Just curious...what exactly is your theism dependent on...what I mean to ask is is there any way to debunk your particular theism? If not then I will not bother you with debate since doing so would be pointless.
I mean...is what you believe falsifiable? Are there certain facts that if proven wrong would change your mind about what you believe? Again, just curious.
I suppose it would be falsifiable. Cosmologically, Christianity necessitates that the universe had a beginning, and that the universe is comprehensible. Philosophically, Christianity needs to be tenable, and such things as the five proofs of Aquinas are needed. Physically, we require an immaterial component to ourselves. Historically, the accounts of Jesus need to jive.
In short, there are several things that would lead me to doubt.
If there was conclusive evidence of mind-body monism (beyond the usual philosophical arguments I mean), if there was no first cause and the universe self-initiated ex nihilo, or if the vast majority of historians assert that Jesus never existed, then this would all instill serious doubt into the validity of the faith I practice.
I find it amusing how atheists like LBio think that the 'god of the gaps' concept was something espoused by all Christian theologians thoughout the centuries.
Wait, I thought God inspired the greatest scientists. Wait? List of the most influential scientists by rank: 1. Newton-Christian 2. Einstein- Deist/PanENtheist* 3. Bohr-Christian 4. Darwin- Agnostic Deist/ Christian* 5. Pasteur- Christian 6. Lavoiser-Christian 7.Galilei-Christian 8.Kepler-Christian 9.Copernicus-Christian 10.Faraday-Christian
@ogirv101, Firstly, we do not have any such ranking system of scientists. Secondly, christianity has nothing to do with science. Unlike Christianity which is more concerned with mumbo jumbo magic and so on- science is real and concerned about reality. You must not insult a scientist by calling him a christian.
Yes we do, it's a ranking of the scientific impact of these individuals. It's based off a study of the effect of a scientist's work on history, it isn't mere, 'Oh Ilike him better'. I honestly would place EInstein 1st, but historically Newton had more impact.
Also, Christianity has everything to do with Science. If you knew anything about scientific history, the scientific revolution rested on a Christian mindframe and Universities arising from Chritendom.
Christianity mumbojumbo? How about, you talky mumbo bullshit? Ad hominems are a joke. Science is concerned with reality? Yes, my god damn point. Science rests on the worldview of Christianity, if it rested in the atheistic worldview it would have no standing and no validity (see transecendental argument). You must not be an idiot by assuming things by your own bias.
@ogirv101, Your claim "Science rests on the worldview of Christianity" is laughably wrong. Firstly, christianity is not a worldview, if it is than Micky mouse is also a world view. Secondly, the argument you came up with has been refuted a millions of times. Capillary circulation was discovered by Al-Nafis. Does that mean islam had anything to with that? Nope. Al-Nafis had to work his brains out to discover circulation. Idle fantasy does not take us anywhere.
Christianity is a worldview, the same way Atheism is? WTF? What does capillary circulation have anything to do with this? Furthermore, how could have Al-Nafis even started to do any thining if he did not have a justified position that his thinking was valid at all? Thescientific philosophial question that threatens Atheism.
"Your claim "Science rests on the worldview of Christianity" is laughably wrong. Firstly, christianity is not a worldview, if it is than Micky mouse is also a world view."
Atheism provides a solely materialistic Universe. The Universe is comprised by laws of logic and mathematics, which are used to interpret the laws of nature, they are immaterial. The laws of Nature are based of the assumptions of logic and mathematics, so without these immaterial laws, no interpretation of the laws of nature can be made. Atheism does not accept these immaterial laws, therefore it cannot make any scientific knowledge.
@ogirv101, Yes you are right atheism can not make any scientific knowledge, the same way demonstration against Iraq war also can not make any knowledge. It's because making knowledge is not their jobs, they are protest positions. Theism destroys knowledge, poisons people's mind, drugs people, makes them feel proud of their ignorance. Atheism protests against these all. Atheism although can not make knowledge, but it can protect knowledge from vandalism.
@UNFFwildcard- Seems like you find it really really hard to suppress your anger on hearing a uncomfortinh truth. Quiet christian-like isn't it? Have you heard of fredudian admission by the way?
@UNFFwildcard- No you misunderstood me. It is very very christian-like of you. It fact this is what I expect from every christian or Muslim or any variation on this theme. Poison spreading big mouth hypocrites who are categorically ignorant and uneducated.
"It fact this is what I expect from every christian or Muslim or any variation on this theme. Poison spreading big mouth hypocrites who are categorically ignorant and uneducated. "
Now there's an actual example of Freudian admission...
@OmegaisNearV2-Me lying?How come! I'm not even a christian or muslim?Unlike yo lying for jesus or mohammed don't turn me on.Anyway,seems like yu have come up with a listof christian scientists yay?Here is my list then-Patrick Blackett,Herman Bondi,Chandrashekhar,William Clifford,Frank Close,Paul Dirac,Peter Higgs all well known,most of them noble winning british physicist.If I included the unpopular scientists,non-british scientists and non-physicists this list would include thousands of names.
List of influential scientists who kept long hair, by rank: 1. Newton- long hair 2. Einstein- long hair 3. Bohr- short hair 5. Darwin- bald, long beard 6. Lavoiser- long hair 7. Galilei- bald, long beard 8. Kepler- short hair 9. Copernicus-long hair 10. Faraday- medium/long hair Clearly having long hair is responsible for inspiring the worlds greatest thinkers. Long hair looks kind of like....spaghetti. FSM lives!
