Craig can use science and logic to quite good effect but I think he falters when he must describe God as a timeless, necessary, self existent being and then expect it to fall in with rational science. This is a result from conjecture of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and makes no scientific attempt to explain how such a being might exist. While he rationally criticises of the atheists proposed use of the infinite, he refutes it with an infinite being.
I don't like how Craig starts out with "We haven't heard any evidence against the existence of God", as that is not evidence in favor of it. However, I appreciate his philosophical ideas, and this is where he beats Wolpert in my opinion. Wolpert cannot accept the idea of transendence, thus he concludes his beliefs on the origin of the universe with "we don't know." I DO appreciate Wolpert's honesty, as this is something most Christian apologists won't say when they should.
One wonders how WLC would have turned out if he were raised in the Middle East or India during his formative teenage years. Odd how belief in god & one's eternal after-life is determined by their location of birth.
@tenbear5 Dr. Wolpert kept on arguing for Dr. Craig. YouTube user suvarenee has a video: Faith is not evidence, but this is Wolpert's point repeated over and over that faith is evidence, that people who pray and believe live longer and healthier lives as a whole. The first 16 years of my Christian walk I for the most part attended church. We got taught how to love with a pure motive. How diaboloical.
I enjoyed the last bit by WLC. He wants everyone to get to know God and His son. That's right. A saviour deity who sacrificed himself to appease himself and redeem only those who drink of his blood whilst sending all those who don't into everlasting torture in a blazing fire. It's hard to summarise Christianity without making it sound like a total joke.
@nyscholartist I guess you're not a Jew either? There is no word in the Bible for what you're referring to about everlasting torture. The Hebrew words mistranslated for hell (Greek to English) are Hades, Sheol & Gehenna. Jesus as a Jewish Rabbi and supporter of Moses would hold to the Hebrew doctrine of eternal life not torture. Chist's message to man only varies from the Hebrew point of an eye for an eye to "Love your enemies, and do good for them that hate you". Hardly eternal suffering.
@shizzleman8 No, I'm not Jewish. Even if you conveniently remove the bit about eternal torture, that doesn't help your case much. The doctrine of original sin is equally preposterous. Anyway, I think that it's possible to have a conception of God without all of the irrationalities and barbarities of the monotheisms.
@nyscholartist If you "conviently" remove that part from yourself that makes you prejudice and anti-semetic, you'd be on my side.
The "case" for Christianity is the case for loving people as much as yourself from a pure heart with true motives. Everything else is religious junk. I'm not adherent to sin of any type, original or otherwise. We have due process of law today, let's keep it that way. You'll really like this video: dfpolis #15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof
@shizzleman8 So saying that the Bible teaches that hell is eternal is anti-Semitic? In the English translation, Jesus says more than once in the Gospels, "Depart into the eternal fire ..." Go tell the translators about their anti-Semitism, not me. What you cite cannot serve as part of a case for Christianity. That is one of the formulations of the Golden Rule, which can be found in the Analects of Confucius, long before Jesus lived.
@nyscholartist Probably the word Gehenna. Hell isn't a word in the Bible. Jesus teaching on hell by Tentmaker is a good resource for the point I was trying to make. It's an image problem put in our brains from Dante's inferno. The meaning of words change over time. For centuries the word evolution meant 'the unraveling of a scroll' very much the same word as creation. Sounds like Confuscious had it all together, maybe if he was resurrected we never would have heard of Jesus? Only Love.
Good Lordess. WLC appeals to his personal experience of Jesus? Well, guess what, I have a Turkish Muslim friend who asked the big questions about life and began to read the Qur'an and became captivated by the story of Muhammad's life. The Qur'an is more historically reliable than the New Testament because there is NO gap between the events and the time of their recording and description. Then my friend felt an infusion of joy with the presence of God in his life. Therefore Islam is the truth.
Does WLC even know that Kant destroyed the ontological argument (as well as the cosmological argument based on it) centuries ago? The fallacy is that it takes existence as a predicate. So there is no necessity for the existence of this being known as God. WLC is a philosopher from kindergarten.
@Joel02sam Science isn´t something that can confirmed that God does not exist, take for example some of the most important science people of all the time: Isaac Newton, Pascal, Nicholas Copernicus, Kepler,Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and more… On the other hand the Bible has a long list of scientific information written before they were discovered by the modern science, such as: The First Law of Thermodynamics, states that the energy is not created or destroyed, the Bible says
@Joel02sam exhausting its fuel leading towards cooling ,people are slowly living out their life spans , stars like the sun will eventually burn out ,a light bulb will eventually burn out , A top slowly looses it energy.The earths Magnetic force is slowly being lost.The earths Gravity is slowly being lost . The bible says: heb. 1:10 “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
@Joel02sam The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. You see, Jesus is God, therefore he is eternal and since he sustints all things; things can not be destroyed. This bring us to the second law of thermodynamics, known as Law of Entropy, Entropy is the amount of disorder within a system, for example: slowing--cooling-- exhaustion of Natural processes, The earth is slowly, slowing down ,the sun is slowly
The dishonesty of this man is staggering. He knows exactly what the tea pot analogy represents. What evidence has he presented that isn't fallacious and relies on personal experience? If his opponent used those sort of tactics he would pounce on them. His little sermon at the end is proof positive he has no real testable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence of anything.
Is the supernatural really a better explanation for anything at all?
If anyone is reading this comment section and wants to review an interesting case of the common Internet user, I would recommend reading the comments of Mike below me.
I'm not making fun of his beliefs, but I claim the right to ridicule the Kent Hovinds of this world, who read nothing or very little, yet parade around in whatever forum they find as if they have done the relevant research.
His misunderstandings include the naturalist position, atheism, David Hume, and the negative proof fallacy
No I'm not, that's not even what this is about. Do I actually have to recap?
You said: Atheists demand irrefutable proof.
References given: none.
Attempt to backpeddle: they want evidence, see? They want proof!
^ No, evidence does not mean proof.
Irrefutable proof (logical proof) is not demanded by ANY of the new atheists, so stop lying through your teeth, you idiot who hasn't read a goddamn book.
As we listen to WLC's testimony, let's not forget the real meaning of God having "given" (4:29) his son. In the gospel, it means literal blood atonement--torture and death as payment for sin. And the entire concept of blood sacrifice for atonement is straight out of ancient Judaism. If that's your thing, go for it. I prefer to think we've moved on.
SO Jesus rose from the dead therefore it's a miracle and evidence for god??? WTF! The christian tendency to infer that the supernatural is somehow a good example for the natural is stupidity incarnate. Whatever happens in the natural world is a natural phenomena. What measurement do we use to test the supernatural. It falls into the same category as faith. When you get to the heart of the argument it means absolutely nothing.
@ptango101 "Whatever happens in the natural world is a natural phenomena." Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena? Or is THAT a faith statement? BTW saying: X can be explained by a "naturalist understanding" is profoundly different than demonstration that a supernatural explanation is impossible. Your argument that the supernatural doesn't happen begs the question of HOW it does happen.
@ptango101 "First define the supernatural and then tell what reference point you use to measure the super natural as being true or false?" first, you were the one who used the term "Supernatural" NOT me. I mean it in the same manner you do. Second, you ignored my question, do you have evidence everything is always caused by only natural explanations?
@mike10121996 I'm not ignoring your question. I just want to see where you are coming from. What are you getting at with "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Personally I don't. Given enough time and resources natural explanations seem to always be the best. Do you have any evidence that there is another type of credible explanation? Natural phenomena is just that; NATURAL.
@ptango101 " "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Personally I don't. Given enough time and resources natural explanations seem to always be the best." By the way, for some reason THIS response was marked as spam and I did not see it until just now. It would have profoundly altered the way I was responding to you for the last few days. I apologize I did not see this statement. It makes a marked difference.
@mike10121996 So after a week of going back and forth, making a video clarifying my point and stating my position over and over again my position is tenable?
@ptango101 Yes, the position that many events can be explained by natural laws, is certain tenable. but that premise invalidates nothing nor does it insure materialism is true. It simply states that many events are sufficiently explained by natural laws. ie I dropped a spoon, the law of gravity is sufficient to explain that. The oracle of delphi or the resurrection of Jesus of Naz. simply cannot be sufficiently explained. Ok. your claim is sufficiently limited to a reasonable scope.
@mike10121996 Do you understand why your comment got marked as spam? (not me, by the way) You are doing that typical christian tactic of well if you haven't got an example of every possible instance of what you are saying is true then the possibility that the statement is not true could be still out there. It's a pity that you don't apply that to your own arguments and save yourself a lot of wasted effort. There comes a time where the point becomes moot
@ptango101 "if you haven't got an example of every possible instance of what you are saying is true'" Wow is inductive vs deductive reasoning really that hard? In inductive reasoning a general truth claim can never be insured neither positive nor negative. This has NOTHING to do with God this is about logic. Induction is a method that is simply incapable of giving us absolute concerning general truth claims. Deductive arguments however CAN.
@ptango101 " It's a pity that you don't apply that to your own arguments..." Of course it applies to theist's arguments. Theists could be wrong, just like you could be wrong. My point is that the assertion "You can't prove a negative." Is ONLY true of general truth claims using inductive arguments. More over if you can't prove a negative you ALSO can't prove a positive general truth claim using inductive reasoning. Why is this so hard to understand? Induction is limited.
@ptango101 Both you an Ar33 demand that all people agree with you that since induction is incapable of proving a general negative claim therefor ALL general negative claims are impossible to prove. But does that logically follow? Your leaving out the whole other half of reasoning: deduction. Then you demand that I do the same? In what world does this pass as logic? It's not; it's an atheist talking point. It's NOT logic, NOT reason, and certainly not rational. POLEMICS!
"Do you or do you not understand the fallacy in that?" No. There is no fallacy, it is simply an assertion that if a person asserts something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion. If I say no blue swans exist. I have the burden of proof. If you cannot prove a universal negative why do you think you CAN prove a universal positive?
I'm terribly sorry I'm terribly sorry I'm terribly sorry lol just stop it, your arguments were in fact terrible, that's why you looked like a child next to Craig
I cannot believe how Dr Craig says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" then immediately proceeds to use this very argument against the existence of flying teapots and noone picks up on this, in fact they applaud him for it.
@sonicBlue00 Hmmm . . . . I believe you are right! My goodness! I believe Dr. Craig said that we have positive evidence that no such piece of China is in orbit, but he never actually gave an example. He only gave examples of lack of evidence. hmmm . . .
@mike10121996 Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and a great admirer of Dr. Craig. Perhaps I simply lack the sophistication to fully understand his argument, but it seems to me that regarding the teapot, he cites lack of evidence as evidence that the teapot is not in fact there. You will notice that I was not criticizing WLC's statement on his being a kangaroo, but only on his statement regarding the teapot. Please think about the truth of something before calling a fellow Christian stupid.
@lawrenca333 "but only on his statement regarding the teapot." We know what HAS been shot into space and have good reason to think that a china cup was NOT taken into space and left by us. We have good reasons to suppose that IF aliens exist they would not deposit tea pots in our atmosphere, as a tea pot is a known human invention with human purposes. Supposing aliens might have, presupposes alien tea, drink, ability to make china, use of pots ect.
@lawrenca333 "but only on his statement regarding the teapot." An alien would have no reason to deposit a human drinking mechanism in our atmosphere. Of course I don't KNOW aliens didn't but I have perfectly good reasons to presume they did not. In other words I have solid reasons for the negative assertion. I don't simply lack evidence in floating tea pots. I have solid reasons to the contrary.
