot be done. I'm sure those of you who've taken philosophy or logic and reasoning courses have talked about this in class, as i was taught. This is one of the weakest arguments for a god, in saying things like "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist !!!" and here's an example WHY:

let's say i set out to prove that reindeer cannot fly, so that i can disprove the myth of santa claus. i gather up hundreds of reindeer and start pushing them off a cliff to observe if they fly or not (ah, purely for science of course!). one by one they'll hit the ground. in the end there's going to be a large pile of unhappy, broken reindeer at the base of the cliff. does this prove my hypothesis? no, actually, it does not. Perhaps the reindeer CHOSE not to fly. santa claus enthusiasts will claim, "well it's only the 8 reindeer from the northpole that can fly and, oh, they can only do it one night out of the year." GREAT, that narrows the field of study down quite a bit, but it doesn't make for a very testable hypothesis. no, my firm belief that reindeer cannot fly is based off of my knowledge of the average reindeer's aerodynamic abilities. but hey, we can't be sure if i'm right or not until someone actually scientifically records a reindeer flying.

So, hopefully this example shows you, you can't prove a negative. Our knowledge of the universe is defined on proofs we have made, based on POSITIVE claims. the burden of proof is on those that make the claim, not the other way around. Another great example would be the way the court system is made up-- "innocent until proven guilty" -- the burden of proof is on the accuser.

if you wanna do it with unicorns it would be like this:

give me ANY proof there are no unicorns. no one has ever seen a unicorn, but there are stories about unicorns, and some of them say that they saw unicorns and that unicorns told them things 2,000 years ago. you can't prove they don't exist, therefore i can choose to believe in them or i can choose not to, and i choose to because i like to, its my choice

only with god i also choose to believe in him because it makes sense to me because then there is justice, purpose etc.

and with unicorns you can prove if they existed or not by looking for fossils or any biological proof, but with god you cant, because hes supernatural. all we can grasp and understand is the natural

if you DO think we can grasp the unnatural, that which we cant grasp, PROVE it

turns out, youre the accuser and the burden is on you

[Mew_User]

http://www.thebackalleys.com/forum/index.p...mp;#entry174847

[rtil]

which is an extension of our 'sight' or that which we can comprehend and understand and explain

for the purposes of illustration, yes. but there are plenty of things in science we can't actually observe because it's impossible, like a 4 dimensional object. but there are broader things we can't directly observe either, like macroevolution. however, we know these things exist because we understand how they work and we have insurmountable evidence to prove it.

we did not observe mankind evolving and we never will. but we know it happened.

yes we are discovering more and more of that which god has given us

god never gave us plastics, composites, computer chips, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, pretty much anything you use in your daily life and probably take for granted. they were created by man.

theres always gonna be evil in the world, partly because of satan

ah the old blaming it on satan fallback. one of the "problems with god" paradoxes explain why this makes no sense - most specifically the "problem of evil".

but he gave the few good ones among us a chance to go to heaven, thats why he has given it to us

what about those who are oh so unfortunate to never hear the word of (insert regionally specific god here)?

and you may think we dont need him to life in this life, we need him in this life for the afterlife

why?

the violent history isnt because of god, its because of man

of course, but they were driven by the sole belief that their god was better than someone else's god. it's religion-based warfare, and it's been going on non-stop for millenia.

god didnt create evil he created only good

according to theistic religions, god created everything - he also created evil, without exception. otherwise god is a paradox, an oxymoron, a lie.

evil just occurs when there is no good, just like how a shadow comes where there is no light, cold where there is no warmth

evil can be brought about by good intentions. not sure what you're getting at.

thats not what i said. if you wanna do it with unicorns it would be like this:

give me ANY proof there are no unicorns. no one has ever seen a unicorn, but there are stories about unicorns, and some of them say that they saw unicorns and that unicorns told them things 2,000 years ago.  you can't prove they don't exist, therefore i can choose to believe in them or i can choose not to, and i choose to because i like to, its my choice

only with god i also choose to believe in him because it makes sense to me because then there is justice, purpose etc.

justice, purpose, morals, anything your religion claims to give you, can be explained by biology and evolution.

and with unicorns you can prove if they existed or not by looking for fossils or any biological proof, but with god you cant, because hes supernatural. all we can grasp and understand is the natural

you're missing the point. the point is that i can apply the argument to anything that no one has ever found proof of - gods included - and just say at the end of it "therefore they exist".

and supernatural beings have also made physical appearances before in stories, even some theistic gods. so the supernatural is not excluded from this analogy. in fact, people look desperately for physical evidence of jesus the son of the christian god all the time.

