Is God real post your thoughts!

[warri0r45]

 

I'm not trying to insult you here, but what aren't you understanding? If I took the Declaration of Independence to another country which doesn't share the same views as the United States and pointed to that phrase, chances are they'd ask me why those statements are true.

 

 

 

Nope, I still don't understand what the constitution, or accepting what it holds as self-evident truth (basic human rights), has to do with God existing or not.

 

 

 

Nothing that can't be proven to exist, can be used in an argument (see pink flying elephant fallacy). As far as logic goes, no supernatural elements are in existance.

 

 

 

I think you meant flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn. Just saying... >_>

 

 

 

You can try to make all the philosophical points about it you want to, but from a logic viewpoint, something that cannot be proven to exist (i.e. a blue apple) does not exist, thus cannot be used as an argument ("I believe a blue apple exists, and you cannot disprove it") without being a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

You see, it's impossible to argue the absolute truth "No apples are blue" unless you're able to observe EVERY apple in existence. The best you can say is that no apple has been observed to be blue. Such is the realm of science.

 

 

 

Also, no God has been observed to exist. Sure, I can write a made up story or claim the deity of Apples showed up in human form and demonstrated to me and a crowd of 2000 a blue apple. That's up to your faith to believe or not (and I'd find it quite disturbing if you believed it)

 

 

 

Until it can be proven blue apples, red bananas, God, or Santa claus himself are in existance, they do not exist. Appealing to philosophy and the fact I did not personally inspect every apple and banana in existance is bogus science and it would not hold out in a real logic/rational debate.

 

 

 

I disagree with you. With your logic, prior to discovering them, black swans didn't exist. That was demonstrated to be wrong. Inductive reasoning isn't a way to absolute truth nor a licence to statements like "x does not exist". We could possibly find an organism not made of cells due to the limits of induction yet we don't say "no organism exists that is not made of cells", we say "cell theory posits that all organisms are made of cells, yet like any good science, it's dynamic and willing to change if contradictory evidence comes up".

 

 

 

Edit: That's not to say we can't be very reasonably confident that something is factually accurate. See the following quote from prominent paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[BlueLancer]

cell theory posits that all organisms are made of cells, yet like any good science, it's dynamic and willing to change if contradictory evidence comes up

 

 

 

I was editing my post while you made a reply, I now made that acknowledgement.

 

 

 

Still, you can't claim the existence of anything and claim it's possible until proven otherwise. Fortunately the legal system has for quite some time in western countries acknowledged this. You can't indict a person for an alleged crime until you can prove he is guilty. If you cannot prove it, subjectively, it did not happen.

 

 

 

Of course, you might've been the only eyewitness while hundreds of other people said the crime, say murder, could've never been done by that person. That doesn't mean he didn't kill a person, the thing happened regardless of how many people deny it, but unless you can somehow prove it, your personal opinion without any evidence is meaningless in a court of law (or in this case, a debate).

[warri0r45]

cell theory posits that all organisms are made of cells, yet like any good science, it's dynamic and willing to change if contradictory evidence comes up

 

 

 

I was editing my post while you made a reply, I now made that acknowledgement.

 

 

 

Ok. I likewise edited my post.

[Ambassadar]

 

Still, you can't claim the existence of anything and claim it's possible until proven otherwise. Fortunately the legal system has for quite some time in western countries acknowledged this. You can't indict a person for an alleged crime until you can prove he is guilty. If you cannot prove it, subjectively, it did not happen.

 

 

 

Can you prove the Big Bang happened? Can you prove God created the universe? Can you prove the universe is cyclical?

 

 

 

Can you prove anything at all for any theory about the universe being created? Nope. I guess, subjectively, it never happened then...

[BlueLancer]

 

Can you prove the Big Bang happened? Can you prove God created the universe? Can you prove the universe is cyclical?

 

 

 

Can you prove anything at all for any theory about the universe being created? Nope. I guess, subjectively, it never happened then...

 

 

 

No, I can't say the big bang happened. That's one theory amongst quite a few in science.

 

 

 

However there is vastly more scientific evidence to the existence of the Big Bang, than to the existence of a God. In fact, there is no scientific evidence even hinting about the existence of supernatural elements.

 

 

 

Until I (or you) have conclusive evidence, subjectively, the big bang did not occur. I just hold it as one of the most plausible theories for the creation of the universe, but I don't claim it to be true.

