Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Yup, double standards, continuous fallacies of equivocation (which he seems to not care about because he takes pride in being able to shun any sort of rational thought when an argument puts him under the thumb), semantic juggling, and irrelevant ramblings. Not much to see here, folks. If Incorporeal doesn't want to even attempt to reconcile his beliefs with falsifiable evidence, let him live in his delusional world where all beliefs about the world are equally valid.

 

took ya long enough!

 

It is a tribute to stupidity - and a logical fallacy- to claim "because you can not prove God does not exist, then God must exist"

We can not prove that some planet orbiting the nearest start is "not" made of green cheese but this does not make it true.

The irrefutable fact of the matter is that you have no "irrefutable proof" that the name of God is not Zeus, El, Allah rather than YHWH.

It is truly delusion to think that because something can not be proven to not exist, that that something must exist.

It is also delusion to claim that there is irrefutable evidence that one knows God's name.

 

What an interesting development this is. Please show the post where I said "because you can not prove God does not exist, then God must exist."

Really? Are you sure?

Really? Are you sure?

Who made such a claim and where was the claim made?

Really? Who made such a claim and where?

 

I did not claim that you said this specifically but you make similar claims on a regular basis such as the one in the post I was responding to.

If you think you can prove that a moon orbiting around alpha centauri is not made out of green cheese then do so.

Yes. I am positive that it is a logical fallacy to claim that because something can not be proven untrue that it must be true.

There are millions of examples that prove this, for example: 1000 years ago people could not prove that the world was not flat. This did not make the world flat.

If you think you can give irrefutable proof that God's name is not Allah, then do so.

 

You seem very willing to fall into the trap of believing that because nobody here can irrefutably prove your beliefs to be false, they are valid beliefs to hold.

 

So prove your claim as opposed to just restating a claim. Then prove that the claim you are making is absolutely true. If the proof is not absolutely true, then there is margin for error, and truth does not harbor error.

Did I say that I could?

But you have not revealed who might have made such a claim nor where the claim was made.

That does not prove anything. It is a matter of perspective. At the location where I might be standing, I look across the Earth beneath me and the Earth is flat,,, even in this technological age.

Did I say that I could? BTW: who made such a claim and where was that claim made?

 

Well, you are admitting that you cannot irrefutably prove my beliefs to be in error. If you are (and you have) admitting to that inability then it is only logical for me to conclude that my beliefs are not in error.

 

Actually, that is a logical fallacy... so... no, what you're describing is illogical.

 

I can't prove that you are not a child molester, so where do we go from here?

 

Nope. Just not playin your silly little games. Everyone who reads the bible knows there are talks of different worlds/places. Good place and bad.

What claim?

Where's the proof of your claim?
Where's other christians supporting you here?
Where were christians supporting the "ask tuff questions about christianity?" 6 of em and mostly on 2 participated.

LOL.
You really are forgetful. What presentation of a specialist did I do? I just said you may want to see a doctor if your forgetfulness is getting worse as you claim. Unless you're really advanced in age, then maybe it isn't worth the trouble and expense.

 

Equivocation... We are not talking about 'places' we are talking about worlds. They are not the same when kept in context.

The claim regarding different "worlds".

In prayer support.

And your point is what? It is a known fact that there are few Christians who will even attempt to go toe to toe with the likes of you. Well, I am not one of those other Christians..

Actually it was not me calling you a specialist, but instead it was me asking you if you were representing yourself as some sort of medical doctor. Suggesting that I needed to see a doctor... the subject matter was me and you know nothing about me, physically or psychologically... therefore, you were speaking through ignorance of the subject matter.

Why would I want to see a doctor?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying that I am one?

 

Specifically which criminal act are you accusing me of committing? If you are suggesting that the use of logic is a lawful mandate, then you must present me with the specific law which says that logic must be used by all people. Want to try again?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world

You claim there are now other worlds.

huh? I've seen no support.

Why, I don't knock anyone down, unless they take the 1st swing.
All my family and friends still believe in the bible version of God. I just have difficulties with the bible version as represented by the major religions explanations.

I absolutely know something about you.
You stated you are forgetful and getting more forgetful as age takes a grip.

I don't know?

 

Posting a URL without posting some personal commentary to accompany the URL is a violation of the TOS.

Where did I say absolutely "there are now other worlds"?