[creamcorn]

if we COULD prove gods existance through science then god might as well have been visible 24/7 for all to see
but thats not what believing in god means, it means believing in the supernatural , it means you feel that there should be justice and meaning

and wether you call that blind thats totally up to you

[Jeinu]

give me ANY proof that there are no supernatural things like angels and god

it cannot be done. before you go "HA. gotcha there!" i will explain why.

you CANNOT prove a negative. it is impossible logically, philosophically, metaphorically. it simply cannot be done. I'm sure those of you who've taken philosophy or logic and reasoning courses have talked about this in class, as i was taught. This is one of the weakest arguments for a god, in saying things like "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist !!!" and here's an example WHY:

let's say i set out to prove that reindeer cannot fly, so that i can disprove the myth of santa claus. i gather up hundreds of reindeer and start pushing them off a cliff to observe if they fly or not (ah, purely for science of course!). one by one they'll hit the ground. in the end there's going to be a large pile of unhappy, broken reindeer at the base of the cliff. does this prove my hypothesis? no, actually, it does not. Perhaps the reindeer CHOSE not to fly. santa claus enthusiasts will claim, "well it's only the 8 reindeer from the northpole that can fly and, oh, they can only do it one night out of the year." GREAT, that narrows the field of study down quite a bit, but it doesn't make for a very testable hypothesis. no, my firm belief that reindeer cannot fly is based off of my knowledge of the average reindeer's aerodynamic abilities. but hey, we can't be sure if i'm right or not until someone actually scientifically records a reindeer flying.

So, hopefully this example shows you, you can't prove a negative. Our knowledge of the universe is defined on proofs we have made, based on POSITIVE claims. the burden of proof is on those that make the claim, not the other way around. Another great example would be the way the court system is made up-- "innocent until proven guilty" -- the burden of proof is on the accuser.

if you wanna do it with unicorns it would be like this:

give me ANY proof there are no unicorns. no one has ever seen a unicorn, but there are stories about unicorns, and some of them say that they saw unicorns and that unicorns told them things 2,000 years ago. you can't prove they don't exist, therefore i can choose to believe in them or i can choose not to, and i choose to because i like to, its my choice

only with god i also choose to believe in him because it makes sense to me because then there is justice, purpose etc.

and with unicorns you can prove if they existed or not by looking for fossils or any biological proof, but with god you cant, because hes supernatural. all we can grasp and understand is the natural

if you DO think we can grasp the unnatural, that which we cant grasp, PROVE it

turns out, youre the accuser and the burden is on you

you completely missed the point. read it over a few more times. i am not the one saying you can grasp the supernatural/unnatural. i have no proof of the supernatural/unnatural, so i have no reason to believe it. you rebuttal really doesn't make logical sense.

[Taokaka]

this pope was an ex nazi youth right

[rtil]

turns out, youre the accuser and the burden is on you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

if we COULD prove gods existance through science then god might as well have been visible 24/7 for all to see

why is that?

but thats not what believing in god means, it means believing in the supernatural , it means you feel that there should be justice and meaning

and wether you call that blind thats totally up to you

no, believing in god is FAITH, because faith does not require any single scrap of evidence. that, by definition, is naive and child-like. the christian bible even describes that believing in god requires the faith of a child. because if you think too much about it, you begin to doubt it. it's completely natural, considering there is zero evidence a god exists.

[emanhattan]

im having a deja vu

[trent bortknob]

i'm going to do chicken a favor here

chicken you're going in circles now because you can't make a logical rebuttal yourself so i'm going to do it for you

i'm an atheist but chicken if you're going to be a blind theist you should at least have some sort of backup




how much of our own beliefs are made of assumptions that we don't have proof of?

we think that we ate breakfast today. we even think that we can remember what we ate. what if a demon created the universe 5 minutes ago, and he created everyone to have memories of what they did that morning? he even created us with the food in our stomaches that we supposedly ate this morning. we can't PROVE that this doesn't happen

obviously, if anyone actually believed that, you would think he was insane. no one can disprove it, but we all assume that we really DID eat breakfast today, even though we don't actually have proof of it. it could have been the demon

the same thing goes for almost all knowledge we read in textbooks. they say that china has a population of a billion, that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. did you actually go to germany and see the dead bodies? did you go to china and count the population? it's doubtful that you did. you just believe it because around 99% of our knowledge and beliefs are taken from these assumptions (it's called 'testimonial evidence') that things are true

the same thing can be said about god. you would be crazy to not make the assumption that you really do exist, that you really did eat breakfast, that there are a billion people in china

therefore, it's rational to believe in god

(i think this argument has a lot of flaws but i thought i'd help chicken out)

[Philip K Dick]

what happened to gettign on aim taylor

[trent bortknob]

oh shit sorry after dinner i got into a convo with my dad

[billy]

this pope was an ex nazi youth right

Yes, he was a Hitler Youth in nazi germany

[Philip K Dick]

this thread is a perfect example of why a debate forum is a bad idea

[emanhattan]

this chihuahua song makes me want to leave any thread

[trent bortknob]

this thread is a perfect example of why a debate forum is a bad idea

actually i think right now this and the other thread are the only good threads on tba

[Necronomitr0n]

i agree

this thread is very enlightening indeed

[Daveb0t]

Im gonna have to call this threwd an epic fail

[Necronomitr0n]

oh hey billy has an autoplay in his sig good thing i don't have quicktime installed

[rtil]

oh hey billy has an autoplay in his sig

not anymore

[Necronomitr0n]

oops sorry billy no hard feelings.................