[Sly_Wizard]

Nope, I still don't understand what the constitution, or accepting what it holds as self-evident truth (basic human rights), has to do with God existing or not.

 

 

 

The Constitution is based on an axiom. You accept that axiom even though there's no logical reason to do as much, since it's simply an assumption (And assumptions can either be true or false) yet you claim it's illogical to accept religious axioms? Hmmm... I would ask how that works, but I'm afraid you'll simply misunderstand the question.

 

 

 

Every moral human being regardless of nationality would agree their children deserve to be born equal and free.

 

 

 

Logical fallacy. Thomas Aquinas would call that an appeal to morality ;)

 

 

 

Not all cultures would agree with the basic premises of the Constitution, just so you know.

 

 

 

Until it can be proven blue apples, light blue bananas, God, or King of toothfairies himself are in existance, they do not exist.

 

 

 

So black swans didn't exist until some European went to Australia and observed them?

 

 

 

Appealing to philosophy and the fact I did not personally inspect every apple and banana in existance is bogus science and it would not hold out in a real logic/rational debate[/b].

 

 

 

No, it's not 'bogus science', as you want to call it. Science is built on induction. It's not static. Scientific theories and principals change as new information is learned. Therefore it can only make conclusions about what it's able to observe (I go back to my alien example). Using your blue apple analogy, there's nothing to say that a blue apple doesn't exist and the mere fact that you've never seen one doesn't mean that no blue apple exists. It simply means that, of the apples you've observed, none have been blue. The only way you can say no apple is blue is to gather up every apple in existence and observe them all to make sure there is, indeed, no blue apple.

 

 

 

As in the swan example, naturally I'm willing to change my mind if you can show me a physical copy/existance of any of the above. Until then, they are products of imagination/speculation.

 

 

 

You're missing the point. As I stated prior, a lack of evidence for existence is NOT the same thing as evidence of non-existence. Let's assume that Australia had never been 'discovered' by the outside world thus never allowing us to come into contact with black swans. Would thins mean that black swans don't exist?

[Sly_Wizard]

I disagree with you. With your logic, prior to discovering them, black swans didn't exist.

 

 

 

Umm... Yeah. That was the argument prior to the 17th century. Black swans didn't exist as they were never observed. That's what I said.

 

 

 

That was demonstrated to be wrong.

 

 

 

Yeah... I believe I said that.

 

 

 

Inductive reasoning isn't a way to absolute truth nor a licence to statements like "x does not exist".

 

 

 

Yeah... I think I said that as well. You're just repeating things I've already gone over.

[warri0r45]

I disagree with you. With your logic, prior to discovering them, black swans didn't exist.

 

 

 

Umm... Yeah. That was the argument prior to the 17th century. Black swans didn't exist as they were never observed. That's what I said.

 

 

 

That was demonstrated to be wrong.

 

 

 

Yeah... I believe I said that.

 

 

 

Inductive reasoning isn't a way to absolute truth nor a licence to statements like "x does not exist".

 

 

 

Yeah... I think I said that as well. You're just repeating things I've already gone over.

 

 

 

What's the big deal? I was supporting you.

[Sly_Wizard]

What's the big deal? I was supporting you.

 

 

 

Well, your first line said you disagree with me so I assumed you disagreed with me >_>

[warri0r45]

What's the big deal? I was supporting you.

 

 

 

Well, your first line said you disagree with me so I assumed you disagreed with me >_>

 

 

 

I quoted BlueLancer when saying that and bolded the part I was specifically disagreeing with.

[BlueLancer]

 

Not all cultures would agree with the basic premises of the Constitution, just so you know.

 

 

 

 

Please, do show me a culture where two parents would not want their child to be born free, with the right to pursue happiness. You make it sound as if there is a hidden culture somewhere in the world, where people volunteer to be slaves and be miserable for all their lives.

 

 

 

The UN declaration of human rights has been accepted by every single nation, regardless of culture, religion and ethnicity. They are the same basic premises as mentioned in the U.S. constitution.

 

 

 

 

So black swans didn't exist until some European went to Australia and observed them?

 

 

 

 

They (or the genetical mutation thereof, whichever is correct in this case, haven't looked into the genetics of a black swan) did exist, but mentioning a black, magenta or bright red swan in a debate is fiction until you have conclusive evidence of the thing's existence (such as live footage, or an actual black swan which is now known to exist).