@lawrenca333 "Please think about the truth of something before calling a fellow Christian stupid." to clarify, I was not calling you stupid I was saying that there is no good evidence that he is not a kangaroo is a stupid assertion. Now that I know you are only referring to the tea pot I understand. My apologies. The main point is that atheist love to cite that they only "lack belief"; this is designed to alleviate them of any burden of proof.
@lawrenca333 "he cites lack of evidence as evidence that the teapot is not in fact there." This is a debate format that simply does not allow for complete enumeration. A written response would be more through but difficult to wade through. He provided an example by the kangaroo and allows you the thinker to provide the rest for the teapot, having given a sufficient train of thought. Are you saying you can't come up with a good reason there's NOT a teapot floating above earth?
@mike10121996 The point is that WLC and yourself appear to cite lack of evidence for the existence of the teapot as evidence of its absence. Saying, "there is no record of us having launched one into space", is merely absence of evidence, and while there may not be any good reason to believe a teapot is in orbit, doesn't mean there isn't one. There must be a positive case for the non-existence of the teapot and I unashamedly admit that I do not see that case being made by either you or WLC.
@lawrenceau333 " "there is no record of us having launched one into space"Ok I see the problem, shuttle launches have packing lists. In that case a packing list demonstrates what did and what did not go on the launch. In that case the list is evidence of what did go up and also evidence of what did not go up. The packing list confirms what did and did not go on. That's what a packing list DOES by purpose. COULD one have snuck on? It's possible.
@lawrenceau333 Shuttle tea pot cont... But the purpose of the packing list is to determine what does or does not go on the shuttle. Did my 56 chevy go up? The packing list is used to confirm and deny what did or did not go up. That's what it does. If it can not be used for what DIDN'T go up, why is it reliable for what DID go up? From that pespective the packing list IS the evidence that a tea pot did not go up into space. Is it ABSOLUTE evidence? No. But is it evidence? Yes.
@lawrenceau333 "existence of the teapot as evidence of its absence." Heres the big problem with using absence of evidence AS evidence. It presupposes that knowledge is perfect. That if we cannot prove something or have something as evidence, that it occurred THAT is evidence that it DID NOT occur. What physical evidence do we have that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC? NONE. ONLY eyewitness testimony, that's a question of testimony not evidence. Knife, tunic, blood, finger prints.
@lawrenceau333 If I was accused of making a call on my cell phone at 9:30 pm in a court case my lawyer would use my cell phone record as evidence in a court hearing that I did NOT make the call. If that phone list is NOT evidence of what phone calls were not made from that cell, why is it evidence for the call's I DID make from the cell phone? Packing list, cell phone call, no difference. An official list of what did or did not happen. It is evidence something didn't happen.
@lawrenceau333 The huge problem here is that you seem to believe that proving a negative is impossible. This is simply atheist polemics. We do it all the time. When you were 9 and your sibling accused you of breaking moms X didn't you argue that you didn't do it? If proving a negative is impossible than ALL such arguments end in failure. All accusations should end in convictions. But proving a negative is possible. We do it all the time.
@mike10121996 You demonstrate that you did not do something by providing evidence that someone else DID. With a positive claim, not by proving a negative.
@kelarael "You demonstrate that you did not do something by providing evidence that someone else DID." That is truly crazy. A man in Hong Kong is murdered tonight. The police come to my door and accuse me. I can't say. I was in Indiana last night I wasn't in hong kong, AND THAT ISN'T ENOUGH. I have to prove who DID murder the man? Is that seriously what your asserting?
@mike10121996 You misunderstand what the fallacy actually is. If I say prove to me there is no car in my garage, you could do that. But you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims. So if I say "prove to me there are no blue swans", that you CANNOT do. You may be familiar with the problem of induction, i.e. that 1, 2, ... N white swans, but then we discover a black one. In the context of arguing for god, it is a fallacy to say "prove to me there are no gods"
@AR333 "You misunderstand what the fallacy actually is." Clearly YOU misunderstand what it is. A fallacy is an argument that on face value APPEARS to be a valid argument but is not; on close inspection it is fallacious. Not being able to absolutely prove an assertion is NOT a FALLACY. It simply remains an assertion that is NOT absolutely proven. Assertions that are not absolutely proven are just that. Why is logic soooo hard?
@AR333 " But you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims." Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy. Its' simply an assertion that is not proven, that's all. A fallacy is an argument that appears valid but is not. For example: Blue swans do not exist BECAUSE I don't have a red car. THAT is a fallacious argument. But "Blue swans don't exist" is an unproven assertion nothing more.
@mike10121996 Let me rephrase my short answer from earlier. You are not even realizing what you are saying when you write:
Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy.
^This is MY position, Mike, not yours. WLC says "if I believe in blue swans, and there is no evidence for it, the nonbeliever has to provide positive evidence for *no blue swans*"
Do you or do you not understand the fallacy in that?
@AR333 "You are not even realizing what you are saying when you write:" I understand perfectly what I am saying. A fallacy is an argument that looks valid but is not. It has NOTHING to do with an assertion lacking evidence. That's just ignorance on your part. A fallacy is NOT an assertion that cannot be proven true. It simply isn't. Your not wrong because your arguing with me your wrong because THATS NOT WHAT A FALLACY IS.
@mike10121996 First off when I wrote you do not even realize what you write, read it in context. It was about your blue swan line, which I directly quoted. Second I never said that if one makes a fallacy they are therefore wrong. Third, I am saying **there is a fallacy in** asking for proof of no blue swans. Fourth, if you knew how to read carefully, you would have saved me the trouble of repeating everything I wrote earlier.
@AR333 "you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims." A direct quote from you. WHAT FALLACY? There is no fallacy of unproven existential claims. Its simply a claim that is unproven. Why is that SO hard to understand? A fallacy is an argument that appears valid but upon close inspection it is not. PERIOD. There is no fallacy of "apparent existential claims" look it up. Doesn't exist.
@AR333 "It was about your blue swan line" The blue swan line was YOUR argument not mine. My only comment is that an assertion that isn't absolutely proven isn't fallacious, it's simply unproven. There is NO fallacy.
@AR333 " I never said that if one makes a fallacy they are therefore wrong." I never said you did. I said an assertion that is not absolutely proven is NOT a fallacious argument. I never said you said it was wrong. Considering you accusing me of not reading YOUR assertions you should please do that same. I never said you said that. I simply pointed out an assertion that is not absolutely proven is not a fallacy. Period.
@AR333 "Third, I am saying **there is a fallacy in** asking for proof of no blue swans." Ok whats the name of the fallacy? In logic fallacies have terms ie: Argument from ignorance, no true scotsman. Ect. What is the name of the fallacy your saying IS indeed a fallacy? AR333's fallacy? Please I wait in eager anticipation for the name of the fallacy of asking for evidence for a negative assertion.
@mike10121996 "The huge problem here is that you seem to believe that proving a negative is impossible. This is simply atheist polemics."
Proving a negative is impossible if its a general existential claim. ALL the examples you gave were specifics. Do you get that or not?
Later you wrote "Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy" This contradicts your first claim. You indeed can't prove that there are no blue swans.
@AR333 "You indeed can't prove that there are no blue swans." Thats only true if you demand absolute irrefutable evidence something doest exist. If that is the case you cant provide absolute irrefutable evidence ANYTHING exists at all. You seem to ASSUME that the existence of things is a given, but the non existence of things isn't. If its questionable they don't exist, why isn't it questionable that anything does?
@AR333 "ALL the examples you gave were specifics. Do you get that or not?" Once again though you've qualified the assertion. So it's not REALLY impossible to prove ANY negative only a negative thats a general negative derived from an inductive negative. THAT I would agree with, but thats PROFOUNDLY different than saying: "You can't prove a negative." You can't prove a universal negative FROM a specific negative. That's logical. But thats NOT what was asserted.
@mike10121996 "THAT I would agree with, but thats PROFOUNDLY different than saying: "You can't prove a negative.""
Hey Mr. trying to slip away from what you said. Do you know what you said to the guy you were arguing against? Go Back and read it, because before I decided to write to you, I read what you were saying IN CONTEXT. When you said to that guy the example of breaking Mom's X, that's EXACTLY parallel to the blue swans, so don't try to make it seem like I am changing subjects.
@AR333 "breaking Mom's X, that's EXACTLY parallel to the blue swans," Actually that is NOT an exact parallel to blue swans, once again under you own admission: Me breaking moms X is not a universal existential claim, such as there are no blue swans. One is a specific negative, another is a universal existential negative. So it's NOT an exact parallel, it's merely a comparative parallel between specific negative and an universal negative.
@mike10121996 That's not what I meant by parallel. I've said multiple times that that one was specific, and the existential.
What I meant by parallel was that the swan example parallel's your breaking mom's x / phone calls as far as that induction crap you were talking about. You tried saying the fallacy is atheist polemic using bad examples. Later on: "yeah if its for induction, that I agree with" - well, when atheists talk about negative proof being a fallacy, THATS WHAT THEY MEAN
@AR333 " That's not what I meant by parallel." It's not my fault that you are not specific enough in what you mean. Moreover your constant vacillating makes it so I'M confused now exactly what your even trying to say. Are you saying a specific negation (breaking moms X) is a the same as a general negation (blue swans)? Are you saying a specific negation is NOT the same as a universal. Because if THAT's what you saying I pointed that out.
@AR333 "calls as far as that induction crap you were talking about. " But it DOESN'T parallel breaking moms X. That was my point. The non existence of a blue swan is a universal general negations (which you say cannot be proven) While me NOT breaking moms X is a specific negation(which you agree CAN be done). They only parallel each other in that ones an example of a specific negation and ones an example of a universal negation. No other parallel.
@AR333 "You tried saying the fallacy is atheist polemic using bad examples." Its not a bad example when the claim is that: "You can't prove a negative." That atheists MEAN you cannot prove a universal negative using inductive evidence isn't my fault. That YOU (meaning atheists) cannot/ will not specify your language clearly enough to make the distinction is either deliberate misrepresentation OR complete ignorance. Neither is my fault.
@AR333 "well, when atheists talk about negative proof being a fallacy, THATS WHAT THEY MEAN" Yes, but that is PROFOUNDLY different than: "You can't prove a negative." More over it ONLY a fallacy if you TRY to use inductive evidence to prove a general negative. It's not a fallacy to ASK for proof for a general negative, You just CAN'T use empirical evidence to demonstrate an absolute irrefutable negative. Once again, a limitation of science ISN'T a logical impossibility.
@AR333 "Later on: "yeah if its for induction, that I agree with"" I have never changed my position. What you seem to be unable to realize is that science ISN'T logic. Science USES logic but it ISN'T logic. Because empiricism is unable to do something it does not follow that it therefore cannot be done. It's just a limitation of inductive reasoning. Your wining about what empiricism can't do and the demanding that my request for ANY evidence inductive / otherwise is a fallacy. Not true.
@AR333 Moreover, i'v never demanded ANY evidence for anything. This whole conversation is based upon the assertion that "You can't prove a negative." I've demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative. Moreover, I contend that its atheistic polemics that it CANNOT be done. It can be done, you just have to use other methods OTHER than empirical induction which of course CANNOT be allowed, purely for atheist polemical purposes.