My point, which obviously escaped you, was that Christianity has no more to do with their discoveries than did any other arbitrary characteristic you could point out. The only thing that truly contributed to their discoveries was the scientific method.
I understood the false dichotomy you wer eputting up, but you're wrong, their faith and belief in God had everything to do with their discoveries, it was their source of inspiration and foundation for attaining any knowledge at all. If there is no God that provided a logical and coherent Universe, why should one expect anything they see makes any sense if objectively there is no purpose in the Universe?
The scientific method is a method of observation, it still has to assume that observation is valid. Without purpose or God there is no reason to assume observation is valid, but with God, you know that the Universe is rational, coherent, comprehensible, and provides an inspiration considering you're trying to 'trace the lines that flow from God' as Einstein would say, or seek his glory as Newton would say.
Firstly, a false dichotomy presents two parts of a whole and presumes the two are both mutually exclusive and are the only two parts of the whole that can exist. I did not present a false dichotomy, nothing even resembling any sort of dichotomy at all.
I have no idea what would lead you to this conclusion. You appear to be simply flinging around phrases that you obviously don't quite understand.
Secondly, observations are not assumed to be valid; any observation still has to undergo rigorous testing, scrutiny, and independent verification before it can be considered to be a true observation.
Lastly, existence exists; it is axiomatic. God is not, it is a proposition you are putting forward and the burden of proof lies on you to present evidence to support the notion of God, or quit rambling and find something else to do.
Observation is a form of perception, why should you even consider the observation itself to be valid let alone the rigorous testing to be valid. The rigorous testing is just a closer observation, it's still human perspective so it's a moot point to bring that up, you're missing the point. Why is any human perception valid if all that exists is the material world and no purpose to the Universe?
Why does the burden of proof lie on me? Ever heard of law of excluded middle?
Because you're the one submitting a positive claim. I'm saying, "I don't fucking believe you."
"Ever heard of law of excluded middle?"
Ever hear of shifting the burden of proof? Stop arbitrarily injecting logical fallacies like you have any idea what you're talking about when you plainly don't. Excluded middle does not allow you to shift the burden of proof. It lies squarely on you. Now put up, or GTFO.
No, burden of proof is not by a 'positive claim', but merely he who makes the claim. In this case we're noth making a claim. You may claim you're an Agnostic, but I'm an Agnostic as well, and Agnosticism is an epsitemic stance not a metaphysical stance. Atheism and Theism are both metaphysical stances, the taking away or adding of God changes the whole worldview of the individual's metaphysical stance.
No, we're not. I haven't made any claims, except that I DON'T accept the claim that a God exists. Do you understand that? That is not a claim, I'm expressing disbelief of a specific claim.
Disbelieving specific claims of the existence of God is not a metaphysical stance. I simply haven't been provided with the evidence or sufficient argumentation to accept the claim that a God exists. Agnosticism is logically absurd.
I did make a hasty generelazation because most Atheists think alike in their manner of evidence, most are dogmatic empircists. Well, it seems you aren't that type of person, but I won't begin until you leave your recalcitrance on the subject of burden of proof. Not accepting a claim means that you consider it false (BY LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE) so if you believe it's false provide evidence.
Maybe you have not yet understood that if you disbelieve in a propostiion, by the law of excluded middle, you accept something as either true or false, you accept it by false. If it's false, then there is no God. So why is the belief in no God a metaphysical stance? Because by logical CONSEQUENCE, if you devoid yourself from the existence of such a being, you follow metaphysical naturalism, a metaphysical stance which most Atheists take!
I can only have evidence or argumentation for why a specific proposition is true or false, if you have yet to provide a proposition then there is no way I can provide counter-argumentation. I disbelieve in a God simply because I have yet to see sufficient evidence or convincing argumentation for why one exists.
Excluded middle requires me only to counter-argue against specific propositions, and until you provide one then I have nothing to argue against.
Furthermore, I would ask if you accept that leprechauns exist? If not, then what evidence can you provide that they don't? I suspect that you simply disbelieve because you've observed that there simply isn't any evidence that leprechauns exist in actuality, and thus do not accept that they are anything more than characters from folklore and myth.
Do I accept if leprochauns exist? I do not accept it nor do I reject it, mainly because it's possible for leprochauns to exist, I just don't think there is a logical necessity to believe so.
The whole argument relies on me accepting that they're not, special pleading destroys arguments. Also, you went further unto saying it's mere folklore, that's another positive claim, which you need to provide evidence for.
The burden of proof lies squarely with the one making the positive claim. If you believe in a God then it is now your duty to provide evidence or argumentation for why your proposition is true; and until you do so I cannot even take a position one way or the other, now can I?
My point is that I have yet to even take a specific position with you, because you have yet to make a proposition. How can I accept as true or false that which has not even been presented yet?
If you believe in God (I accept) it is my duty to provide evidence. If you reject his existance, you also have to provide evidence, and if you reject his existance from the mere dearth of evidence then that's called argument from ignorance.
Also, I don't need to establish why God is true, the mere proposition of his existance forces you to take either it's false or true, I don't need to provide a statement on the truth of God's existance.
"f I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about...nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed...
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
If the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. THAT is the DEFINITION of an argument from ignorance.