 

 

 

Technology and research has advanced massively since the 16th century, just about every inch of the Earth is now mapped. Most of the species yet to be discovered or named are small insects, mainly living in rainforests. You could argue all you want that researchers/scientists could find a pink-coloured elephant or a blue apple, until they do, using it in a logical debate is a fallacy.

 

 

 

Science is built on induction. It's not static. Scientific theories and principals change as new information is learned. Therefore it can only make conclusions about what it's able to observe (I go back to my alien example).

 

 

 

Of course it's not static, nobody was challenging that fact. If you brought me a real blue apple or showed me a credible study which proves their existence, I'd be forced (and compelled) to change my view.

 

 

 

 

Using your blue apple analogy, there's nothing to say that a blue apple doesn't exist and the mere fact that you've never seen one doesn't mean that no blue apple exists. It simply means that, of the apples you've observed, none have been blue. The only way you can say no apple is blue is to gather up every apple in existence and observe them all to make sure there is, indeed, no blue apple.

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing the point. As I stated prior, a lack of evidence for existence is NOT the same thing as evidence of non-existence.

 

 

 

A black swan is a perfectly natural cell formation, just as a pink banana (which actually exists). A supposed God that has an independent mind and can create life and worlds out of nothing can't be explained by any scientific law.

 

 

 

According to your logic, anything could exist until proven otherwise, which is a grossly naÃÆÃâÃâïve and unrealistic view.

 

 

 

I couldn't think of a real world situation where your view could be challenged, so I welcome you to study the legal concept of Burden of proof.

 

 

 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

 

 

 

This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

 

 

 

The burden of proof is always on the person alleging the existence of an event, thing, person, etc., not on the person/people disputing the allegation.

[Ambassadar]

Bluelancer,

 

So earlier you jumped Sly for making a comment you don't agree with and basically told him you can't go around making a claim if you can't prove it. Then you make this comment.

 

 

 

In fact, there is no scientific evidence even hinting about the existence of supernatural elements.

 

 

 

 

So I have a question. Can you 100% prove that there is absolutely no scientific evidence even hinting at the existence of supernatural elements? According to what you told Sly earlier if you can't then you need to take that comment back.

[BlueLancer]

Bluelancer,

 

So earlier you jumped Sly for making a comment you don't agree with and basically told him you can't go around making a claim if you can't prove it. Then you make this comment.

 

 

 

In fact, there is no scientific evidence even hinting about the existence of supernatural elements.

 

 

 

 

So I have a question. Can you 100% prove that there is absolutely no scientific evidence even hinting at the existence of supernatural elements? According to what you told Sly earlier if you can't then you need to take that comment back.

 

 

 

I kindly introduce you to the last part of my above post, the burden of proof. If I allege that a thing (which has no proof in support of it's existence, for example a God or a blue apple) does not exist, it is your duty to 100% prove it exists before you can assume my denial of it's existence is incorrect.

[Sly_Wizard]

Please, do show me a culture where two parents would not want their child to be born free, with the right to pursue happiness. You make it sound as if there is a hidden culture somewhere in the world, where people volunteer to be slaves and be miserable for all their lives.

 

 

 

Two things here:

 

 

 

1.) You totally ignored the whole "Appeal to morality" thing, evidenced by the fact that you continue to A.) Use pejorative terms and B.) Misconstrue what I was actually saying. Which bring me to my second point.

 

 

 

2.) I believe the phrase is "All men are created equal". Not all cultures adhere to said premise, as some cultures require women to be subservient to men whilst in other children are seen as the property of their parents and are sold off in the the slave trade whilst yet, in other, people originating from outside the country are generally denied basic rights under the law etc. (See: Some of Latin/South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, most of southeast Asia and Russia). Just so you know >_>

 

 

 

They (or the genetical mutation thereof, whichever is correct in this case, haven't looked into the genetics of a black swan) did exist, but mentioning a black, magenta or bright red swan in a debate is fiction until you have conclusive evidence of the thing's existence (such as live footage, or an actual black swan which is now known to exist).

 

 

 

Existence is independent of proof. Things don't exist because you can prove them. They exist because they, well, exist. Normally, I'd avoid Wikipedia like the plague, but I CBA to write out a long, drawn out paragraph or two or three:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence# ... _existence

 

 

 

Technology and research has advanced massively since the 16th century, just about every inch of the Earth is now mapped. Most of the species yet to be discovered or named are small insects, mainly living in rainforests. You could argue all you want that researchers/scientists could find a pink-coloured elephant or a blue apple, until they do, using it in a logical debate is a fallacy.