@mike10121996 "I've demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative."
Let me repeat everything I said to you again. I read what you said IN CONTEXT to the other user. You told him he is using polemics. What did HE MEAN? *He DID mean induction*, you knew he meant induction, hence your examples. But your examples were misleading because they were specific.
You've been backpeddling ever since the blue swan line. Now you say its logic. It wasn't logic back then, it was empirics.
@AR333 "you knew he meant induction, hence your examples." No I had no idea he ONLY meant induction. What are you a mind reader that you can tell me what I knew? He said clearly you cannot prove a negative. I demonstrated you can indeed prove a negative. That's not back peddling. My point has ALWAYS been that you can prove a negative, you can prove a general negative, just NOT with inductive reasoning.
@AR333 I am not back peddling by saying that induction is incapable of reaching a general negative. However, what you seem to ALSO be forgetting is that induction also cannot insure a general positive assertion either. Which I said as well. ie all ants have 6 legs, THAT general inductive argument is not positively assured either, have we studied ALL ants everywhere at all times? Induction is simply incapable of giving us absolute positives OR negatives. Welcome to logic.
@AR333 "You told him he is using polemics." I did NOT say he was using polemics, If you read the whole interaction you would see he said he was a theist. I said the assertion that you cannot prove a negative is simply atheist polemics, and then I demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative, hence why it is polemics NOT logic.
@AR333 Your argument is that I KNEW he meant inductive reasoning about general claims, and then I used a specific example. Your whole argument hangs on the fact that when a person says "You can't prove a negative" what they mean is you cannot prove a general negative using inductive empirical reasoning. Which if THAT is what you mean, why don't you say that instead of the GENERAL claim that: "You can't prove a negative."? Wouldn't saying what you mean clear it up?
@mike10121996 "Wouldn't saying what you mean clear it up?"
It's not necessary when you know its what they mean. If you know the question is "does god exist", and the atheist says we can't prove a negative, why would you not compare like with like?
By giving the examples you did, you didn't show the fallacy is false, you showed you misunderstood his claim. Furthermore, if you read any literature where an atheist brings this up, its explicit from there examples that its existential.
@AR333 "If you know the question is "does god exist"" Listen, I agree with you that its not possible using empiricism to absolutely prove a negative. You can't prove no unicorns exist, you can't prove no mountains exist. You ALSO cannot prove general positive claims either. You keep ignoring that. Induction ONLY has the ability to hint at general claims it cannot insure it, positive OR negatives. PERIOD.
@AR333 your absolutely right but your also wrong. Its not JUST that you can't prove a negative, you also can't prove a positive. Thats the OTHER side of the coin, you don't seem to want to admit. So when an atheist says: You can't prove a negative, SO WHAT?! Induction can't prove a general positive either. That's why this WHOLE thing is nothing but polemics. This isn't REALLY about proving a negative, its about absolving yourself of having a burden of proving a negative.
@AR333 The fact of the matter is atheists cannot absolutely prove God does not exist using induction any more than a theist can absolutely prove God DOES exist using induction. BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods existence but then absolve themselves of the burden of proof by saying: You can't prove a negative. But logically induction simply cannot provide EITHER. Thats why this is ALL POLEMICS
@mike10121996 "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods" <-- Blatant falsehood... Further evidence you do not bother understanding your opponents position.
It's clear to anyone who read your earlier exchange that you did not at the time realize what the fallacy meant. I'm done trying to demonstrate it. And defining each word doesn't help your case. You either know what that fallacy refers to or you don't. Your examples show you didn't.
@AR333 " Blatant falsehood" Are you saying that atheist don't demand empirical evidence for God's existence? That's hardly a blatant falsehood. As to a fallacy. You haven't provided me the name of the fallacy that involves proving a negative. You just asserted it is a fallacy. a fallacy is a technical term for an argument that appears valid but is not. not just a term for an argument you don't like. Get a grip.
@AR333 "I think even you know why those 2 claims are not equivocal." Of course they are not equivocal. I never said they WERE equivocal. However I was building a case or an argument that BEGINS with the premise: Atheist demand empirical evidence for the existence of God. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. So I figured you were gone or out to lunch. Moreover you STILL HAVEN'T answered the question.
@AR333 "I think even you know why those 2 claims are not equivocal." Of course they are not equivocal. I never said they WERE equivocal. However I was building a case or an argument that BEGINS with the premise: Atheist demand empirical evidence for the existence of God. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. So I figured you were gone or out to lunch. Moreover you STILL HAVEN'T answered the question.
@AR333 ":realize what the fallacy meant." Ha you haven't even told me the name of the fallacy. You just call it a fallacy. You really need to learn how logic works. I'm glad your done you obviously don't understand how logic works. Thanks
@mike10121996 Actually you're right, its not strictly speaking a logical fallacy. It is, however, a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist". I hope you agree, yes? Let's not be afraid to say we mispoke or we were plainly wrong.
Now, back this claim up: ""BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false.
Lastly, go back to that guy and actually address his point with a RELEVANT counter example.
@AR333 " It is, however, a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist"" Really, why? If I were to say, numbers don't exist it would be a bad from of reasoning" to ask for proof of such an assertion. HARDLY. If you make an assertion you back it up with evidence. that's just the bottom line. And I do not agree. You simply refuse to acknowledge that empiricism does not allow for an absolute positive nor an absolute negative to be proven. PERIOD.
@AR333 "a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist". I hope you agree, yes?" Not only do I not agree you simply just ignore anything I say. You just keep repeating over and over it's a bad idea. But all you've done is demonstrate time after time that you don't WANT me to ask it because empiricism is incapable of doing it. That's not logic that irrational attachment to a method that simply has limitations.
@AR333 "Let's not be afraid to say we mispoke or we were plainly wrong." There's some irony. You tell me it's a fallacy to ask for proof of non existence then admit it's not really a fallacy and I'm supposed to admit I was plainly wrong? How about we begin with the obvious empiricism can absolutely prove neither a general negative NOR a general positive. As I said you ASSUME the existence of things are a given and the non existence is not.
@AR333 "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods" Lets begin with the obvious, Are you saying you don't demand empirical evidence for the existence of God?
@AR333 "Lastly, go back to that guy and actually address his point with a RELEVANT counter example." Well lets begin with exactly what that would be? How about this? AS I ALREAY POINTED OUT. There are no married bachelors. Or how about this: There are no living T-Rex. There are no photographs from the 1300 century. Let me guess, these don't count?
@AR333 I find it rather sad that you barge in here and demand that I recant a fallacy that you admit its not even a fallacy. Don't you find it rather sad that you make all these demands of me and then just run away when you realize your accusations simply fall flat? Instead of accusing a person of something next time just ASK them what they mean and say up front: "Hey I don't understand what you saying here." Instead of "Hey your stupid. Don't you know your wrong."
@mike10121996 I find sad that you likely tried finding such a quote, failed, and now cannot do anything but try to change the topic and squiggle out of it. You made a false claim. Have the intellectual honest to be able to say "I was wrong".
You wrote: "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false."
@AR333 "You wrote: "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false." Back this up or fess up." Im sorry your responses have been marked as spam. I'll answer your question if you simply answer mine. Are you saying Atheist do not demand evidence for the existence of God?
@mike10121996 Hey, I don't understand what you are saying here "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Are you insinuating there are causes that are not natural? Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"? Is acceptance of the "non-natural" without proof a faith based assertion? Unless of course you have proof then I would be very interested in hearing about it.
@ptango101 "Are you insinuating there are causes that are not natural?" HAHHAHAHA! Your hilarious! YOU assert that ALL occurrences that happen in the universe are all caused by natural laws and then, you demand that I prove my "insinuation" When all I did was ASK A QUESTION. That's hilarious. How does that work? Do you get to make assumptions without evidence and if I question them I have to PROVE the opposite is TRUE to even QUESTION you? Learn how logic works. Your assertion your burden.
@mike I'm saying that natural phenomena that happens in the natural realm can essentially be called natural when describing it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? if it makes you feel better I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just provide some sort of evidence that this is a true or false statement. Do you have a problem with that. Your asinine example of the oracle of Delphi is pathetic in the fact we can't prove it one way or the other after such a long time. learn how logic works!
@ptango101 "Your asinine example of the oracle of Delphi is pathetic in the fact we can't prove it one way or the other after such a long time." Look your the one who claimed that ALL phenomena can be explained by purely natural explanations. That's YOUR claim. The oracle of Delphi is NOT an asinine example, it's precisely relevant. You made a GENERAL knowledge claim, NOT a specific knowledge claim ie: what we can PROVE is that there are natural phenomena explainable by nat laws.
@ptango101 "I'm saying that natural phenomena that happens in the natural realm can essentially be called natural when describing it." Using THAT logic, if a divine being wrote across the sky in flaming letters, "I'm God and here is proof!", you could call that a "natural phenomena" because it happened in the "natural world" Changing what you mean from natural phenomena being purely naturally caused things to mean, anything that occurs in nature is HARDLY a sign of logic.
@mike You whine at me about learning how logic works yet yo consistantly contradict yourself and totslly puss out when it comes to really stating your case. There is nothing logical about a christian philosopher. You are bound by your faith in things that cannot be proved at all. If you have to accept a premise solely on the fact that writtten in the bible then you fail. It just makes you a biased idiot with no idea about what he is discussing. Now that's hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
@ptango101 " Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"?" Sure there are, for example the oracle of delphi was long considered a place for telling the future through supernatural means. Do you have PROOF that it WAS purely natural phenomena? What was it? How do you KNOW that? Can you PROVE the oracle of Delphi was a "purely natural event"? Remember that's YOUR burned of proof not mine. You asserted ALL events are a result of natural laws. Ok prove it.
@ptango101 "Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"?" Once again a blatant demonstration of shifting of the burden of proof. Remember I NEVER asserted there were events that were NON natural. YOU however, DID assert ALL events are the result of natural laws. So I have no burden of proof. I simply QUESTIONED your assertion, and yet once again instead of defending your assertion, you demand that your clam must be true becuz I cannot disprove it. Argument from ignorance.
@ptango101 This is what I repeatedly said to you earlier. You don't understand logic. You make a claim and when I question it, you don't respond with proof. You say, "well do you have evidence I'm wrong?" That's not an argument using logic; that's a fallacy called argument from ignorance. I'm right until you can prove me wrong. Its YOUR assertion I don't have to PROVE anything. It's your assertion NOT MINE. So prove it! Don't shift the burden of proof.
@mike If I make an assertion you can't just get away with "no that's wrong". You have to do a bit better than that. My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong. Surely you know this? Or are you just lying about your credentials and the fact you wasted your time studying philosophy? You don't seem to be grasping the basics. Did you go to a christian school of philosophy? That would explain a lot.
@ptango101 :"My burden of proof is proving the premise." YES exactly! I'm asking you to prove your premise. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm ASKING you for proof that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. I haven't said, "No that's not true." I've simply asked for evidence that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. If you can prove that than perhaps i'll counter it. But for now, you haven't even got out of the starting gate. Your premise, your burden of proof.
@ptango101 "My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong. Surely you know this?" 1) so would that mean that when a thiest says: "God exists", that he must have a reasonable argument and evidence for why God exists. And when an atheist says: "No God does not exist", he has a burden of proof as well. Or is atheism an exception to your rule.