This type of attempt at shifting the burden of proof is common among pseudoscience as well as Creationism. There are infinite things that cannot be disproved but we do not therefore accept that they are true.
You have absolutely no epistemological justification for shifting the burden of proof. I do not have to accept your God as true or false merely because you've vacantly proposed it. Russel's teapot analogy shows the fact that a proposition cannot be disproved does not render it true. To propose this is the case is truly an argument from ignorance.
So, if you cannot even so much as define what a God is, then you don't have anything left to say here.
"I just don't think there is a logical necessity to believe so."
...and likewise I have yet to be convinced there is a logical necessity for a God to exist. THAT is what makes me an atheist. You have yet to even define what one IS.
"The whole argument relies on me accepting that they're not"
Which you don't, as you've already conceded.
"...you need to provide evidence for."
Winberry, John J. (1976). "The Elusive Elf: Some Thoughts on the Nature and Origin of the Irish Leprechaun"
If you don't accept a claim, that's a claim in itself! If I claim I don't accept the claim of Evolution being true, I'm making the claim that Evolution is false by the law of excluded middle. So, in toher words, you make a positive claim by rejecting another positive claim.
Disbelief in itself is a claim, I don't understand how you don't understand that? Calling Agnosticism absurd makes you look dry, considering most non-believers in the US are Agnostics not Atheists.
"So, in other words, you make a positive claim by rejecting another positive claim."
Excluded middle states that either a proposition is true or it's negation is. This does not allow you to commit the fallacy of demanding negative proof. One cannot 'prove' a universal negative, I don't understand how you don't understand that?
You also have yet to propose any specific proposition thus I have yet to reject or accept one. I've already pointed this out to you, you've avoided doing so repeatedly.
So if you negate something, by default it's a position on a metter, and a postive claim against the other side. demanding negative proof is not a fallay, who says it's a fallacy? No you can't prove a universal negative, but you can disprove it, and that's what the argument is about.
The proposition is God's existance, I kinda thought it was obvious.
The mere proposition of God's existence doesn't force me to do anything, that's a BS dichotomy. You haven't even defined what a God is, how am I to know what you're even talking about? There are so many sundry definitions of what a God is that the mere proposition of one is an EMPTY proposition until you define what it is.
So you've made an empty proposition and feel that you've accomplished what, exactly?
No it isn't. If you disbelieve in something, regardless of evidence, you still need to provide the burden of proof. Ok, listen to this. If you disbelief something on the mere fact that there is no evidence, that's an argument from ignorance. You gave me 4 comments, and I'm not going to read them, I have around 7 more comments to read, and 5 minutes to do so. You're making a damn ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
An argument from ignorance is when one supposes that the notion of God cannot be disproven, therefore God. I'm not making an argument from ignorance and Russel's teapot analogy illustrates why.
If you're only argument is to vainly try and shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic, then I think that showcases exactly how weak your argument is. And if you're not going to read my comments, please find someone else's time to waste.
No, an argument of ignorance is the belief in somethign because it cannot be disproven, the same way it's an argument from ignorance to conceive that a proposition is false because of the lack of evidence. You commit this fallacy because you deny the existance of the proposition of God because of the lack of evidence, by the law of excluded middle you're using an argument from ignorance. Also, I can have an argument read for you in a PM, but you're fallacious and don't admit
"an argument of ignorance is the belief in somethign because it cannot be disproven."
Yes, like the belief in a God because no one can disprove it. The reason why this is a logical fallacy is because it is assuming it's conclusion without any justification, and relies on the fact that you CANNOT PROVE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE.
For this reason, you cannot shift the burden of proof, since the sole justification for the fallacy itself relies on the inability to provide negative proof.
"it's an argument from ignorance to conceive that a proposition is false because of lack of evidence."
NO, it is an argument from ignorance to assume that a proposition is true because you cannot disprove it. What you are describing is WRONG; if you claim that a God exists, the proposition is not assumed to be true because you cannot disprove it, THAT would be an incredulous argument.
If you fail to provide evidence, there's no logical justification for accepting the claim.
Yes, it applies to both sides. Alright, I argue that a falling tree made a noise because there is no evidence to prove it didn't, lets say you make the argument that it didn't make noise because there is no evidence to prove it did. They're both logical fallacies,a dn you downright are admitting it to everyone here.
There's no logical justification for accepting the claim? There's no logical justification for not accepting the claim without evidence.
But there IS evidence to indicate that it did. We what a tree does when it falls, we can observe other trees falling, and we know how compression waves produce sound.
The argument does not work on both sides, or the argument itself would be meaningless. An argument from ignorance is assuming a proposition to be true because it cannot be proven false.
If your strongest argument is an absurd and failed attempt at shifting the burden of proof, then I don't know what else to say to you
Did you see the tree fall? So because other trees have made noise, this tree HAS to make noise? I thought your basis on the world was mere empiricism, you didn't see the tree fall, no reason to think it made a noise.
Let me break off, considering you don't even know what an argument from ignorance is, and letting your bias and 'being right' get in the way fo finding truth. You're obviously not interested in finding truth, but okay let's start. Why is there order?
So there's no order in the Universe? So there is no order when Penrose calculated that the precision of low entropy occuring during the split second during the Big Bang is 1:10^10^123, which is 1 in 1 followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. This isn't order, without low entropy heat death would have occured and no Universe due to second law of thermodynamics.