 

 

 

And, yet again, this entire blurb is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anything I've talked about thus far.

 

 

 

If you brought me a real blue apple or showed me a credible study which proves their existence, I'd be forced (and compelled) to change my view.

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

I'm kinda' tired of saying this, but proof doesn't presuppose existence. Things will exist regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that they might exist. However, that's really a moot point. If the heavens opened rained blood, fire rose from the ground and a loud voice boomed "I am God", the atheist would argue that He's no longer God as now there's scientific evidence of his existence, at which point He becomes provable and is no longer God.

 

 

 

A supposed God that has an independent mind and can create life and worlds out of nothing can't be explained by any scientific law.

 

 

 

Welcome to a few responses ago :wall: You just NOW figured this out?

 

 

 

According to your logic, anything could exist until proven otherwise, which is a grossly naÃÆÃâÃâïve and unrealistic view.

 

 

 

Anything can exist. Everyone knows that. However, some things which can exist won't exist. No one is debating that, either. However, most atheists make the claim (Or at least insinuate) that anything which can exist doesn't exist unless it's first proven or, in other words, because something which can exist won't exist then everything which can exist won't exist as well. That's a faulty assumption which has been disproved time and time again.

 

 

 

The burden of proof is always on the person alleging the existence of an event, thing, person, etc., not on the person/people disputing the allegation.

 

 

 

Didn't we, like, already go over this? *Sigh* Oh well... One more time can't hurt. Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible.

 

 

 

(There's a reason why religious beliefs are an admissable defense in a court of law.)

[Ambassadar]

I kindly introduce you to the last part of my above post, the burden of proof. If I allege that a thing (which has no proof in support of it's existence, for example a God or a blue apple) does not exist, it is your duty to 100% prove it exists before you can assume my denial of it's existence is incorrect.

 

 

 

Everyone that has alleged they believe there is a God is merely answering the original question posed by this thread. That being the case I don't understand why you feel every person taking that position should be obligated to have to give you some kind of thesis, scientific proof or reference for what they believe when all they are doing is answering a simple question about what they believe.

[BlueLancer]

people originating from outside the country are generally denied basic rights under the law etc. (See: Some of Latin/South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, most of southeast Asia and Russia). Just so you know >_>

 

 

 

I have some russian heritage and family, and have also spent a part of my childhood there, and know the language. My bad, I never saw any of my cousins, (or myself sold) off as slaves or denied rights because they didn't have russian citizenship.

 

 

 

Then again, by that logic, maybe I should call the US a poor country because it has 15 million homeless people and thousands of people starving to death every year...

 

 

 

 

Didn't we, like, already go over this? *Sigh* Oh well... One more time can't hurt. Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible.

 

 

 

(There's a reason why religious beliefs are an admissable defense in a court of law.)

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I want to continue arguing with people who genuinely think the Bible, Qur'an or the christmas book of Bobby and Tom are factual and scientific proof of a God's existence.

 

 

 

I find it ridiculous that a person who claims "This is the reason why I don't argue with people about religion unless they are philosophy majors" thinks a text based on hearsay and stories influenced by greek/hebrew mythology is irrefutable proof that "God exists".

 

 

 

But while you're at it, after torturing animals or killing infidels, tell the judge your holy book told you it's ok. I'm sure he will have a lot of sympathy.

 

 

 

I thought I'm in for an intellectual debate with people like Warrior45, I just don't have time for ridiculously pointless nitpicking and bickering about what is philosophically "possible to exist" which has no scientific basis

 

 

 

 

Everyone that has alleged they believe there is a God is merely answering the original question posed by this thread. That being the case I don't understand why you feel every person taking that position should be obligated to have to give you some kind of thesis, scientific proof or reference for what they believe when all they are doing is answering a simple question about what they believe.

 

 

 

Sorry... I didn't force you to post on this thread. The thread title challenges the readers, "Is God real"?

 

 

 

By posting here, I'd assume you try to explain logically why God exists. Just as a buddhist would rationalize why he believes in multiple gods, why a nigerian believes in natural gods, why a muslim believes in God.

 

 

 

If all the evidence is going to be faith based and quoting of meaningless verses from the Bible (which is a human work of literature and fiction, not something written by God), I don't have any place here because I'm not into theology discussions, not being religious myself...