@ptango101 ". Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." 2) I never asserted it WAS wrong. I simply asked you to prove your premise. Perhaps I'll accept it, perhaps I'll disagree. I don't know, since you have presented no evidence that all events are explainable by natural laws. Your ASSUMING that since I question your assertion I must disagree with it. But that does not follow. I may agree or you may convince me. all I'm asking is that you prove your premise, is that Hard?
@ptango101 "My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." that is generally true except that your argument ISN'T you have evidence, its that I WON'T bear the burden of proof to prove you wrong. That is a classic fallacy called arguing from ignorance. Your whole argument so far is that I can't prove you wrong. I have no obligation to engage in a real debate as long as your whole argument is that I can't prove you wrong.
@ptango101 "Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." 3) Moreover I actually HAVE provided evidence AND an argument that you MIGHT indeed be wrong. I provided the oracle of Delphi. Your response? It's so long ago you can't prove anything. Thats simply ignoring evidence against your point saying: Well it MIGHT refute my assertion BUT you can't PROVE IT DOESN'T so I'm still right. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Do atheist just love that fallacy? Why is that?
@mike10121996 Prove to me the oracle at Delphi was a factual person who had supernatural powers. I'm saying that the natural phenomena happen in the natural world by natural means. Even when your god is blamed for some sort of tragedy have you noticed that he uses totally natural means to do it? If you want to give examples of the non-natural go ahead, but back them up with some evidence. What's next? The witch out of snow white.
@ptango101 "Prove to me the oracle at Delphi was a factual person who had supernatural powers." your funny! I'm not the one claiming that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. I'm ASKING YOU to demonstrate how you know the oracle at delphi is a direct result of natural laws. Your response: "Prove to me it wasn't." A classic example of begging the question. Your the one asserting ALL events are explainable by natural laws, NOT ME. Its your claim, your burden of proof.
@mike10121996 "I'm ASKING YOU to demonstrate how you know the oracle at delphi is a direct result of natural laws." Why would I comment on something that has all the credibility of the Easter bunny? Your the one who thinks it was a real oracle, not me. I'm not going to comment on a figment of your imagination.
@ptango101 "Why would I comment on something that has all the credibility of the Easter bunny?" Really? Is that your argument? An argument from ridicule? You made the general claim that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. Ok, here is an event, what natural law explains it? Calling it the "easter bunny" simply ignores the reality that you seemingly cannot prove your assertion true.
@ptango101 "Your the one who thinks it was a real oracle, not me." did I SAY I believed it was a real oracle? No. You said there was no event that could not be explained by natural laws. I provided an event that multiple people in the ancient world considered to be a very viable source of supernatural power. Your argument would be LAUGHED at even in the ancient world. Your arguing with a blatant logical fallacy: ridicule. Aristotle taught about THAT 2400 years ago.
@ptango101 " I'm saying that the natural phenomena happen in the natural world by natural means." Yes, and I'm asking you to prove that assertion is true. Your ASSUMING it's true and then demanding that prove you wrong, an argument from ignorance. Its your assertion its your burden of proof. why do you keep asking ME to defend an assertion I never made? Defend your own assertion. it's really easy.
@ptango101 "If I make an assertion you can't just get away with "no that's wrong"." Why? You just did it with the oracle of delphi? Your argument was that its so long ago it can't be proven. But that doesn't mean it's refuted. Moreover, your assertion is a general knowledge claim about the the past present and the future: ALL events can be explained by natural phenomena. That INCLUDES the oracle of Delphi, that's what ALL means.
@ptango101 Let me se if I can't demonstrate; Your claim is a general knowledge claim ALL Y are X. You assert the Delphi oracle can't be proven one way or another(A =Y, & A might = W OR X) . Well IF that's true, than YOUR claim that ALL y are x is suspect because there is an event(A) that MIGHT demonstrate it wrong(All Y are X). It doesn't mean its wrong, however, it means your claim ALL Y are X is not absolutely true. The more events I can name that are questionable, the more suspect it is.
@ptango101 At best your logic can say: Some Y are X. It is unknown if ALL Y are X. You have good evidence to think that many Y are X. Probably even most Y are X. But a general knowledge claim of ALL y are x is, by your own admission, impossible. Inductive reasoning simply cannot insure a universal claim. It can HINT at it, but inductive reasoning is not capable of providing an absolutely irrefutable general knowledge claim
@mike10121996 Don't you think it's a reasonable conclusion to say the natural world is caused by natural phenomena? Science as we know it is relatively young. Each discovery adds to an exponentially expanding knowledge base. When has there ever been a discovery that would point to the super, un or non-natural cause? You seem to be saying the lack of evidence is the evidence because we haven't found it yet. I don't think that's how it works.
@ptango101 "Don't you think it's a reasonable conclusion to say the natural world is caused by natural phenomena?" That's what we are talking about. I want to know how you know thats true. Your ASSUMING its true, but you haven't provided me ANY evidence that it IS true. This is close to an argument, but your asking me to reach a conclusion that you call reasonable, but you have provided no evidence for. Prove it. that's all im' asking.
@mike10121996 We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world. This is shown from the study of the largest objects to the smallest. Do you want me to list all of them or are you happy to agree there is a lot?
@ptango101 "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." FINALLY!!!! Something that resembles an argument!!! HOORAAY!!! Was it really that hard to make an actual argument? This is AT LEAST a start. I'll take another post to analyze the logic of your response.
@ptango101 Your argument is inarticulacy put; but is essentially this: Premise 1 Multiple disciplines have discovered multiple phenomena that can be explained by natural laws. Premise 2 These laws appear universal. Therefore we can surmise that the natural world is a product OF these natural laws. This is the best I could do with the garbled mess you sent me. If its wrong I'm sorry. Essentially this argument does not follow. No words from the conclusion are in the premise.
@ptango101 1) The premise that multiple disciplines have determined there are natural laws that effect the natural world, does not mean therefore that the universe is a result of or caused by natural laws. That simply doesn't logically follow. For one none of the premises mention the cause of the universe. You have a conclusion that has a major term that is NOT mentioned in any premise. That's a logically fallacy.
@mike10121996 I advise you to stop the straw-manning of your opponents.
He does NOT say "many Y are X therefore all Y are X"
You really do not get the point. If you want to be philosophical and technical about it, a naturalist would not say "in the most distant unobservable galaxy, we KNOW (100%) that gravity works". Nobody makes that logical deduction, and frankly it's not the first time you state your opponent's position without carefully considering it.
@AR333 "He does NOT say "many Y are X therefore all Y are X" Look we have been discussing his FIRST assertion which was that all natural phenomena are a result of natural laws. Here is what he said: "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." Notice the CAUSAL language. "We can surmise... because..." this is inference language.
@AR333 "Nobody makes that logical deduction." The phrase "all events can be explained by natural laws." is not a small claim, it is a general knowledge claim. If he was to say as he NOW has said "Most natural phenomena can be explained..." that is profoundly different from "all events are..." which is the language of a general knowledge claim. Period. But here we are, back once again with you... say what you mean and mean what you say.
@mike10121996 Point to me where he said what (I think) you strawmanned. Where did he make the claim "most X are Y therefore ALL X are Y. Show me. Go. And if you don't find it, don't make shit up, and fess up. You already never provided the reference to what I asked earlier when you said atheists demand IRREFUTABLE proof. Now I'm asking for a reference in a conversation YOU HAD with someone. Go.
@AR333 "Where did he make the claim "most X are Y therefore ALL X are Y. Show me." I DID show you right here: "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." The natural word is sufficient explained because we see natural causes in a multitude of disciplines. What do YOU think that means?
@AR333 "You already never provided the reference to what I asked earlier when you said atheists demand IRREFUTABLE proof." I told you I was making an argument and making my case. You simply will NOT answer my question. I asked "do atheist not ask for proof of gods existence?" You have not answered my question, I will CONTINUE with my argument when you DO answer my question. Do atheist ask for proof of Gods existence. Yes or no?
@AR333 Moreover you sill have not answered the question. It's a very simple question. Do atheist ask for proof for God's existence? Yes or no? Why is that so hard? If you answer it I can move on to the next demonstration. But as long as you sit here stonewalling me and refusing to answer my very simple question (which I suspect is because you know that if you DO answer it it will lead towards a demonstration of my point, hence the refusal to answer.)
@AR333 " If you want to be philosophical and technical about it, a naturalist would not say "in the most distant unobservable galaxy, we KNOW (100%) that gravity works"... By the way, isn't this very close to the fallacy: no TRUE scotsman would do that? No naturalist would would make a universal claim based upon empirical evidence? Are you saying its never been done?
Don't shift the topic. YOU SAID "most X are Y therefore all X are Y." YOU SAID THAT. Where does HE say that? Point to me where he said that, or stop caricaturing people's positions.
If you'd get passed this and admit this you might actually learn something about naturalism, because everything you say about it is a caricature. You either care to be serious about this or you don't. Where did he make that argument about all X are Y? Where?
@AR333 "Point to me where he said that, or stop caricaturing people's positions." If you cannot see that this statement: " We CAN SURMISE that the natural world is a product of natural causes BECAUSE time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." is the same as All X= Y BECAUSE most X are Y. I cannot help you. This is NOT a characterization. You tell me what that means?
@AR333 "We can surmise..." What? What can we surmise? We can surmise that the everything that happens in the natural world is a result of natural laws. WHY? Why can we surmise that? BECAUSE there are several disciplines that find this to be true, namely that there are events that can be ascribed to natural LAWS. Therefore X=Y BECAUSE most X=Y. Now if he wants to RECANT this statement, as he already HAS, fine but don't say Im characterizing him position when he CLEARLY says it.
@AR333 What's really frightening is that I've copied and pasted HIS statement numerous times for you and you just keep ignoring it. If it doesn't SAY: We know this is true because of this. What IS it saying? Not what you think he MEANS, but what the statement SAYS. I can't know what he MEANS I can only read what he writes. You tell me what that statement says. What is it saying?
@mike10121996 I read all of what you said to him, and I understand his position. You don't. His position isn't a "general knowledge claim". He DOES NOT say "most X are Y therefore all X are Y"
You say you've copy pasted really???? Really?? Where? Paste where he says that. Make your next reply to me a copy-paste of where he says that. It shouldn't be hard if you're "repeatedly done it".