I didn't say there wasn't order in the Universe. Don't make unfounded assumptions before I've even made an assertion. Secondly, those odds are 1:1 because it's already happened. Lastly, provide a primrary source for Penrose's calculations? Do have the slightest idea how he arrived at this figure, or do you simply accept it because it fits your preconceptions about the Universe?
You didn't say, but you questioned it, you said, "who says there's order?'. That sounds like a rejection of order in the Universe. Furthermore, it's 1:1 because it already happened? How does that make sense? It's not even about probability, it's not about odds, so before you make that sophist remark, read what I wrote you fallacious sophist. Roger Penrose mentiosn it in the Emperors new mind in pgs 410-422, but look it up.
I accept it because the famous british mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose calculates it,a nd there is no evidence refuting that calculation, unless you provide me one. Do you deny it because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions about the Universe?
Fallacious sophist? You're the one that just spent the better part of three days trying to pull an intellectual slight-of-hand maneuver to try and shift the burden of proof. You're petty crook trying to shoplift logic.
..and I don't have any preconceptions about the universe, I just don't have a logical necessity to believe in yours.
So no actual response, just abunch of ad hominems, I knew you wasted my time. You made no argument for the teleological argument, and then come up with random irrelevent things in an attempt to make me look bad. Well everyone here sees your hypocrisy, good day, don't bother responding.
Due to the law of excluded middle, in a metaphysical view, a propostion is either true or false, you take false. It would be an argument form ignorance arguing something is true because you can't disprove it, the same way for you to claim it's wrong because you can't prove it. Furthermore, the proof you're thinking of is completely empirical, you don't want to accept any other form of evidence other than the empirical, so therefore there's a stalemate.
"It would be an argument form ignorance arguing something is true because you can't disprove it..."
Thank you. See, the onus of evidence isn't all that hard to understand after all, now is it? I cannot have evidence of a universal negative; thus cannot 'disprove' the existence of God any more than I could prove there isn't a colony of leprechauns inhabiting Uranus.
"..the proof you're thinking of is completely empirical..."
How do you know what I would and would not accept?
Yes, it isn't that hard to understand, but for some reason you don't understand it? Well, I doubt it's less about understanding but putting your biased in the way of acceding to your understanding, and that's what we call ignorance. (not to offend you). You cannot have evidence of a Universal negative? Who says? Is not scientific skepticism based on disproving the claim wrong? Also, claiming something is incorrect is a claim in itself.
Now, if you're willing to accept other forms of proof, for example philsoophical proofs, and you're willing to put aside your biased dogmatic empiricist views, then we could have a healthy debate. If you also end your fallacies of burden of proof, then you have a chance to present your evidence (which you practially prove you don't have with your objection to provide any).
"if you're willing to accept other forms of proof, for example philsoophical proofs..."
If you have some unique, new philosophical "proof" for the existence of God instead of regurgitating the same burned-out garbage that has been demolished a thousand times over, have a go at it.
"If you also end your fallacies of burden of proof..."
I'm sorry that you can't accept that the burden of proof rests on those submitting the positive claim, and not on those expressing disbelief of said claim.
Please explain what you call 'garbage', mere appeal to ridicule fallacies doesn't disprove them, mere recalcitrance of accepting them doesn't lead to truth. If you already deny something without hearing it, you obviously aren't in search for truth, and your bitterness towards religion shows you have a solid heart, I don't know if you were raped by a Catholic Priest, but I could care less about your hostility, if you don't keep it civil, then I won't even talk to you.
No, I can't accept it's based on a positive claim, because that's now how it works, and feeling sorry for me for knowing how argumentation works and eschewing your special pleading fallacy is quite ironic. Disbelief is a claim in itself, if you dislbelieve something, byt the law of excluded middle, you are making a claim. You're claiming the other opposing side is incorrect, he who makes a claim must provide the burden of proof.
I no longer believe in survival of the fittest, except in the extremest sense of old age. It should be obvious to most that it's more like survival of sometimes the fittest, sometimes, the smartest, & sometimes the luckiest.
@KenMacMillan, agree with you though. Selection is not the only mechanism for fixing heritable traits by decreasing diversity. There is another way to do that, genetic drift. Unlike selection which is a random process or in other words which depends on chance.
In the past 400 years of scientific inquiry, religion has been inexorably marginalized as any kind of answer to unknowns.
As is demonstrable right here on YouTube, the final corner of religionists is the First Cause argument, whether it be for life or the cosmos itself.
Their problem is that it is still an argument from unknowns. And in the history of human human unknowns, nothing has failed like the idea of supernaturalism. It has failed 100% of the time.
My theism is not dependent on the unknown. This is just atheist enlightenment utopian nonsense.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
@UNFFwildcard
Just curious...what exactly is your theism dependent on...what I mean to ask is is there any way to debunk your particular theism? If not then I will not bother you with debate since doing so would be pointless.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago 2
I'm not exactly sure how to answer that question.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
I'm not picking a fight here but, you can't adequately express what it depends on or you simply don't know what it depends on?
AlmightyZaitsev 2 years ago
I mean...is what you believe falsifiable? Are there certain facts that if proven wrong would change your mind about what you believe? Again, just curious.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
I suppose it would be falsifiable. Cosmologically, Christianity necessitates that the universe had a beginning, and that the universe is comprehensible. Philosophically, Christianity needs to be tenable, and such things as the five proofs of Aquinas are needed. Physically, we require an immaterial component to ourselves. Historically, the accounts of Jesus need to jive.
