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

The freedom to give consideration to things that 'logic' says is not worthy of consideration. You have become a slave to the rigors of 'logic' and subsequently are not allowed to think outside that box called "logic".

Now you make inference that I am a liar. Care to show irrefutable proof that I am a liar? BTW: in the clause "just don't lie and say that you are," What is the " you are " including? Care to be a little more specific in saying what it is that you accuse me of being?

 

I am not the one that made the wrongful quote. You are, and therefore it is up to you to make the necessary correction. At post # 691, you started the response with a legitimate quote using the quote function; then immediately after that, you entered an alleged quote that was manually entered in the body of your post; it started with "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?"

and continued on to the conclusion of the post. Even using the link you provided, shows clearly that some of the remarks that you allege to have been my comments were in FACT not my comments. Your manual entry of that quotation is a misrepresentation and is self defeated by the link you provided. Your hand typed quote is the misrepresentation. Try again.

 

10 char.....

 

Mmm, not quite. Do you not operate under the assumption that our senses and cognitive abilities are, most of the time, reliable?

Nope, I won't abide by your ridiculous requests until you explain why it is necessary for me to furnish an irrefutable proof.

You lied when you claimed you were making a logical conclusion. Or in more clear terms for the easily confused: "I don't give a damn if you don't want to abide by logic, just don't lie and say that you are abiding by logic, which is what you did."

 

Now that you have that quote problem corrected, what point are you attempting to make? Yes! that is a copy of a former post. So what?

 

This is just disingenuous pretending to be ignorant. (I hope)

Here you are making the argument that because God can not be disproven that your beliefs will hold.

I give you a number of examples of why it is a fallacy to think that because something can not be disproven that this proves truth.

One example I gave was: Folks back 1000 years ago could not disprove the notion that the Earth was flat. This did not make the claim "the earth is flat" true.

You come up with some ridiculous comment on perspective

No Incorp - the earth has been proven to be round and we can do so many different ways for verification.

The point which you seem not able to grasp is that lack of disproof of a claim does not make that claim true.

No one can prove that God does not exist so it is silly to ask someone to do so unless that person has previously claimed to be able to disprove God. (Anyone making this claim would of course be full of beans)

It is equally silly to base ones belief on the fact that something can not be disproven.

The point of bringing up the name of God is that even if one claims belief in God - lack of disproof or for some other more sensible reason, this person can not be sure what the name of the God they believe in is.

This is a bit of a conundrum because if you can not be sure which God you believe then there is no way to tell what doctrine to follow.

One of the big problems with the Bible is that there seems to be numerous Gods as there are numerous differences in doctrine.

Unless one believes in a flippant God who can not make up his/her mind, a God of trickery, and a God who is definitely not omnipotent and who makes mistakes; A God representing the Bible makes no sense.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-62.html#post1062770883
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-62.html#post1062771354
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-67.html#post1062776662
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-67.html#post1062776805
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-67.html#post1062776878
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-67.html#post1062777062
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-69.html#post1062778484
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-69.html#post1062778519

Does this help?

 

Well of course I "operate under the assumption that" my "senses and cognitive abilities are, most of the time, reliable." I cannot speak toward the status of others until such time as I attempt to communicate with them.

I have already explained that to you. The necessity for providing irrefutable proof is for the purpose of bringing to a complete stop of any argument that might have been engaged which required the irrefutable proof. Irrefutable would imply that there are no gray areas, no maybes, no what ifs, no further speculation.. the issue would be resolved. At the present time, there is the matter of 'my beliefs' and whether or not those beliefs are in error. You say they are, but they are my beliefs and in order for my beliefs to be altered, there must be provided irrefutable proof that would shatter those beliefs. What is stated above is one of my beliefs.

No, what I stated was "it would only be logical to conclude..." I did not say "I am logically concluding", or that "I am making a logical conclusion." Pay attention to what I write.

Where in this thread or any other thread did I say "I am abiding by logic"? Please show the post else refrain from making false accusations.

 

Are you now suggesting that I am ignorant? What grounds do you use and what evidence do you have that would clinically qualify me as being ignorant?

Yes... my beliefs will hold until such time as there is irrefutable proof that my beliefs are in error.

Nope. All you have given is the opinions of others that you have gathered from various texts written by other people... BTW... those other people are also fallible.

Again, that depends of perspective, as I demonstrated.

You call that comment ridiculous because of your own perspective regarding that comment. I could now in turn say that your comment was equally ridiculous and that would be my perspective. See how easy that is to do? Can you irrefutably prove that my perspective is "ridiculous"?