Have you ever seen spirits? No? No wonder you have not seen the support. Prayer support offers spiritual support... Oh my goodness... I truly believe that to be true and real.

Who got knocked down? I didn't see anything happen to anyone.

I have the same problem.

Are you sure I was not just making conversation with another poster who understands my way of thinking and believing?

Then why did you suggest it? Another one of your unsubstantiated private opinions?

 

Originally Posted by Incorporeal
Well, one of my beliefs is that I am in a natural world. I don't know of one that is "unnatural"
One of your beliefs is you are in a natural world.
What are your other belief(s)?
Of another world?

What is "Super natural?"?
For your entertainment.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall. D's and R's are united
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-62.html#post1062770883

I was being helpful and supportive. If you're having memory problems and old age isn't the real factor, maybe a doctor can help with your memory issues.

 

I do believe that you need to go back and redo that 'quote' as it does not appear to be quite accurate... maybe, just maybe a bit of misrepresentation going on there.

 

Have you gone off the rails on a crazy train? Where the heck did I describe any of your comment at all as a criminal act?! You made the claim that your conclusion about your beliefs was logical. It isn't. Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.

 

Your conclusion that I am at all obligated by 'logical fallacies' implies that there must be some law, code, rule, regulation, statute, TOS that mandates that I adhere to or abide by some imaginary set of rules, regulations, code, law, statute, TOS. If you do not know of any such law, code, rule, regulation, etc., to actually exist, then you need to refrain from attempting to implement such a fictitious law in relation to what I do or say.

 

LoL.

Dude, I'm not saying you're obligated by anything. You're just saying something demonstrably false, by the definition of what logic is. Your conclusion is not logical if it commits logical fallacies, I'm sorry that you think you have to abide by some magical law to use a word in the correct way.

 

It is not me thinking that I have to abide by some magical law that you call logic. It is you and those others who attempt to impose the strictures of logic upon me. You talk about logical fallacies that you allege that I commit. So what... I am a free man... I have rights that you have surrendered. You surrendered your right to be 'free' when you volunteered to abide by some magical law of logic. I also have the right to remind you of your obligation of maintaining a logical viewpoint else suffer the consequences of that magical law of logic, while I remain free from such obligation. You and others like to use that system of logic to make yourselves feel superior to theists.... by constantly claiming that theists are illogical. Well Praise the Lord for allowing me to be illogical and at the same time present to the non-theists a problem that they cannot solve ... the problem of irrefutably proving my beliefs to be in error. For them to simply claim that my beliefs are in error, is in deed no proof of claim whatsoever. To irrefutably prove that my beliefs are in error, they must be able (according to their belief in science) to provide tangible evidence that is capable of irrefutably proving my beliefs are in error, thus shattering my beliefs.

 

IT's your theory that if I can't prove something isn't true, like the bible, then it's true.
But I can't prove you're not a child molester, so?
Maybe that logic is faulty....

 

Then you will just have to take my word for it. You know,,, believe me. Now if you don't want to believe the truth of my word, and you desire to make a direct allegation that I am, then the onus of proof is upon you, the person making the declaration. If a cop were to walk up to you and ask "are you the bank robber we are looking for?" Are you going to say 'yes' if the question was based on some faulty premise? Probably not because of the consequences involved. Now if the cop were to walk up to you and emphatically say "you are the bank robber we are looking for", are you going to say "ok, you got me"? Probably not. But the cop arrests you anyway, the charges are brought before the court; now the cop has to prove that you are in deed the bank robber. Remember the legal maxim applies even here in this forum. A person is innocent until proven guilty. So, if in fact you are declaring that I am a child molester, then you must prove that claim, else you and the moderators and the owner of this website will all be brought to court on charges of defamation of character. Yes! You can be charged, because the site administration has your registration information along with the computer signature (identification) that is traceable back to your geographic location.... you are not as anonymous as you might want to think. Now one last time: Are you in deed accusing me of being a child molester?

 

What freedom did I give up? The freedom of not questioning the validity of my beliefs with disciplines well developed for doing so? Wow, what a tragic loss of freedom.

I don't give a damn if you don't want to abide by logic, just don't lie and say that you are, which is what you did.

 

The link to the post was included.
So you would know exactly what was posted. So you would not come to a conclusion of misrepresentation. But yet you still think that. Maybe you can point it out? Prolly not.