In short, there are several things that would lead me to doubt.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
If there was conclusive evidence of mind-body monism (beyond the usual philosophical arguments I mean), if there was no first cause and the universe self-initiated ex nihilo, or if the vast majority of historians assert that Jesus never existed, then this would all instill serious doubt into the validity of the faith I practice.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Thanks for your answer. I think I will be pondering it for awhile ;-)
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Amen.
It's the "god of the philosophers" who depends on the unknown... this retiree-god (pun!) has nothing to do with Christianity.
sophophilo 2 years ago
I find it amusing how atheists like LBio think that the 'god of the gaps' concept was something espoused by all Christian theologians thoughout the centuries.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101, Firstly, we do not have any such ranking system of scientists. Secondly, christianity has nothing to do with science. Unlike Christianity which is more concerned with mumbo jumbo magic and so on- science is real and concerned about reality. You must not insult a scientist by calling him a christian.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
@LBiolSci:
Yes we do, it's a ranking of the scientific impact of these individuals. It's based off a study of the effect of a scientist's work on history, it isn't mere, 'Oh Ilike him better'. I honestly would place EInstein 1st, but historically Newton had more impact.
Also, Christianity has everything to do with Science. If you knew anything about scientific history, the scientific revolution rested on a Christian mindframe and Universities arising from Chritendom.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101:
Christianity mumbojumbo? How about, you talky mumbo bullshit? Ad hominems are a joke. Science is concerned with reality? Yes, my god damn point. Science rests on the worldview of Christianity, if it rested in the atheistic worldview it would have no standing and no validity (see transecendental argument). You must not be an idiot by assuming things by your own bias.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101, Your claim "Science rests on the worldview of Christianity" is laughably wrong. Firstly, christianity is not a worldview, if it is than Micky mouse is also a world view. Secondly, the argument you came up with has been refuted a millions of times. Capillary circulation was discovered by Al-Nafis. Does that mean islam had anything to with that? Nope. Al-Nafis had to work his brains out to discover circulation. Idle fantasy does not take us anywhere.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
@LBiolSci:
Christianity is a worldview, the same way Atheism is? WTF? What does capillary circulation have anything to do with this? Furthermore, how could have Al-Nafis even started to do any thining if he did not have a justified position that his thinking was valid at all? Thescientific philosophial question that threatens Atheism.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"Your claim "Science rests on the worldview of Christianity" is laughably wrong. Firstly, christianity is not a worldview, if it is than Micky mouse is also a world view."
Eh?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
"Firstly, christianity is not a worldview, if it is than Micky mouse is also a world view."
-Do you know what worldview means?
gambleor 2 years ago
Atheism provides a solely materialistic Universe. The Universe is comprised by laws of logic and mathematics, which are used to interpret the laws of nature, they are immaterial. The laws of Nature are based of the assumptions of logic and mathematics, so without these immaterial laws, no interpretation of the laws of nature can be made. Atheism does not accept these immaterial laws, therefore it cannot make any scientific knowledge.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101, Yes you are right atheism can not make any scientific knowledge, the same way demonstration against Iraq war also can not make any knowledge. It's because making knowledge is not their jobs, they are protest positions. Theism destroys knowledge, poisons people's mind, drugs people, makes them feel proud of their ignorance. Atheism protests against these all. Atheism although can not make knowledge, but it can protect knowledge from vandalism.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
"You must not insult a scientist by calling him a christian. "
Fuck you.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
@UNFFwildcard- Seems like you find it really really hard to suppress your anger on hearing a uncomfortinh truth. Quiet christian-like isn't it? Have you heard of fredudian admission by the way?
LBiolSci 2 years ago
If that was unchristian-like of me, then what would be more suitable?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
@UNFFwildcard- No you misunderstood me. It is very very christian-like of you. It fact this is what I expect from every christian or Muslim or any variation on this theme. Poison spreading big mouth hypocrites who are categorically ignorant and uneducated.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
"It fact this is what I expect from every christian or Muslim or any variation on this theme. Poison spreading big mouth hypocrites who are categorically ignorant and uneducated. "
Now there's an actual example of Freudian admission...
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
Perhaps he's annoyed with your lying, Ken Miller and Francis Collins demonstrate you can believe in God and be a great scientist!
OmegaisNearV2 2 years ago
@OmegaisNearV2-Me lying?How come! I'm not even a christian or muslim?Unlike yo lying for jesus or mohammed don't turn me on.Anyway,seems like yu have come up with a listof christian scientists yay?Here is my list then-Patrick Blackett,Herman Bondi,Chandrashekhar,William Clifford,Frank Close,Paul Dirac,Peter Higgs all well known,most of them noble winning british physicist.If I included the unpopular scientists,non-british scientists and non-physicists this list would include thousands of names.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
Classic reductive scientism... I love it.