 

 

 

I don't rule out the possibility of a God existing. I believe that's called "agnosticism". I just thought people who firmly believe a God exists would have some other proof than blind faith.

[warri0r45]

Please, do show me a culture where two parents would not want their child to be born free, with the right to pursue happiness. You make it sound as if there is a hidden culture somewhere in the world, where people volunteer to be slaves and be miserable for all their lives.

 

 

 

Two things here:

 

 

 

1.) You totally ignored the whole "Appeal to morality" thing, evidenced by the fact that you continue to A.) Use pejorative terms and B.) Misconstrue what I was actually saying. Which bring me to my second point.

 

 

 

2.) I believe the phrase is "All men are created equal". Not all cultures adhere to said premise, as some cultures require women to be subservient to men whilst in other children are seen as the property of their parents and are sold off in the the slave trade whilst yet, in other, people originating from outside the country are generally denied basic rights under the law etc. (See: Some of Latin/South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, most of southeast Asia and Russia). Just so you know >_>

 

 

 

They (or the genetical mutation thereof, whichever is correct in this case, haven't looked into the genetics of a black swan) did exist, but mentioning a black, magenta or bright red swan in a debate is fiction until you have conclusive evidence of the thing's existence (such as live footage, or an actual black swan which is now known to exist).

 

 

 

Existence is independent of proof. Things don't exist because you can prove them. They exist because they, well, exist. Normally, I'd avoid Wikipedia like the plague, but I CBA to write out a long, drawn out paragraph or two or three:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence# ... _existence

 

 

 

Technology and research has advanced massively since the 16th century, just about every inch of the Earth is now mapped. Most of the species yet to be discovered or named are small insects, mainly living in rainforests. You could argue all you want that researchers/scientists could find a pink-coloured elephant or a blue apple, until they do, using it in a logical debate is a fallacy.

 

 

 

And, yet again, this entire blurb is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anything I've talked about thus far.

 

 

 

If you brought me a real blue apple or showed me a credible study which proves their existence, I'd be forced (and compelled) to change my view.

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

I'm kinda' tired of saying this, but proof doesn't presuppose existence. Things will exist regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that they might exist. However, that's really a moot point. If the heavens opened rained blood, fire rose from the ground and a loud voice boomed "I am God", (1) the atheist would argue that He's no longer God as now there's scientific evidence of his existence, at which point He becomes provable and is no longer God.

 

 

 

A supposed God that has an independent mind and can create life and worlds out of nothing can't be explained by any scientific law.

 

 

 

Welcome to a few responses ago :wall: You just NOW figured this out?

 

 

 

According to your logic, anything could exist until proven otherwise, which is a grossly naÃÆÃâÃâïve and unrealistic view.

 

 

 

Anything can exist. Everyone knows that. However, some things which can exist won't exist. No one is debating that, either. (2) However, most atheists make the claim (Or at least insinuate) that anything which can exist doesn't exist unless it's first proven or, in other words, because something which can exist won't exist then everything which can exist won't exist as well. That's a faulty assumption which has been disproved time and time again.

 

 

 

The burden of proof is always on the person alleging the existence of an event, thing, person, etc., not on the person/people disputing the allegation.

 

 

 

Didn't we, like, already go over this? *Sigh* Oh well... One more time can't hurt. Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible.

 

 

 

(There's a reason why religious beliefs are an admissable defense in a court of law.)

 

(1) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me.

 

 

 

(2) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me. As far as I know, astheists don't believe in something untill it is in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it does not exist. People who believe god does not exist are strong atheists, which takes the basic "lack of belief in god" (weak atheism - the basis of all atheism) to the next level.

 

 

 

Either you or I have no real idea how atheists think. Seeing as I am one and given the track record of theists misrepresenting atheists and atheism (sorry to stereotype you, I don't normally do it), I'd argue you're wrong on both above counts.

[venomai]

Assuming you live in the United States, why do you accept the following statement to be true?

 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

I don't accept that statement to be true. I wouldn't even if I lived in the United States. (I'm Canadian)

 

 

 

Please, do show me a culture where two parents would not want their child to be born free, with the right to pursue happiness. You make it sound as if there is a hidden culture somewhere in the world, where people volunteer to be slaves and be miserable for all their lives.

 

Sounds like a paradise. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to think that everyone is born free and equal. Most parents realize that, and therefore don't focus much on the declaration of rights when deciding where to raise their child.