@AR333 "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenome
Craig can use science and logic to quite good effect but I think he falters when he must describe God as a timeless, necessary, self existent being and then expect it to fall in with rational science. This is a result from conjecture of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and makes no scientific attempt to explain how such a being might exist. While he rationally criticises of the atheists proposed use of the infinite, he refutes it with an infinite being.
deadlyrhythm 6 days ago
I don't like how Craig starts out with "We haven't heard any evidence against the existence of God", as that is not evidence in favor of it. However, I appreciate his philosophical ideas, and this is where he beats Wolpert in my opinion. Wolpert cannot accept the idea of transendence, thus he concludes his beliefs on the origin of the universe with "we don't know." I DO appreciate Wolpert's honesty, as this is something most Christian apologists won't say when they should.
jerrygord3131 1 week ago
One wonders how WLC would have turned out if he were raised in the Middle East or India during his formative teenage years. Odd how belief in god & one's eternal after-life is determined by their location of birth.
utubepunk 1 week ago
Superb. Wolpert decimated through his lack of a cohesive argument and insistence on ridiculous illustrations. Embarrassing.
tenbear5 3 months ago
@tenbear5 Dr. Wolpert kept on arguing for Dr. Craig. YouTube user suvarenee has a video: Faith is not evidence, but this is Wolpert's point repeated over and over that faith is evidence, that people who pray and believe live longer and healthier lives as a whole. The first 16 years of my Christian walk I for the most part attended church. We got taught how to love with a pure motive. How diaboloical.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
I enjoyed the last bit by WLC. He wants everyone to get to know God and His son. That's right. A saviour deity who sacrificed himself to appease himself and redeem only those who drink of his blood whilst sending all those who don't into everlasting torture in a blazing fire. It's hard to summarise Christianity without making it sound like a total joke.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist especially when you dont know what your talking about.....
treasureinthesnow217 1 month ago
@nyscholartist I guess you're not a Jew either? There is no word in the Bible for what you're referring to about everlasting torture. The Hebrew words mistranslated for hell (Greek to English) are Hades, Sheol & Gehenna. Jesus as a Jewish Rabbi and supporter of Moses would hold to the Hebrew doctrine of eternal life not torture. Chist's message to man only varies from the Hebrew point of an eye for an eye to "Love your enemies, and do good for them that hate you". Hardly eternal suffering.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 No, I'm not Jewish. Even if you conveniently remove the bit about eternal torture, that doesn't help your case much. The doctrine of original sin is equally preposterous. Anyway, I think that it's possible to have a conception of God without all of the irrationalities and barbarities of the monotheisms.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@nyscholartist If you "conviently" remove that part from yourself that makes you prejudice and anti-semetic, you'd be on my side.
The "case" for Christianity is the case for loving people as much as yourself from a pure heart with true motives. Everything else is religious junk. I'm not adherent to sin of any type, original or otherwise. We have due process of law today, let's keep it that way. You'll really like this video: dfpolis #15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 So saying that the Bible teaches that hell is eternal is anti-Semitic? In the English translation, Jesus says more than once in the Gospels, "Depart into the eternal fire ..." Go tell the translators about their anti-Semitism, not me. What you cite cannot serve as part of a case for Christianity. That is one of the formulations of the Golden Rule, which can be found in the Analects of Confucius, long before Jesus lived.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@nyscholartist Probably the word Gehenna. Hell isn't a word in the Bible. Jesus teaching on hell by Tentmaker is a good resource for the point I was trying to make. It's an image problem put in our brains from Dante's inferno. The meaning of words change over time. For centuries the word evolution meant 'the unraveling of a scroll' very much the same word as creation. Sounds like Confuscious had it all together, maybe if he was resurrected we never would have heard of Jesus? Only Love.
shizzleman8 1 month ago
@shizzleman8 My idea of God is that of a postulate of practical reason in the Kantian sense. Thanks for the video suggestion.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
Good Lordess. WLC appeals to his personal experience of Jesus? Well, guess what, I have a Turkish Muslim friend who asked the big questions about life and began to read the Qur'an and became captivated by the story of Muhammad's life. The Qur'an is more historically reliable than the New Testament because there is NO gap between the events and the time of their recording and description. Then my friend felt an infusion of joy with the presence of God in his life. Therefore Islam is the truth.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
Does WLC even know that Kant destroyed the ontological argument (as well as the cosmological argument based on it) centuries ago? The fallacy is that it takes existence as a predicate. So there is no necessity for the existence of this being known as God. WLC is a philosopher from kindergarten.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist spot on
PhilipLeSec 3 months ago
Is it just me, or did they both miss the point of Bertrand Russell's teapot?
rudegar20 3 months ago
Comment removed
Joel02sam 4 months ago
Comment removed
Joel02sam 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joel02sam Science isn´t something that can confirmed that God does not exist, take for example some of the most important science people of all the time: Isaac Newton, Pascal, Nicholas Copernicus, Kepler,Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and more… On the other hand the Bible has a long list of scientific information written before they were discovered by the modern science, such as: The First Law of Thermodynamics, states that the energy is not created or destroyed, the Bible says
Joel02sam 4 months ago
@Joel02sam exhausting its fuel leading towards cooling ,people are slowly living out their life spans , stars like the sun will eventually burn out ,a light bulb will eventually burn out , A top slowly looses it energy.The earths Magnetic force is slowly being lost.The earths Gravity is slowly being lost . The bible says: heb. 1:10 “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Joel02sam 4 months ago
@Joel02sam The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. You see, Jesus is God, therefore he is eternal and since he sustints all things; things can not be destroyed. This bring us to the second law of thermodynamics, known as Law of Entropy, Entropy is the amount of disorder within a system, for example: slowing--cooling-- exhaustion of Natural processes, The earth is slowly, slowing down ,the sun is slowly
Joel02sam 4 months ago
They will perish, but you remain they will all wear out like a garment.
Joel02sam 4 months ago
Comment removed
Joel02sam 4 months ago
Lewis Wolpert has positive note for atheist God would mind me taking his side and being friends
stevalianarbone 5 months ago
I didn't notice any different when I came to believe in God, but all my mates did.
stevalianarbone 5 months ago
One Love so far William Lane Craig thinks he is a kangaroo!
stevalianarbone 5 months ago
One Love
stevalianarbone 5 months ago
Parts where Wilian Lane Craig talk have less views. HAVE SOME EVIDENCE THERE!
Cisser 5 months ago
@Cisser Well, once you've seen one WLC debate, you've seen them all.
wownov83 5 months ago
The dishonesty of this man is staggering. He knows exactly what the tea pot analogy represents. What evidence has he presented that isn't fallacious and relies on personal experience? If his opponent used those sort of tactics he would pounce on them. His little sermon at the end is proof positive he has no real testable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence of anything.
Is the supernatural really a better explanation for anything at all?
ptango101 5 months ago
If anyone is reading this comment section and wants to review an interesting case of the common Internet user, I would recommend reading the comments of Mike below me.
I'm not making fun of his beliefs, but I claim the right to ridicule the Kent Hovinds of this world, who read nothing or very little, yet parade around in whatever forum they find as if they have done the relevant research.
His misunderstandings include the naturalist position, atheism, David Hume, and the negative proof fallacy
AR333 6 months ago
"You are convinced I don't understand logic"
No I'm not, that's not even what this is about. Do I actually have to recap?
You said: Atheists demand irrefutable proof.
References given: none.
Attempt to backpeddle: they want evidence, see? They want proof!
^ No, evidence does not mean proof.
Irrefutable proof (logical proof) is not demanded by ANY of the new atheists, so stop lying through your teeth, you idiot who hasn't read a goddamn book.
AR333 6 months ago
As we listen to WLC's testimony, let's not forget the real meaning of God having "given" (4:29) his son. In the gospel, it means literal blood atonement--torture and death as payment for sin. And the entire concept of blood sacrifice for atonement is straight out of ancient Judaism. If that's your thing, go for it. I prefer to think we've moved on.
drumrnva 6 months ago
SO Jesus rose from the dead therefore it's a miracle and evidence for god??? WTF! The christian tendency to infer that the supernatural is somehow a good example for the natural is stupidity incarnate. Whatever happens in the natural world is a natural phenomena. What measurement do we use to test the supernatural. It falls into the same category as faith. When you get to the heart of the argument it means absolutely nothing.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Whatever happens in the natural world is a natural phenomena." Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena? Or is THAT a faith statement? BTW saying: X can be explained by a "naturalist understanding" is profoundly different than demonstration that a supernatural explanation is impossible. Your argument that the supernatural doesn't happen begs the question of HOW it does happen.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 First define the supernatural and then tell what reference point you use to measure the super natural as being true or false?
ptango101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 "First define the supernatural and then tell what reference point you use to measure the super natural as being true or false?" first, you were the one who used the term "Supernatural" NOT me. I mean it in the same manner you do. Second, you ignored my question, do you have evidence everything is always caused by only natural explanations?
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mike10121996 I'm not ignoring your question. I just want to see where you are coming from. What are you getting at with "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Personally I don't. Given enough time and resources natural explanations seem to always be the best. Do you have any evidence that there is another type of credible explanation? Natural phenomena is just that; NATURAL.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 " "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Personally I don't. Given enough time and resources natural explanations seem to always be the best." By the way, for some reason THIS response was marked as spam and I did not see it until just now. It would have profoundly altered the way I was responding to you for the last few days. I apologize I did not see this statement. It makes a marked difference.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 So after a week of going back and forth, making a video clarifying my point and stating my position over and over again my position is tenable?
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 Yes, the position that many events can be explained by natural laws, is certain tenable. but that premise invalidates nothing nor does it insure materialism is true. It simply states that many events are sufficiently explained by natural laws. ie I dropped a spoon, the law of gravity is sufficient to explain that. The oracle of delphi or the resurrection of Jesus of Naz. simply cannot be sufficiently explained. Ok. your claim is sufficiently limited to a reasonable scope.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Do you understand why your comment got marked as spam? (not me, by the way) You are doing that typical christian tactic of well if you haven't got an example of every possible instance of what you are saying is true then the possibility that the statement is not true could be still out there. It's a pity that you don't apply that to your own arguments and save yourself a lot of wasted effort. There comes a time where the point becomes moot
ptango101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 "if you haven't got an example of every possible instance of what you are saying is true'" Wow is inductive vs deductive reasoning really that hard? In inductive reasoning a general truth claim can never be insured neither positive nor negative. This has NOTHING to do with God this is about logic. Induction is a method that is simply incapable of giving us absolute concerning general truth claims. Deductive arguments however CAN.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 " It's a pity that you don't apply that to your own arguments..." Of course it applies to theist's arguments. Theists could be wrong, just like you could be wrong. My point is that the assertion "You can't prove a negative." Is ONLY true of general truth claims using inductive arguments. More over if you can't prove a negative you ALSO can't prove a positive general truth claim using inductive reasoning. Why is this so hard to understand? Induction is limited.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 Both you an Ar33 demand that all people agree with you that since induction is incapable of proving a general negative claim therefor ALL general negative claims are impossible to prove. But does that logically follow? Your leaving out the whole other half of reasoning: deduction. Then you demand that I do the same? In what world does this pass as logic? It's not; it's an atheist talking point. It's NOT logic, NOT reason, and certainly not rational. POLEMICS!
mike10121996 6 months ago
"Do you or do you not understand the fallacy in that?" No. There is no fallacy, it is simply an assertion that if a person asserts something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion. If I say no blue swans exist. I have the burden of proof. If you cannot prove a universal negative why do you think you CAN prove a universal positive?
mike10121996 6 months ago
"Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy"
No but you telling the atheist "where is the evidence blue swans DONT EXIST" (replace blue swan with god) is a fallacy.
Simply, right?
AR333 6 months ago
I'm terribly sorry I'm terribly sorry I'm terribly sorry lol just stop it, your arguments were in fact terrible, that's why you looked like a child next to Craig
signofthehammer 7 months ago
I cannot believe how Dr Craig says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" then immediately proceeds to use this very argument against the existence of flying teapots and noone picks up on this, in fact they applaud him for it.
sonicBlue00 8 months ago
@sonicBlue00 Hmmm . . . . I believe you are right! My goodness! I believe Dr. Craig said that we have positive evidence that no such piece of China is in orbit, but he never actually gave an example. He only gave examples of lack of evidence. hmmm . . .
lawrenca333 8 months ago 2
@lawrenca333 "He only gave examples of lack of evidence." Really? He doesn't have good evidence that he's a human and not a kangaroo? That's stupid?