gambleor 2 years ago
Lol! Love your complement. Thanx.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago 2
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Their hair had nothing to do with their work, but God had a large infuence on their work. Let me give examples:
"I seek to show God's glory"- Isaac Newton
"I trace the lines that flow from God" -Albert Einstein
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
My point, which obviously escaped you, was that Christianity has no more to do with their discoveries than did any other arbitrary characteristic you could point out. The only thing that truly contributed to their discoveries was the scientific method.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
I understood the false dichotomy you wer eputting up, but you're wrong, their faith and belief in God had everything to do with their discoveries, it was their source of inspiration and foundation for attaining any knowledge at all. If there is no God that provided a logical and coherent Universe, why should one expect anything they see makes any sense if objectively there is no purpose in the Universe?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
The scientific method is a method of observation, it still has to assume that observation is valid. Without purpose or God there is no reason to assume observation is valid, but with God, you know that the Universe is rational, coherent, comprehensible, and provides an inspiration considering you're trying to 'trace the lines that flow from God' as Einstein would say, or seek his glory as Newton would say.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@obirv101
Firstly, a false dichotomy presents two parts of a whole and presumes the two are both mutually exclusive and are the only two parts of the whole that can exist. I did not present a false dichotomy, nothing even resembling any sort of dichotomy at all.
I have no idea what would lead you to this conclusion. You appear to be simply flinging around phrases that you obviously don't quite understand.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Secondly, observations are not assumed to be valid; any observation still has to undergo rigorous testing, scrutiny, and independent verification before it can be considered to be a true observation.
Lastly, existence exists; it is axiomatic. God is not, it is a proposition you are putting forward and the burden of proof lies on you to present evidence to support the notion of God, or quit rambling and find something else to do.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Observation is a form of perception, why should you even consider the observation itself to be valid let alone the rigorous testing to be valid. The rigorous testing is just a closer observation, it's still human perspective so it's a moot point to bring that up, you're missing the point. Why is any human perception valid if all that exists is the material world and no purpose to the Universe?
Why does the burden of proof lie on me? Ever heard of law of excluded middle?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogriv101
"Why does the burden of proof lie on me?"
Because you're the one submitting a positive claim. I'm saying, "I don't fucking believe you."
"Ever heard of law of excluded middle?"
Ever hear of shifting the burden of proof? Stop arbitrarily injecting logical fallacies like you have any idea what you're talking about when you plainly don't. Excluded middle does not allow you to shift the burden of proof. It lies squarely on you. Now put up, or GTFO.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
No, burden of proof is not by a 'positive claim', but merely he who makes the claim. In this case we're noth making a claim. You may claim you're an Agnostic, but I'm an Agnostic as well, and Agnosticism is an epsitemic stance not a metaphysical stance. Atheism and Theism are both metaphysical stances, the taking away or adding of God changes the whole worldview of the individual's metaphysical stance.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"In this case we're noth making a claim."
No, we're not. I haven't made any claims, except that I DON'T accept the claim that a God exists. Do you understand that? That is not a claim, I'm expressing disbelief of a specific claim.
Disbelieving specific claims of the existence of God is not a metaphysical stance. I simply haven't been provided with the evidence or sufficient argumentation to accept the claim that a God exists. Agnosticism is logically absurd.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
I did make a hasty generelazation because most Atheists think alike in their manner of evidence, most are dogmatic empircists. Well, it seems you aren't that type of person, but I won't begin until you leave your recalcitrance on the subject of burden of proof. Not accepting a claim means that you consider it false (BY LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE) so if you believe it's false provide evidence.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Maybe you have not yet understood that if you disbelieve in a propostiion, by the law of excluded middle, you accept something as either true or false, you accept it by false. If it's false, then there is no God. So why is the belief in no God a metaphysical stance? Because by logical CONSEQUENCE, if you devoid yourself from the existence of such a being, you follow metaphysical naturalism, a metaphysical stance which most Atheists take!
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I can only have evidence or argumentation for why a specific proposition is true or false, if you have yet to provide a proposition then there is no way I can provide counter-argumentation. I disbelieve in a God simply because I have yet to see sufficient evidence or convincing argumentation for why one exists.
Excluded middle requires me only to counter-argue against specific propositions, and until you provide one then I have nothing to argue against.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Furthermore, I would ask if you accept that leprechauns exist? If not, then what evidence can you provide that they don't? I suspect that you simply disbelieve because you've observed that there simply isn't any evidence that leprechauns exist in actuality, and thus do not accept that they are anything more than characters from folklore and myth.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Do I accept if leprochauns exist? I do not accept it nor do I reject it, mainly because it's possible for leprochauns to exist, I just don't think there is a logical necessity to believe so.
The whole argument relies on me accepting that they're not, special pleading destroys arguments. Also, you went further unto saying it's mere folklore, that's another positive claim, which you need to provide evidence for.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
The burden of proof lies squarely with the one making the positive claim. If you believe in a God then it is now your duty to provide evidence or argumentation for why your proposition is true; and until you do so I cannot even take a position one way or the other, now can I?
My point is that I have yet to even take a specific position with you, because you have yet to make a proposition. How can I accept as true or false that which has not even been presented yet?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
If you believe in God (I accept) it is my duty to provide evidence. If you reject his existance, you also have to provide evidence, and if you reject his existance from the mere dearth of evidence then that's called argument from ignorance.
Also, I don't need to establish why God is true, the mere proposition of his existance forces you to take either it's false or true, I don't need to provide a statement on the truth of God's existance.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"who says it's a fallacy?"
Russell's teapot analogy for starters:
"f I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about...nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed...
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@ogirv101
If the only evidence for God's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. THAT is the DEFINITION of an argument from ignorance.