 

 

 

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

 

"Everyone has the right to life ..."

 

Tell this to the U.S. soldiers in Iraq who kill thousands, or the lives lost in capital punishment, or the "suspected terrorists" treated horribly (even tortured) in various American-run camps.

 

 

 

Frankly, the declaration of rights is BS. Humans are only born free and equal in fantastical worlds.

 

 

 

However, most atheists make the claim (Or at least insinuate) that anything which can exist doesn't exist unless it's first proven

 

That's stereotyping, if you ask me. But, then again, I'm not the atheist I used to be... :P

 

 

 

Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible.

 

And, likewise, here is proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists: Read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

 

:-w

[rushrock]

@warri0r45: I totally agree with you on the truth thing. Facts can definitely change. 2,000 years ago, we believed that every star orbited around earth. I can't imagine what life and science will be like in another 2,000+ years.

[warri0r45]

@warri0r45: I totally agree with you on the truth thing. Facts can definitely change. 2,000 years ago, we believed that every star orbited around earth. I can't imagine what life and science will be like in another 2,000+ years.

 

 

 

Yep, people sometimes equate facts with "truth" but this is not the case. Like anything in science, a fact, which denotes a high level of certainty to the extent where witholding acceptance of it would be beyond any reasonable doubt, is tentative i.e. it can change.

 

 

 

As for 2000 years time, who really knows. I doubt any of the more fundamental concepts of science would have been overturned, and I'd say some like genetics and biochemistry will just go from strength to strength in the coming years (thanks to me lol 8-) ), but you can never know for sure what's around the corner.

[tryto]

BlueLancer, you cannot go around using Burden of Proof in a philosophical argument. That is intended so that innocent people are not convicted and punished.

 

It does not mean that the event didn't happen for sure, it means that they cannot be fully certain(certain enough to punish accused)

[Sly_Wizard]

I have some russian heritage and family, and have also spent a part of my childhood there, and know the language. My bad, I never saw any of my cousins, (or myself sold) off as slaves or denied rights because they didn't have russian citizenship.

 

 

 

Boy.... I can't believe I'm going to do this (Because it's such a waste of my time, but nevertheless...).

 

 

 

Just a little excerpt from the article. You can read the rest of it here :)

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

 

 

 

Such unofficial xenophobia matches the official stance. On April 1, a decree explicitly backed by Mr Putin banned foreigners from trading in Russia's retail markets. By some estimates, 12m people are working illegally in Russia...

 

 

 

...Slogans such as "Russia for the Russians" now attract the support of half of the population.

 

 

 

Articles concerning current day child slave trade:

 

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=26296

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/412628.stm

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/sto ... 131&page=1

 

 

 

This is all getting off-topic, but I rest my case.

 

 

 

Then again, by that logic, maybe I should call the US a poor country because it has 15 million homeless people and thousands of people starving to death every year...

 

 

 

Nice try, but no. I refer you to my previous response.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I want to continue arguing with people who genuinely think the Bible, Qur'an or the christmas book of Bobby and Tom are factual and scientific proof of a God's existence...

 

 

 

...I find it ridiculous that a person who claims "This is the reason why I don't argue with people about religion unless they are philosophy majors" thinks a text based on hearsay and stories influenced by greek/hebrew mythology is irrefutable proof that "God exists".

 

 

 

Wow... Have you, like, ummm... Not read anything hence far? Do you understand the concept of proofs? Defenses? Ontological arguments? Tautologies? Theodicies? Anything?

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is you don't (Which, is okay, it just means you haven't taken the time to learn these things). However, and I say this as nicely as possible, but you have limited understanding of what it is you're trying to argue and, as such, you can only argue the way you know how. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's a waste of my time to debate with you as it stands.

 

 

 

But while you're at it, after torturing animals or killing infidels, tell the judge your holy book told you it's ok. I'm sure he will have a lot of sympathy.