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and a great admirer of Dr. Craig. Perhaps I simply lack the sophistication to fully understand his argument, but it seems to me that regarding the teapot, he cites lack of evidence as evidence that the teapot is not in fact there. You will notice that I was not criticizing WLC's statement on his being a kangaroo, but only on his statement regarding the teapot. Please think about the truth of something before calling a fellow Christian stupid.
lawrenca333 7 months ago
@lawrenca333 "but only on his statement regarding the teapot." We know what HAS been shot into space and have good reason to think that a china cup was NOT taken into space and left by us. We have good reasons to suppose that IF aliens exist they would not deposit tea pots in our atmosphere, as a tea pot is a known human invention with human purposes. Supposing aliens might have, presupposes alien tea, drink, ability to make china, use of pots ect.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenca333 "but only on his statement regarding the teapot." An alien would have no reason to deposit a human drinking mechanism in our atmosphere. Of course I don't KNOW aliens didn't but I have perfectly good reasons to presume they did not. In other words I have solid reasons for the negative assertion. I don't simply lack evidence in floating tea pots. I have solid reasons to the contrary.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenca333 "Please think about the truth of something before calling a fellow Christian stupid." to clarify, I was not calling you stupid I was saying that there is no good evidence that he is not a kangaroo is a stupid assertion. Now that I know you are only referring to the tea pot I understand. My apologies. The main point is that atheist love to cite that they only "lack belief"; this is designed to alleviate them of any burden of proof.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenca333 "he cites lack of evidence as evidence that the teapot is not in fact there." This is a debate format that simply does not allow for complete enumeration. A written response would be more through but difficult to wade through. He provided an example by the kangaroo and allows you the thinker to provide the rest for the teapot, having given a sufficient train of thought. Are you saying you can't come up with a good reason there's NOT a teapot floating above earth?
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 The point is that WLC and yourself appear to cite lack of evidence for the existence of the teapot as evidence of its absence. Saying, "there is no record of us having launched one into space", is merely absence of evidence, and while there may not be any good reason to believe a teapot is in orbit, doesn't mean there isn't one. There must be a positive case for the non-existence of the teapot and I unashamedly admit that I do not see that case being made by either you or WLC.
lawrenceau333 7 months ago
@lawrenceau333 " "there is no record of us having launched one into space"Ok I see the problem, shuttle launches have packing lists. In that case a packing list demonstrates what did and what did not go on the launch. In that case the list is evidence of what did go up and also evidence of what did not go up. The packing list confirms what did and did not go on. That's what a packing list DOES by purpose. COULD one have snuck on? It's possible.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenceau333 Shuttle tea pot cont... But the purpose of the packing list is to determine what does or does not go on the shuttle. Did my 56 chevy go up? The packing list is used to confirm and deny what did or did not go up. That's what it does. If it can not be used for what DIDN'T go up, why is it reliable for what DID go up? From that pespective the packing list IS the evidence that a tea pot did not go up into space. Is it ABSOLUTE evidence? No. But is it evidence? Yes.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenceau333 "existence of the teapot as evidence of its absence." Heres the big problem with using absence of evidence AS evidence. It presupposes that knowledge is perfect. That if we cannot prove something or have something as evidence, that it occurred THAT is evidence that it DID NOT occur. What physical evidence do we have that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC? NONE. ONLY eyewitness testimony, that's a question of testimony not evidence. Knife, tunic, blood, finger prints.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenceau333 If I was accused of making a call on my cell phone at 9:30 pm in a court case my lawyer would use my cell phone record as evidence in a court hearing that I did NOT make the call. If that phone list is NOT evidence of what phone calls were not made from that cell, why is it evidence for the call's I DID make from the cell phone? Packing list, cell phone call, no difference. An official list of what did or did not happen. It is evidence something didn't happen.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@lawrenceau333 The huge problem here is that you seem to believe that proving a negative is impossible. This is simply atheist polemics. We do it all the time. When you were 9 and your sibling accused you of breaking moms X didn't you argue that you didn't do it? If proving a negative is impossible than ALL such arguments end in failure. All accusations should end in convictions. But proving a negative is possible. We do it all the time.
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 You demonstrate that you did not do something by providing evidence that someone else DID. With a positive claim, not by proving a negative.
kelarael 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelarael "You demonstrate that you did not do something by providing evidence that someone else DID." That is truly crazy. A man in Hong Kong is murdered tonight. The police come to my door and accuse me. I can't say. I was in Indiana last night I wasn't in hong kong, AND THAT ISN'T ENOUGH. I have to prove who DID murder the man? Is that seriously what your asserting?
mike10121996 7 months ago
@mike10121996 You misunderstand what the fallacy actually is. If I say prove to me there is no car in my garage, you could do that. But you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims. So if I say "prove to me there are no blue swans", that you CANNOT do. You may be familiar with the problem of induction, i.e. that 1, 2, ... N white swans, but then we discover a black one. In the context of arguing for god, it is a fallacy to say "prove to me there are no gods"
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "You misunderstand what the fallacy actually is." Clearly YOU misunderstand what it is. A fallacy is an argument that on face value APPEARS to be a valid argument but is not; on close inspection it is fallacious. Not being able to absolutely prove an assertion is NOT a FALLACY. It simply remains an assertion that is NOT absolutely proven. Assertions that are not absolutely proven are just that. Why is logic soooo hard?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 " But you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims." Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy. Its' simply an assertion that is not proven, that's all. A fallacy is an argument that appears valid but is not. For example: Blue swans do not exist BECAUSE I don't have a red car. THAT is a fallacious argument. But "Blue swans don't exist" is an unproven assertion nothing more.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Let me rephrase my short answer from earlier. You are not even realizing what you are saying when you write:
Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy.
^This is MY position, Mike, not yours. WLC says "if I believe in blue swans, and there is no evidence for it, the nonbeliever has to provide positive evidence for *no blue swans*"
Do you or do you not understand the fallacy in that?
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "You are not even realizing what you are saying when you write:" I understand perfectly what I am saying. A fallacy is an argument that looks valid but is not. It has NOTHING to do with an assertion lacking evidence. That's just ignorance on your part. A fallacy is NOT an assertion that cannot be proven true. It simply isn't. Your not wrong because your arguing with me your wrong because THATS NOT WHAT A FALLACY IS.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 First off when I wrote you do not even realize what you write, read it in context. It was about your blue swan line, which I directly quoted. Second I never said that if one makes a fallacy they are therefore wrong. Third, I am saying **there is a fallacy in** asking for proof of no blue swans. Fourth, if you knew how to read carefully, you would have saved me the trouble of repeating everything I wrote earlier.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "you should remember that the fallacy is most apparent in existential claims." A direct quote from you. WHAT FALLACY? There is no fallacy of unproven existential claims. Its simply a claim that is unproven. Why is that SO hard to understand? A fallacy is an argument that appears valid but upon close inspection it is not. PERIOD. There is no fallacy of "apparent existential claims" look it up. Doesn't exist.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "It was about your blue swan line" The blue swan line was YOUR argument not mine. My only comment is that an assertion that isn't absolutely proven isn't fallacious, it's simply unproven. There is NO fallacy.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 " I never said that if one makes a fallacy they are therefore wrong." I never said you did. I said an assertion that is not absolutely proven is NOT a fallacious argument. I never said you said it was wrong. Considering you accusing me of not reading YOUR assertions you should please do that same. I never said you said that. I simply pointed out an assertion that is not absolutely proven is not a fallacy. Period.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "Third, I am saying **there is a fallacy in** asking for proof of no blue swans." Ok whats the name of the fallacy? In logic fallacies have terms ie: Argument from ignorance, no true scotsman. Ect. What is the name of the fallacy your saying IS indeed a fallacy? AR333's fallacy? Please I wait in eager anticipation for the name of the fallacy of asking for evidence for a negative assertion.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "The huge problem here is that you seem to believe that proving a negative is impossible. This is simply atheist polemics."
Proving a negative is impossible if its a general existential claim. ALL the examples you gave were specifics. Do you get that or not?
Later you wrote "Because I cannot prove blue swans do not exist does not mean my assertion that they do not exist is a fallacy" This contradicts your first claim. You indeed can't prove that there are no blue swans.
QED
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "You indeed can't prove that there are no blue swans." Thats only true if you demand absolute irrefutable evidence something doest exist. If that is the case you cant provide absolute irrefutable evidence ANYTHING exists at all. You seem to ASSUME that the existence of things is a given, but the non existence of things isn't. If its questionable they don't exist, why isn't it questionable that anything does?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "ALL the examples you gave were specifics. Do you get that or not?" Once again though you've qualified the assertion. So it's not REALLY impossible to prove ANY negative only a negative thats a general negative derived from an inductive negative. THAT I would agree with, but thats PROFOUNDLY different than saying: "You can't prove a negative." You can't prove a universal negative FROM a specific negative. That's logical. But thats NOT what was asserted.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "THAT I would agree with, but thats PROFOUNDLY different than saying: "You can't prove a negative.""
Hey Mr. trying to slip away from what you said. Do you know what you said to the guy you were arguing against? Go Back and read it, because before I decided to write to you, I read what you were saying IN CONTEXT. When you said to that guy the example of breaking Mom's X, that's EXACTLY parallel to the blue swans, so don't try to make it seem like I am changing subjects.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "breaking Mom's X, that's EXACTLY parallel to the blue swans," Actually that is NOT an exact parallel to blue swans, once again under you own admission: Me breaking moms X is not a universal existential claim, such as there are no blue swans. One is a specific negative, another is a universal existential negative. So it's NOT an exact parallel, it's merely a comparative parallel between specific negative and an universal negative.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 That's not what I meant by parallel. I've said multiple times that that one was specific, and the existential.
What I meant by parallel was that the swan example parallel's your breaking mom's x / phone calls as far as that induction crap you were talking about. You tried saying the fallacy is atheist polemic using bad examples. Later on: "yeah if its for induction, that I agree with" - well, when atheists talk about negative proof being a fallacy, THATS WHAT THEY MEAN
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 " That's not what I meant by parallel." It's not my fault that you are not specific enough in what you mean. Moreover your constant vacillating makes it so I'M confused now exactly what your even trying to say. Are you saying a specific negation (breaking moms X) is a the same as a general negation (blue swans)? Are you saying a specific negation is NOT the same as a universal. Because if THAT's what you saying I pointed that out.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "calls as far as that induction crap you were talking about. " But it DOESN'T parallel breaking moms X. That was my point. The non existence of a blue swan is a universal general negations (which you say cannot be proven) While me NOT breaking moms X is a specific negation(which you agree CAN be done). They only parallel each other in that ones an example of a specific negation and ones an example of a universal negation. No other parallel.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "You tried saying the fallacy is atheist polemic using bad examples." Its not a bad example when the claim is that: "You can't prove a negative." That atheists MEAN you cannot prove a universal negative using inductive evidence isn't my fault. That YOU (meaning atheists) cannot/ will not specify your language clearly enough to make the distinction is either deliberate misrepresentation OR complete ignorance. Neither is my fault.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "well, when atheists talk about negative proof being a fallacy, THATS WHAT THEY MEAN" Yes, but that is PROFOUNDLY different than: "You can't prove a negative." More over it ONLY a fallacy if you TRY to use inductive evidence to prove a general negative. It's not a fallacy to ASK for proof for a general negative, You just CAN'T use empirical evidence to demonstrate an absolute irrefutable negative. Once again, a limitation of science ISN'T a logical impossibility.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "Later on: "yeah if its for induction, that I agree with"" I have never changed my position. What you seem to be unable to realize is that science ISN'T logic. Science USES logic but it ISN'T logic. Because empiricism is unable to do something it does not follow that it therefore cannot be done. It's just a limitation of inductive reasoning. Your wining about what empiricism can't do and the demanding that my request for ANY evidence inductive / otherwise is a fallacy. Not true.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 Moreover, i'v never demanded ANY evidence for anything. This whole conversation is based upon the assertion that "You can't prove a negative." I've demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative. Moreover, I contend that its atheistic polemics that it CANNOT be done. It can be done, you just have to use other methods OTHER than empirical induction which of course CANNOT be allowed, purely for atheist polemical purposes.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "I've demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative."