This type of attempt at shifting the burden of proof is common among pseudoscience as well as Creationism. There are infinite things that cannot be disproved but we do not therefore accept that they are true.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@ogirv101
You have absolutely no epistemological justification for shifting the burden of proof. I do not have to accept your God as true or false merely because you've vacantly proposed it. Russel's teapot analogy shows the fact that a proposition cannot be disproved does not render it true. To propose this is the case is truly an argument from ignorance.
So, if you cannot even so much as define what a God is, then you don't have anything left to say here.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
"I just don't think there is a logical necessity to believe so."
...and likewise I have yet to be convinced there is a logical necessity for a God to exist. THAT is what makes me an atheist. You have yet to even define what one IS.
"The whole argument relies on me accepting that they're not"
Which you don't, as you've already conceded.
"...you need to provide evidence for."
Winberry, John J. (1976). "The Elusive Elf: Some Thoughts on the Nature and Origin of the Irish Leprechaun"
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
If you don't accept a claim, that's a claim in itself! If I claim I don't accept the claim of Evolution being true, I'm making the claim that Evolution is false by the law of excluded middle. So, in toher words, you make a positive claim by rejecting another positive claim.
Disbelief in itself is a claim, I don't understand how you don't understand that? Calling Agnosticism absurd makes you look dry, considering most non-believers in the US are Agnostics not Atheists.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"So, in other words, you make a positive claim by rejecting another positive claim."
Excluded middle states that either a proposition is true or it's negation is. This does not allow you to commit the fallacy of demanding negative proof. One cannot 'prove' a universal negative, I don't understand how you don't understand that?
You also have yet to propose any specific proposition thus I have yet to reject or accept one. I've already pointed this out to you, you've avoided doing so repeatedly.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
So if you negate something, by default it's a position on a metter, and a postive claim against the other side. demanding negative proof is not a fallay, who says it's a fallacy? No you can't prove a universal negative, but you can disprove it, and that's what the argument is about.
The proposition is God's existance, I kinda thought it was obvious.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
The mere proposition of God's existence doesn't force me to do anything, that's a BS dichotomy. You haven't even defined what a God is, how am I to know what you're even talking about? There are so many sundry definitions of what a God is that the mere proposition of one is an EMPTY proposition until you define what it is.
So you've made an empty proposition and feel that you've accomplished what, exactly?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
No it isn't. If you disbelieve in something, regardless of evidence, you still need to provide the burden of proof. Ok, listen to this. If you disbelief something on the mere fact that there is no evidence, that's an argument from ignorance. You gave me 4 comments, and I'm not going to read them, I have around 7 more comments to read, and 5 minutes to do so. You're making a damn ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
An argument from ignorance is when one supposes that the notion of God cannot be disproven, therefore God. I'm not making an argument from ignorance and Russel's teapot analogy illustrates why.
If you're only argument is to vainly try and shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic, then I think that showcases exactly how weak your argument is. And if you're not going to read my comments, please find someone else's time to waste.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
No, an argument of ignorance is the belief in somethign because it cannot be disproven, the same way it's an argument from ignorance to conceive that a proposition is false because of the lack of evidence. You commit this fallacy because you deny the existance of the proposition of God because of the lack of evidence, by the law of excluded middle you're using an argument from ignorance. Also, I can have an argument read for you in a PM, but you're fallacious and don't admit
ogirv101 2 years ago
"an argument of ignorance is the belief in somethign because it cannot be disproven."
Yes, like the belief in a God because no one can disprove it. The reason why this is a logical fallacy is because it is assuming it's conclusion without any justification, and relies on the fact that you CANNOT PROVE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE.
For this reason, you cannot shift the burden of proof, since the sole justification for the fallacy itself relies on the inability to provide negative proof.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
"it's an argument from ignorance to conceive that a proposition is false because of lack of evidence."
NO, it is an argument from ignorance to assume that a proposition is true because you cannot disprove it. What you are describing is WRONG; if you claim that a God exists, the proposition is not assumed to be true because you cannot disprove it, THAT would be an incredulous argument.
If you fail to provide evidence, there's no logical justification for accepting the claim.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Yes, it applies to both sides. Alright, I argue that a falling tree made a noise because there is no evidence to prove it didn't, lets say you make the argument that it didn't make noise because there is no evidence to prove it did. They're both logical fallacies,a dn you downright are admitting it to everyone here.
There's no logical justification for accepting the claim? There's no logical justification for not accepting the claim without evidence.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
But there IS evidence to indicate that it did. We what a tree does when it falls, we can observe other trees falling, and we know how compression waves produce sound.
The argument does not work on both sides, or the argument itself would be meaningless. An argument from ignorance is assuming a proposition to be true because it cannot be proven false.
If your strongest argument is an absurd and failed attempt at shifting the burden of proof, then I don't know what else to say to you
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Did you see the tree fall? So because other trees have made noise, this tree HAS to make noise? I thought your basis on the world was mere empiricism, you didn't see the tree fall, no reason to think it made a noise.
Let me break off, considering you don't even know what an argument from ignorance is, and letting your bias and 'being right' get in the way fo finding truth. You're obviously not interested in finding truth, but okay let's start. Why is there order?
ogirv101 2 years ago
"you didn't see the tree fall, no reason to think it made a noise."
You're wrong. I can draw on my experience to infer that it most likely did.
"considering you don't even know what an argument from ignorance is"
I've explained to you several times what an argument from ignorance is. You're the one who is exhibiting signs of confusion.