 

 

 

If you would have read the Bible you'd know that animal sacrifices are no longer necessary and haven't been since the death of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

I thought I'm in for an intellectual debate with people like Warrior45, I just don't have time for ridiculously pointless nitpicking and bickering about what is philosophically "possible to exist" which has no scientific basis

 

 

 

Pardon me whilst I go bang my head on a wall. I'm gonna' restate this for like the umpteenth time (I swear you're the only person who still doesn't understand), but "Scientific proof" has no basis in arguing the existence of God or any other unknown, for that matter. This is because science is based on induction, and induction can only measure what's known rather than what's unknown. That is, we can only make conclusions based on what we've observed. This isn't to say that you can't have inductive arguments (Because you can), but rather that you can't turn those arguments into concrete statements. The fact that you constantly go back to the "God doesn't exist because science can't prove him!" fallacy even after I've explained to you time and time ago why such a stance is not only illogical but contrary to the scientific method is, mildly put, astonishing.

[Sly_Wizard]

(1) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me.

 

 

 

Yes... Where have you been? Haven't you read the works of Charles Dawkins or Ayn Rand?

 

 

 

(2) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me. As far as I know, astheists don't believe in something untill it is in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it does not exist.

 

 

 

...You might want to reword what you typed out, as it currently makes no sense. Anywho, since you misunderstood what I said, I'll try this again. Atheists generally believe two things:

 

 

 

1.) Anything which exists doesn't exist in actuality unless it's proved to exist.

 

 

 

2.) Not everything which might exist actually exists.

 

 

 

I then went on to say that I have a problem with these two assumptions because:

 

 

 

1.) Proof doesn't presuppose existence. After all, black swans existed before we knew they did.

 

 

 

2.) While everything which might exist won't actually exist, some things which might exist will exist.

 

 

 

Understand?

 

 

 

People who believe god does not exist are strong atheists, which takes the basic "lack of belief in god" (weak atheism - the basis of all atheism) to the next level.

 

 

 

I don't know what you said, but I know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Strongs atheists claim that God doesn't exist; Weak atheists claim that God might exist but the probability of Him doing so is minute.

 

 

 

Either you or I have no real idea how atheists think. Seeing as I am one and given the track record of theists misrepresenting atheists and atheism (sorry to stereotype you, I don't normally do it), I'd argue you're wrong on both above counts.

 

 

 

Huh? I really don't understand what you said here >_>

[warri0r45]

(1) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me.

 

 

 

(1) Yes... Where have you been? Haven't you read the works of Charles Dawkins or Ayn Rand?

 

 

 

(2) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me. As far as I know, astheists don't believe in something untill it is in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it does not exist.

 

 

 

(2) ...You might want to reword what you typed out, as it currently makes no sense. Anywho, since you misunderstood what I said, I'll try this again. Atheists generally believe two things:

 

 

 

1.) Anything which exists doesn't exist in actuality unless it's proved to exist.

 

 

 

2.) Not everything which might exist actually exists.

 

 

 

I then went on to say that I have a problem with these two assumptions because:

 

 

 

1.) Proof doesn't presuppose existence. After all, black swans existed before we knew they did.

 

 

 

2.) While everything which might exist won't actually exist, some things which might exist will exist.

 

 

 

Understand?

 

 

 

People who believe god does not exist are strong atheists, which takes the basic "lack of belief in god" (weak atheism - the basis of all atheism) to the next level.

 

 

 

(3) I don't know what you said, but I know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Strongs atheists claim that God doesn't exist; Weak atheists claim that God might exist but the probability of Him doing so is minute.

 

 

 

Either you or I have no real idea how atheists think. Seeing as I am one and given the track record of theists misrepresenting atheists and atheism (sorry to stereotype you, I don't normally do it), I'd argue you're wrong on both above counts.

 

 

 

Huh? I really don't understand what you said here >_>

 

 

 

(1) No.

 

 

 

(2) I'm an atheist and I don't believe either of those things (though I'd probably see number 2 the way you do). I guess that makes me not part of the 'general' atheists. Where did you read that atheists believe these things? As for my comment, it makes sense, it's just difficult to read because I didn't contract the words I should have - "As far as I know, atheists don't believe in something untill it's in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it doesn't exist." Just read it slowly.

 

 

 

In my experience atheists don't say "that which is unproven dosen't exist", they merely don't believe in that which is unproven.

 

 

 

(3) Basically. So in other words weak atheists will lack the belief in god that theists have.

 

 

 

To sum that up, my only gripe with you is how you can say most atheists believe something like "if it isn't proven, it dosen't exist". Where did you hear this?

[Rebdragon]

Sly Wizard, why are you attempting to argue with a strong atheist when there are none here to begin with?

 

 

 

Actually, not even strong atheists believe what you're saying. I really don't get who you're trying to argue with here :-s .