Let me repeat everything I said to you again. I read what you said IN CONTEXT to the other user. You told him he is using polemics. What did HE MEAN? *He DID mean induction*, you knew he meant induction, hence your examples. But your examples were misleading because they were specific.
You've been backpeddling ever since the blue swan line. Now you say its logic. It wasn't logic back then, it was empirics.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "you knew he meant induction, hence your examples." No I had no idea he ONLY meant induction. What are you a mind reader that you can tell me what I knew? He said clearly you cannot prove a negative. I demonstrated you can indeed prove a negative. That's not back peddling. My point has ALWAYS been that you can prove a negative, you can prove a general negative, just NOT with inductive reasoning.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 I am not back peddling by saying that induction is incapable of reaching a general negative. However, what you seem to ALSO be forgetting is that induction also cannot insure a general positive assertion either. Which I said as well. ie all ants have 6 legs, THAT general inductive argument is not positively assured either, have we studied ALL ants everywhere at all times? Induction is simply incapable of giving us absolute positives OR negatives. Welcome to logic.
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 "You told him he is using polemics." I did NOT say he was using polemics, If you read the whole interaction you would see he said he was a theist. I said the assertion that you cannot prove a negative is simply atheist polemics, and then I demonstrated that indeed it IS possible to prove a negative, hence why it is polemics NOT logic.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 Your argument is that I KNEW he meant inductive reasoning about general claims, and then I used a specific example. Your whole argument hangs on the fact that when a person says "You can't prove a negative" what they mean is you cannot prove a general negative using inductive empirical reasoning. Which if THAT is what you mean, why don't you say that instead of the GENERAL claim that: "You can't prove a negative."? Wouldn't saying what you mean clear it up?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "Wouldn't saying what you mean clear it up?"
It's not necessary when you know its what they mean. If you know the question is "does god exist", and the atheist says we can't prove a negative, why would you not compare like with like?
By giving the examples you did, you didn't show the fallacy is false, you showed you misunderstood his claim. Furthermore, if you read any literature where an atheist brings this up, its explicit from there examples that its existential.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "If you know the question is "does god exist"" Listen, I agree with you that its not possible using empiricism to absolutely prove a negative. You can't prove no unicorns exist, you can't prove no mountains exist. You ALSO cannot prove general positive claims either. You keep ignoring that. Induction ONLY has the ability to hint at general claims it cannot insure it, positive OR negatives. PERIOD.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 your absolutely right but your also wrong. Its not JUST that you can't prove a negative, you also can't prove a positive. Thats the OTHER side of the coin, you don't seem to want to admit. So when an atheist says: You can't prove a negative, SO WHAT?! Induction can't prove a general positive either. That's why this WHOLE thing is nothing but polemics. This isn't REALLY about proving a negative, its about absolving yourself of having a burden of proving a negative.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 The fact of the matter is atheists cannot absolutely prove God does not exist using induction any more than a theist can absolutely prove God DOES exist using induction. BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods existence but then absolve themselves of the burden of proof by saying: You can't prove a negative. But logically induction simply cannot provide EITHER. Thats why this is ALL POLEMICS
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods" <-- Blatant falsehood... Further evidence you do not bother understanding your opponents position.
It's clear to anyone who read your earlier exchange that you did not at the time realize what the fallacy meant. I'm done trying to demonstrate it. And defining each word doesn't help your case. You either know what that fallacy refers to or you don't. Your examples show you didn't.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 " Blatant falsehood" Are you saying that atheist don't demand empirical evidence for God's existence? That's hardly a blatant falsehood. As to a fallacy. You haven't provided me the name of the fallacy that involves proving a negative. You just asserted it is a fallacy. a fallacy is a technical term for an argument that appears valid but is not. not just a term for an argument you don't like. Get a grip.
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mike10121996 Okay let's take this one step at a time: this is what I mean by backpeddling.
THIS: "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods"
IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS: Are you saying that atheist don't demand empirical evidence for God's existence?
Do not even try to squirm out of it, it won't work. I think even you know why those 2 claims are not equivocal.
Provide the references for the first claim.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "I think even you know why those 2 claims are not equivocal." Of course they are not equivocal. I never said they WERE equivocal. However I was building a case or an argument that BEGINS with the premise: Atheist demand empirical evidence for the existence of God. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. So I figured you were gone or out to lunch. Moreover you STILL HAVEN'T answered the question.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "I think even you know why those 2 claims are not equivocal." Of course they are not equivocal. I never said they WERE equivocal. However I was building a case or an argument that BEGINS with the premise: Atheist demand empirical evidence for the existence of God. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION. So I figured you were gone or out to lunch. Moreover you STILL HAVEN'T answered the question.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 ":realize what the fallacy meant." Ha you haven't even told me the name of the fallacy. You just call it a fallacy. You really need to learn how logic works. I'm glad your done you obviously don't understand how logic works. Thanks
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Actually you're right, its not strictly speaking a logical fallacy. It is, however, a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist". I hope you agree, yes? Let's not be afraid to say we mispoke or we were plainly wrong.
Now, back this claim up: ""BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false.
Lastly, go back to that guy and actually address his point with a RELEVANT counter example.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 " It is, however, a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist"" Really, why? If I were to say, numbers don't exist it would be a bad from of reasoning" to ask for proof of such an assertion. HARDLY. If you make an assertion you back it up with evidence. that's just the bottom line. And I do not agree. You simply refuse to acknowledge that empiricism does not allow for an absolute positive nor an absolute negative to be proven. PERIOD.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "a bad form of reasoning to say "prove to me that does not exist". I hope you agree, yes?" Not only do I not agree you simply just ignore anything I say. You just keep repeating over and over it's a bad idea. But all you've done is demonstrate time after time that you don't WANT me to ask it because empiricism is incapable of doing it. That's not logic that irrational attachment to a method that simply has limitations.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "Let's not be afraid to say we mispoke or we were plainly wrong." There's some irony. You tell me it's a fallacy to ask for proof of non existence then admit it's not really a fallacy and I'm supposed to admit I was plainly wrong? How about we begin with the obvious empiricism can absolutely prove neither a general negative NOR a general positive. As I said you ASSUME the existence of things are a given and the non existence is not.
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods" Lets begin with the obvious, Are you saying you don't demand empirical evidence for the existence of God?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "Lastly, go back to that guy and actually address his point with a RELEVANT counter example." Well lets begin with exactly what that would be? How about this? AS I ALREAY POINTED OUT. There are no married bachelors. Or how about this: There are no living T-Rex. There are no photographs from the 1300 century. Let me guess, these don't count?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 I find it rather sad that you barge in here and demand that I recant a fallacy that you admit its not even a fallacy. Don't you find it rather sad that you make all these demands of me and then just run away when you realize your accusations simply fall flat? Instead of accusing a person of something next time just ASK them what they mean and say up front: "Hey I don't understand what you saying here." Instead of "Hey your stupid. Don't you know your wrong."
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mike10121996 I find sad that you likely tried finding such a quote, failed, and now cannot do anything but try to change the topic and squiggle out of it. You made a false claim. Have the intellectual honest to be able to say "I was wrong".
You wrote: "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false."
Back this up or fess up.
AR333 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 "You wrote: "BUT atheist want to demand theist provide absolute irrefutable evidence for Gods", or take it back, because it is false." Back this up or fess up." Im sorry your responses have been marked as spam. I'll answer your question if you simply answer mine. Are you saying Atheist do not demand evidence for the existence of God?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Hey, I don't understand what you are saying here "Do you have evidence that abosolutly every action that occurs in the natural world is a natural phenomena?" Are you insinuating there are causes that are not natural? Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"? Is acceptance of the "non-natural" without proof a faith based assertion? Unless of course you have proof then I would be very interested in hearing about it.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Are you insinuating there are causes that are not natural?" HAHHAHAHA! Your hilarious! YOU assert that ALL occurrences that happen in the universe are all caused by natural laws and then, you demand that I prove my "insinuation" When all I did was ASK A QUESTION. That's hilarious. How does that work? Do you get to make assumptions without evidence and if I question them I have to PROVE the opposite is TRUE to even QUESTION you? Learn how logic works. Your assertion your burden.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike I'm saying that natural phenomena that happens in the natural realm can essentially be called natural when describing it. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? if it makes you feel better I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just provide some sort of evidence that this is a true or false statement. Do you have a problem with that. Your asinine example of the oracle of Delphi is pathetic in the fact we can't prove it one way or the other after such a long time. learn how logic works!