"Why is there order?"
Who says there's order?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
So there's no order in the Universe? So there is no order when Penrose calculated that the precision of low entropy occuring during the split second during the Big Bang is 1:10^10^123, which is 1 in 1 followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. This isn't order, without low entropy heat death would have occured and no Universe due to second law of thermodynamics.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv
I didn't say there wasn't order in the Universe. Don't make unfounded assumptions before I've even made an assertion. Secondly, those odds are 1:1 because it's already happened. Lastly, provide a primrary source for Penrose's calculations? Do have the slightest idea how he arrived at this figure, or do you simply accept it because it fits your preconceptions about the Universe?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
You didn't say, but you questioned it, you said, "who says there's order?'. That sounds like a rejection of order in the Universe. Furthermore, it's 1:1 because it already happened? How does that make sense? It's not even about probability, it's not about odds, so before you make that sophist remark, read what I wrote you fallacious sophist. Roger Penrose mentiosn it in the Emperors new mind in pgs 410-422, but look it up.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
I accept it because the famous british mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose calculates it,a nd there is no evidence refuting that calculation, unless you provide me one. Do you deny it because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions about the Universe?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Fallacious sophist? You're the one that just spent the better part of three days trying to pull an intellectual slight-of-hand maneuver to try and shift the burden of proof. You're petty crook trying to shoplift logic.
..and I don't have any preconceptions about the universe, I just don't have a logical necessity to believe in yours.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
So no actual response, just abunch of ad hominems, I knew you wasted my time. You made no argument for the teleological argument, and then come up with random irrelevent things in an attempt to make me look bad. Well everyone here sees your hypocrisy, good day, don't bother responding.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Due to the law of excluded middle, in a metaphysical view, a propostion is either true or false, you take false. It would be an argument form ignorance arguing something is true because you can't disprove it, the same way for you to claim it's wrong because you can't prove it. Furthermore, the proof you're thinking of is completely empirical, you don't want to accept any other form of evidence other than the empirical, so therefore there's a stalemate.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"It would be an argument form ignorance arguing something is true because you can't disprove it..."
Thank you. See, the onus of evidence isn't all that hard to understand after all, now is it? I cannot have evidence of a universal negative; thus cannot 'disprove' the existence of God any more than I could prove there isn't a colony of leprechauns inhabiting Uranus.
"..the proof you're thinking of is completely empirical..."
How do you know what I would and would not accept?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Yes, it isn't that hard to understand, but for some reason you don't understand it? Well, I doubt it's less about understanding but putting your biased in the way of acceding to your understanding, and that's what we call ignorance. (not to offend you). You cannot have evidence of a Universal negative? Who says? Is not scientific skepticism based on disproving the claim wrong? Also, claiming something is incorrect is a claim in itself.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Now, if you're willing to accept other forms of proof, for example philsoophical proofs, and you're willing to put aside your biased dogmatic empiricist views, then we could have a healthy debate. If you also end your fallacies of burden of proof, then you have a chance to present your evidence (which you practially prove you don't have with your objection to provide any).
ogirv101 2 years ago
"if you're willing to accept other forms of proof, for example philsoophical proofs..."
If you have some unique, new philosophical "proof" for the existence of God instead of regurgitating the same burned-out garbage that has been demolished a thousand times over, have a go at it.
"If you also end your fallacies of burden of proof..."
I'm sorry that you can't accept that the burden of proof rests on those submitting the positive claim, and not on those expressing disbelief of said claim.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
Please explain what you call 'garbage', mere appeal to ridicule fallacies doesn't disprove them, mere recalcitrance of accepting them doesn't lead to truth. If you already deny something without hearing it, you obviously aren't in search for truth, and your bitterness towards religion shows you have a solid heart, I don't know if you were raped by a Catholic Priest, but I could care less about your hostility, if you don't keep it civil, then I won't even talk to you.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx:
No, I can't accept it's based on a positive claim, because that's now how it works, and feeling sorry for me for knowing how argumentation works and eschewing your special pleading fallacy is quite ironic. Disbelief is a claim in itself, if you dislbelieve something, byt the law of excluded middle, you are making a claim. You're claiming the other opposing side is incorrect, he who makes a claim must provide the burden of proof.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I no longer believe in survival of the fittest, except in the extremest sense of old age. It should be obvious to most that it's more like survival of sometimes the fittest, sometimes, the smartest, & sometimes the luckiest.
KenMacMillan 2 years ago
@KenMacMillan, agree with you though. Selection is not the only mechanism for fixing heritable traits by decreasing diversity. There is another way to do that, genetic drift. Unlike selection which is a random process or in other words which depends on chance.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
Really looking forward to more from you ^.^b
ameldia 2 years ago
thanx for watching, your remark has been inspiring.
LBiolSci 2 years ago
Looking forward to future videos from you.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
In the past 400 years of scientific inquiry, religion has been inexorably marginalized as any kind of answer to unknowns.
As is demonstrable right here on YouTube, the final corner of religionists is the First Cause argument, whether it be for life or the cosmos itself.
Their problem is that it is still an argument from unknowns. And in the history of human human unknowns, nothing has failed like the idea of supernaturalism. It has failed 100% of the time.
PraiseShemp 2 years ago
Agree with you, supernaturalism is more than a question than an answer.
aj566 2 years ago