And how was that proof made? Sailing around the globe going in one direction and ending up at the point of origin. Of course. Then came the satellite (not necessarily that rapidly) photos showing what is recognized as planet Earth appearing in the photo as a ball floating in space. Notice one thing about both of those proofs... they were dependent upon the perspective of the people viewing them.

Your use of the term "seem" indicates that you are holding a degree of uncertainty about your accusation lodged against me.

Where did I ask you to disprove God? Are you even suggesting that I did ask someone to disprove God? I am asking that someone (specifically you in this case) to irrefutably prove that my beliefs are in error. My beliefs are varied and quite large in number.

Perhaps.

'silly' is a subjective term. What might be silly to you might not be silly to someone else. Therefore your comment is irrelevant.

"can not" is an absolute. What proof do you have of what "this person" can and can not do?

No conundrum because you are speaking hypothetically. "if".

There you go with that uncertainty again.... "seems".

Based on the description you gave regarding God, then it is also safe to assume that you do believe in God. You believe that God is flippant, God cannot make up his/her mind, God of trickery, not omnipotent and does make mistakes, Therefore, it is settled (based on your statement) God does exist.

 

Does what help? You are not addressing the point(s) that you are attempting to make. What is your point? Harassment?

 

Your reading comprehension is pathetic. The work "seems" was used because there is more than one possibility. One possibility I that is more than one God.

If there is not more than one God then the other possibility given is true.

I shall cease and desist because there is no point in trying to have an exchange of ideas with someone who can not figure out that the world is round.

I give up .. you win !!

 

You complain about my reading comprehension.. ???? WOW! Did you even consider incomprehensible manner in which you wrote the above? Examine it closely.

The Bible plainly states that there are many gods. So what point are you attempting to make.

Really... so you are another one who abandons the battlefield. You however publish a false rationalization as an excuse for that abandonment.

Duly noted.

 

So God does not exist, unless it can be irrefutably proven that he exists?

 

Then why would you not want to use a discipline designed to test the validity of beliefs based on that assumption? Not only do you not want to use it, but you're condemning it as essentially voluntary servitude. Using logic isn't taking away a freedom anymore than using mathematics to describe a parabola is taking away freedoms.

There can't be irrefutable proof provided to you if you dismiss the refutations outright due to the discipline used. It's like asking to prove a mathematical proof without using mathematics.

That is not what you said, liar.

You said: "...then it is only logical for me to conclude that my beliefs are not in error."

I see no "would". The above sentence is no different in substance from "I am making a logical conclusion that my beliefs are not in error." And even if you didn't lie about what you had said, and you had said, "it would only be logical to conclude that my beliefs are not in error", that statement would still be a false statement.

When you said you were making a logical conclusion in the present tense.

 

Personally.....I believe that scientists are being guided and led by God and angels.....and thus I believe that they are going to be used to accomplish some serious good things over the coming years and decades?!


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/storm03.html

 

I won't argue that sentiment with you. I would also caution that some "seriously good things" can be perverted and used toward a seriously bad end.

 

Did I say that "God does not exist"? No? Then quit trying to bait the discussion. Are you declaring affirmatively that God does not exist or that God does exist?

 

well no... because science creates a environment that screams for you to challenge it. The very scientific method, the way it is taught, the conclusions drawn are all open to challenge. Let's take the simple idea counter-intuitive that two objects of different weights fall at the same rate of acceleration and will hit the ground at the same time. The argument is that gravity will pull on them exactly the same. You are fully capable to take a solid 2# plastic ball and a 10# Iron ball and drop them. If one hits the ground first you can repeat, write about it and your view will replace the original. You can't do any of that with religion.

 

I haven't read thru the 70+ pages to see where this thread has headed.. but let me ask for the OP to clarify the query. It seems to be purposely restrictive to constrain the respondent.

But let me add my 2 cents anyway...

*Science is about understanding how the physical world works through observation of repeatable and verifiable results.

*Religion is faith based and a willful ignorance in the face of proof.

 

"seems" is indicative of you placing an unsubstantiated opinion. In other words, what you are saying is that it is just your way of seeing things. Oh well.

Ahh... verification of the subjectivity of your first statement.

The two emphasized comments also are nothing more than non-theist textbook responses... designed to be an answer to a question but at the same time have not been irrefutably proven to be true.

 

Of course the earth is flat. What could I have been thinking ??

Your right again as usual !

 

This ^ is a set up for a dismissive response with no objective critique.

And there it is ^

 

Stop harassing me. If you can't figure out what it is you're saying, don't keep bothering me to help you out. Just drop it.

 

On the contrary. It is you who quoted me and did not make any sensible comment regarding what you quoted.

 

Well thank you for that admission.