Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Creating God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
    Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts...
    Prove it. Show me the reasoning and evidence that proves that reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs.

    Go on, I'll wait.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Prove it. Show me the reasoning and evidence that proves that reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs.

      Go on, I'll wait.
      So, how do you come to know truths, MM?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
        So, how do you come to know truths, MM?
        Nope... you're dodging. Show me the logical argument that concludes with "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs" without assuming the conclusion.

        Go!
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Nope... you're dodging. Show me the logical argument that concludes with "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs" without assuming the conclusion.

          Go!
          Actually it's your claim, so explain yourself. How do you conclude that sound reason based upon evidence can't lead to truth? Is that just something you read somewhere and so repeat it, or do you actually understand the "why" of your assertion?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
            How do you conclude that sound reason based upon evidence can't lead to truth?
            Reading comprehension fail. That's not what I said at all.

            Try again, little man, and try not to trip over your own brain this time.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Prove it. Show me the reasoning and evidence that proves that reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs.
              That’s not what I said. Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts, is what I said. Scientific study of the Laws of Physics is one example. OTOH reasoning based upon faith-based beliefs and fictional entities cannot establish verifiable facts.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                That’s not what I said. Reasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts, is what I said.
                And I said prove it, bucko. Show me the argument that concludes with "Therefore, rasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts" without mentally chasing your own tail.

                Let's see what you've got.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And I said prove it, bucko. Show me the argument that concludes with "Therefore, rasoning and evidence can establish verifiable facts" without mentally chasing your own tail.


                  Focus, dear boy: Sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts, e.g. the speed of light and other Laws of Nature.

                  Now, to repeat, YOU show how reasoning based upon faith-based beliefs and fictional entities can establish verifiable facts.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                    Sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts...
                    Prove it.

                    P1: ______________
                    P2: ______________
                    P3:: ______________
                    ...
                    C: Therefore, sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts.

                    You just gotta fill in the premises with a logical argument that doesn't assume the conclusion. You can't do it, can you? Which is why you and Jimmy are doing the Dodge 'em Two-Step Shuffle, because sooner or later, you're going to have to admit that it's a properly basic belief that CAN'T be proven. It would be like trying to use the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method. It literally can not be done.

                    Similarly, the belief that an omnipotent Creator can and would make himself known to His creation is also a properly basic belief upon which the entire discipline of theology is based.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Prove it.

                      Therefore, sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts.

                      You just gotta fill in the premises with a logical argument that doesn't assume the conclusion. You can't do it, can you? Which is why you and Jimmy are doing the Dodge 'em Two-Step Shuffle, because sooner or later, you're going to have to admit that it's a properly basic belief that CAN'T be proven. It would be like trying to use the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method. It literally can not be done.
                      The Laws of Nature are arrived at via sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence; they are demonstrable verified facts.

                      Nobody is setting out to “prove” anything. But, unlike theology, scientific induction can lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that we can act as if they are true...e.g. the speed of light.

                      Similarly, the belief that an omnipotent Creator can and would make himself known to His creation is also a properly basic belief upon which the entire discipline of theology is based.
                      The existence of an omnipotent Creator is not a “properly basic belief”, it’s an unverifiable assumption
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Nope... you're dodging. Show me the logical argument that concludes with "Therefore, reasoning and evidence can lead to true beliefs" without assuming the conclusion.
                        No, you're dodging. Truth to you is obviously whatever you decide it is, and in your case that explains a whole lot.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                          The Laws of Nature are arrived at via sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence; they are demonstrable verified facts.
                          Here is your argument:

                          P1: Sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts.
                          P2: The Laws of Nature are arrived at via sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence.
                          C: Therefore, The Laws of Nature are demonstrable, verifiable facts.

                          See if you can spot the problem.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Here is your argument:

                            P1: Sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence can result in demonstrable, verifiable facts.
                            P2: The Laws of Nature are arrived at via sound reasoning based upon verifiable empirical evidence.
                            C: Therefore, The Laws of Nature are demonstrable, verifiable facts.

                            See if you can spot the problem.
                            There’s no problem, it’s a simple statement of fact. Scientific induction can lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that we can act as if they are true...e.g. the speed of light and other Laws of Nature.

                            Theology cannot do this; it has no means to test its assertions and assumptions.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                              There’s no problem, it’s a simple statement of fact. Scientific induction can lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that we can act as if they are true...e.g. the speed of light and other Laws of Nature.

                              Theology cannot do this; it has no means to test its assertions and assumptions.
                              I assume, then, that you would agree with the assertion that one should reject anything that can not be proven through the scientific method, yes?

                              But ... (and this going to blow your mind) ... the scientific method can not be proven through the scientific method.

                              Therefore, according to your logic, we should reject the scientific method.

                              Oops... now what?
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                I assume, then, that you would agree with the assertion that one should reject anything that can not be proven through the scientific method, yes?

                                But ... (and this going to blow your mind) ... the scientific method can not be proven through the scientific method.

                                Therefore, according to your logic, we should reject the scientific method.

                                Oops... now what?
                                Sigh!

                                As I’ve already said several times, there are no proofs in science, merely scientific induction that can lead to conclusions which have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that we can act as if they are true...to the extent that science can put a man on the moon.

                                OTOH, there are no means to test the assertions and assumptions of theology, merely faith.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X