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Your asinine example of the oracle of Delphi is pathetic in the fact we can't prove it one way or the other after such a long time." Look your the one who claimed that ALL phenomena can be explained by purely natural explanations. That's YOUR claim. The oracle of Delphi is NOT an asinine example, it's precisely relevant. You made a GENERAL knowledge claim, NOT a specific knowledge claim ie: what we can PROVE is that there are natural phenomena explainable by nat laws.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "I'm saying that natural phenomena that happens in the natural realm can essentially be called natural when describing it." Using THAT logic, if a divine being wrote across the sky in flaming letters, "I'm God and here is proof!", you could call that a "natural phenomena" because it happened in the "natural world" Changing what you mean from natural phenomena being purely naturally caused things to mean, anything that occurs in nature is HARDLY a sign of logic.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike You whine at me about learning how logic works yet yo consistantly contradict yourself and totslly puss out when it comes to really stating your case. There is nothing logical about a christian philosopher. You are bound by your faith in things that cannot be proved at all. If you have to accept a premise solely on the fact that writtten in the bible then you fail. It just makes you a biased idiot with no idea about what he is discussing. Now that's hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 " Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"?" Sure there are, for example the oracle of delphi was long considered a place for telling the future through supernatural means. Do you have PROOF that it WAS purely natural phenomena? What was it? How do you KNOW that? Can you PROVE the oracle of Delphi was a "purely natural event"? Remember that's YOUR burned of proof not mine. You asserted ALL events are a result of natural laws. Ok prove it.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Do you have any proof of something occurring "non-naturally"?" Once again a blatant demonstration of shifting of the burden of proof. Remember I NEVER asserted there were events that were NON natural. YOU however, DID assert ALL events are the result of natural laws. So I have no burden of proof. I simply QUESTIONED your assertion, and yet once again instead of defending your assertion, you demand that your clam must be true becuz I cannot disprove it. Argument from ignorance.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 This is what I repeatedly said to you earlier. You don't understand logic. You make a claim and when I question it, you don't respond with proof. You say, "well do you have evidence I'm wrong?" That's not an argument using logic; that's a fallacy called argument from ignorance. I'm right until you can prove me wrong. Its YOUR assertion I don't have to PROVE anything. It's your assertion NOT MINE. So prove it! Don't shift the burden of proof.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike If I make an assertion you can't just get away with "no that's wrong". You have to do a bit better than that. My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong. Surely you know this? Or are you just lying about your credentials and the fact you wasted your time studying philosophy? You don't seem to be grasping the basics. Did you go to a christian school of philosophy? That would explain a lot.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 :"My burden of proof is proving the premise." YES exactly! I'm asking you to prove your premise. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm ASKING you for proof that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. I haven't said, "No that's not true." I've simply asked for evidence that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. If you can prove that than perhaps i'll counter it. But for now, you haven't even got out of the starting gate. Your premise, your burden of proof.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong. Surely you know this?" 1) so would that mean that when a thiest says: "God exists", that he must have a reasonable argument and evidence for why God exists. And when an atheist says: "No God does not exist", he has a burden of proof as well. Or is atheism an exception to your rule.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 ". Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." 2) I never asserted it WAS wrong. I simply asked you to prove your premise. Perhaps I'll accept it, perhaps I'll disagree. I don't know, since you have presented no evidence that all events are explainable by natural laws. Your ASSUMING that since I question your assertion I must disagree with it. But that does not follow. I may agree or you may convince me. all I'm asking is that you prove your premise, is that Hard?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "My burden of proof is proving the premise. Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." that is generally true except that your argument ISN'T you have evidence, its that I WON'T bear the burden of proof to prove you wrong. That is a classic fallacy called arguing from ignorance. Your whole argument so far is that I can't prove you wrong. I have no obligation to engage in a real debate as long as your whole argument is that I can't prove you wrong.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Yours is expanding on why you think it's wrong." 3) Moreover I actually HAVE provided evidence AND an argument that you MIGHT indeed be wrong. I provided the oracle of Delphi. Your response? It's so long ago you can't prove anything. Thats simply ignoring evidence against your point saying: Well it MIGHT refute my assertion BUT you can't PROVE IT DOESN'T so I'm still right. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Do atheist just love that fallacy? Why is that?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Prove to me the oracle at Delphi was a factual person who had supernatural powers. I'm saying that the natural phenomena happen in the natural world by natural means. Even when your god is blamed for some sort of tragedy have you noticed that he uses totally natural means to do it? If you want to give examples of the non-natural go ahead, but back them up with some evidence. What's next? The witch out of snow white.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Prove to me the oracle at Delphi was a factual person who had supernatural powers." your funny! I'm not the one claiming that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. I'm ASKING YOU to demonstrate how you know the oracle at delphi is a direct result of natural laws. Your response: "Prove to me it wasn't." A classic example of begging the question. Your the one asserting ALL events are explainable by natural laws, NOT ME. Its your claim, your burden of proof.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "I'm ASKING YOU to demonstrate how you know the oracle at delphi is a direct result of natural laws." Why would I comment on something that has all the credibility of the Easter bunny? Your the one who thinks it was a real oracle, not me. I'm not going to comment on a figment of your imagination.
ptango101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 "Why would I comment on something that has all the credibility of the Easter bunny?" Really? Is that your argument? An argument from ridicule? You made the general claim that ALL events are explainable by natural laws. Ok, here is an event, what natural law explains it? Calling it the "easter bunny" simply ignores the reality that you seemingly cannot prove your assertion true.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Your the one who thinks it was a real oracle, not me." did I SAY I believed it was a real oracle? No. You said there was no event that could not be explained by natural laws. I provided an event that multiple people in the ancient world considered to be a very viable source of supernatural power. Your argument would be LAUGHED at even in the ancient world. Your arguing with a blatant logical fallacy: ridicule. Aristotle taught about THAT 2400 years ago.
mike10121996 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 " I'm saying that the natural phenomena happen in the natural world by natural means." Yes, and I'm asking you to prove that assertion is true. Your ASSUMING it's true and then demanding that prove you wrong, an argument from ignorance. Its your assertion its your burden of proof. why do you keep asking ME to defend an assertion I never made? Defend your own assertion. it's really easy.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 "If I make an assertion you can't just get away with "no that's wrong"." Why? You just did it with the oracle of delphi? Your argument was that its so long ago it can't be proven. But that doesn't mean it's refuted. Moreover, your assertion is a general knowledge claim about the the past present and the future: ALL events can be explained by natural phenomena. That INCLUDES the oracle of Delphi, that's what ALL means.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 Let me se if I can't demonstrate; Your claim is a general knowledge claim ALL Y are X. You assert the Delphi oracle can't be proven one way or another(A =Y, & A might = W OR X) . Well IF that's true, than YOUR claim that ALL y are x is suspect because there is an event(A) that MIGHT demonstrate it wrong(All Y are X). It doesn't mean its wrong, however, it means your claim ALL Y are X is not absolutely true. The more events I can name that are questionable, the more suspect it is.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 At best your logic can say: Some Y are X. It is unknown if ALL Y are X. You have good evidence to think that many Y are X. Probably even most Y are X. But a general knowledge claim of ALL y are x is, by your own admission, impossible. Inductive reasoning simply cannot insure a universal claim. It can HINT at it, but inductive reasoning is not capable of providing an absolutely irrefutable general knowledge claim
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Don't you think it's a reasonable conclusion to say the natural world is caused by natural phenomena? Science as we know it is relatively young. Each discovery adds to an exponentially expanding knowledge base. When has there ever been a discovery that would point to the super, un or non-natural cause? You seem to be saying the lack of evidence is the evidence because we haven't found it yet. I don't think that's how it works.
ptango101 6 months ago
@ptango101 "Don't you think it's a reasonable conclusion to say the natural world is caused by natural phenomena?" That's what we are talking about. I want to know how you know thats true. Your ASSUMING its true, but you haven't provided me ANY evidence that it IS true. This is close to an argument, but your asking me to reach a conclusion that you call reasonable, but you have provided no evidence for. Prove it. that's all im' asking.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world. This is shown from the study of the largest objects to the smallest. Do you want me to list all of them or are you happy to agree there is a lot?
ptango101 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ptango101 "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." FINALLY!!!! Something that resembles an argument!!! HOORAAY!!! Was it really that hard to make an actual argument? This is AT LEAST a start. I'll take another post to analyze the logic of your response.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 Your argument is inarticulacy put; but is essentially this: Premise 1 Multiple disciplines have discovered multiple phenomena that can be explained by natural laws. Premise 2 These laws appear universal. Therefore we can surmise that the natural world is a product OF these natural laws. This is the best I could do with the garbled mess you sent me. If its wrong I'm sorry. Essentially this argument does not follow. No words from the conclusion are in the premise.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@ptango101 1) The premise that multiple disciplines have determined there are natural laws that effect the natural world, does not mean therefore that the universe is a result of or caused by natural laws. That simply doesn't logically follow. For one none of the premises mention the cause of the universe. You have a conclusion that has a major term that is NOT mentioned in any premise. That's a logically fallacy.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 I advise you to stop the straw-manning of your opponents.
He does NOT say "many Y are X therefore all Y are X"
You really do not get the point. If you want to be philosophical and technical about it, a naturalist would not say "in the most distant unobservable galaxy, we KNOW (100%) that gravity works". Nobody makes that logical deduction, and frankly it's not the first time you state your opponent's position without carefully considering it.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "He does NOT say "many Y are X therefore all Y are X" Look we have been discussing his FIRST assertion which was that all natural phenomena are a result of natural laws. Here is what he said: "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." Notice the CAUSAL language. "We can surmise... because..." this is inference language.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "Nobody makes that logical deduction." The phrase "all events can be explained by natural laws." is not a small claim, it is a general knowledge claim. If he was to say as he NOW has said "Most natural phenomena can be explained..." that is profoundly different from "all events are..." which is the language of a general knowledge claim. Period. But here we are, back once again with you... say what you mean and mean what you say.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 Point to me where he said what (I think) you strawmanned. Where did he make the claim "most X are Y therefore ALL X are Y. Show me. Go. And if you don't find it, don't make shit up, and fess up. You already never provided the reference to what I asked earlier when you said atheists demand IRREFUTABLE proof. Now I'm asking for a reference in a conversation YOU HAD with someone. Go.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 "Where did he make the claim "most X are Y therefore ALL X are Y. Show me." I DID show you right here: "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." The natural word is sufficient explained because we see natural causes in a multitude of disciplines. What do YOU think that means?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "You already never provided the reference to what I asked earlier when you said atheists demand IRREFUTABLE proof." I told you I was making an argument and making my case. You simply will NOT answer my question. I asked "do atheist not ask for proof of gods existence?" You have not answered my question, I will CONTINUE with my argument when you DO answer my question. Do atheist ask for proof of Gods existence. Yes or no?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 Moreover you sill have not answered the question. It's a very simple question. Do atheist ask for proof for God's existence? Yes or no? Why is that so hard? If you answer it I can move on to the next demonstration. But as long as you sit here stonewalling me and refusing to answer my very simple question (which I suspect is because you know that if you DO answer it it will lead towards a demonstration of my point, hence the refusal to answer.)
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 " If you want to be philosophical and technical about it, a naturalist would not say "in the most distant unobservable galaxy, we KNOW (100%) that gravity works"... By the way, isn't this very close to the fallacy: no TRUE scotsman would do that? No naturalist would would make a universal claim based upon empirical evidence? Are you saying its never been done?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 "Are you saying its never been done?"
Don't shift the topic. YOU SAID "most X are Y therefore all X are Y." YOU SAID THAT. Where does HE say that? Point to me where he said that, or stop caricaturing people's positions.
If you'd get passed this and admit this you might actually learn something about naturalism, because everything you say about it is a caricature. You either care to be serious about this or you don't. Where did he make that argument about all X are Y? Where?
AR333 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 "Point to me where he said that, or stop caricaturing people's positions." If you cannot see that this statement: " We CAN SURMISE that the natural world is a product of natural causes BECAUSE time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenomena in the natural world." is the same as All X= Y BECAUSE most X are Y. I cannot help you. This is NOT a characterization. You tell me what that means?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 "We can surmise..." What? What can we surmise? We can surmise that the everything that happens in the natural world is a result of natural laws. WHY? Why can we surmise that? BECAUSE there are several disciplines that find this to be true, namely that there are events that can be ascribed to natural LAWS. Therefore X=Y BECAUSE most X=Y. Now if he wants to RECANT this statement, as he already HAS, fine but don't say Im characterizing him position when he CLEARLY says it.
mike10121996 6 months ago
@AR333 What's really frightening is that I've copied and pasted HIS statement numerous times for you and you just keep ignoring it. If it doesn't SAY: We know this is true because of this. What IS it saying? Not what you think he MEANS, but what the statement SAYS. I can't know what he MEANS I can only read what he writes. You tell me what that statement says. What is it saying?
mike10121996 6 months ago
@mike10121996 I read all of what you said to him, and I understand his position. You don't. His position isn't a "general knowledge claim". He DOES NOT say "most X are Y therefore all X are Y"
You say you've copy pasted really???? Really?? Where? Paste where he says that. Make your next reply to me a copy-paste of where he says that. It shouldn't be hard if you're "repeatedly done it".
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333 if you've* repeatedly done it (typo)
AR333 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 "We can surmise that the natural world is a product of natural causes because time and time again this is shown to be true through a multitude of disciplines that study phenome