Just like in the UFC and boxing there are rules, these rules are designed among other things to keep the fight from continuing to necessary lengths, (12 round limit) ensure fair play, keep the fight entertaining, and to ensure there is a clear winner. These rules are designed in the same way, to keep the discussions entertaining, ensure fair play, prevent the discussion from continuing to unnecessary lengths..
1. When asked to support your assertion with evidence you will do so or you will admit you either have no evidence or you do not know. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2. When asked to answer a question you will do so or you will admit you do not know or you cannot answer the question. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well. An apology will 'reset' someones status and give him a clean slate. If poster X starts name calling and having a smug I know it all attitude, as per the rules he will be treated as he treats others, if he apologizes he will be given a clean slate and treated as if he never name called or had a smug I know it all attitude at all.
4. You will concede any errors or points. This is in regard to overall points, not spelling errors/typos/ or other insignificant errors. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
6. There is a 10 error limit and refutation attempt on the blog, if it extends beyond 10 errors or 10 attempts to refute a point you will no longer be allowed to comment on that specific thread, HOWEVER the conversation can continue at my forums. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted.
7. These rules are subject to change, each change will be announced and you have 2 days to comply with the new change.
8. You will NOT blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Violation of this rule results in a permanent ban.
9. Don't even try to twist and interpret these rules to suit your needs, I made them I know the original meaning and intent of each word rule and the original context of each word and rule.
10. These rules apply to everyone, even me.
11. Comments are limited to the topic and scope of the thread. Any digression will follow with a warning, and continuing with the digression will result in having all posts that digress from the original topic and scope of the thread deleted.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
So this is a game?
I didn't know that in a fight, one of the fighters could also be the umpire as well.
Enjoy your game.
Here's why you have more visiters BTW
http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1827&p=25749#p25749
http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1735
I'm not from that board. They might be annoyed that I posted the links.,
Let me sum up your ruless for you:
1) You disagree with T.D. your comments will be deleted.
-it's basically admitting that you've lost.
Enjoy your game
SMRT visitor here; your rules are funny.
When does the game begin?
Cheers,
I;m a deist. So I'm not an athiest and I'm not a Christian so I'll judge the threads for ya now that I've read them.
TD won the legal right to marraige.
Flute won the Abraham stuff by a mile.
TD scored an own goal with "no evidence is evidence" thread.
But TD loses points for extreme impoliteness and spelling...
These rules seem ignorant. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would say they rank at around 11 to 12.
I want you to know that I did not invite extra people to your blog, or post a link to it anywhere.
and to ensure there is a clear winner
Matter of philosophy will never have a clear winner.
And who will be the impartial referee of the rules?
With thanks,
from Flute.
Oh, I concede that; with regards to the matter of the legal right to marriage, opinions on points of law differ and some countries grant different human rights to their citizens. It's a matter for lawyers and politicians to debate.
TD: I thought I'd bring your attention to a rule being broken:
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well.
By failing to call either you or christians ignorant, all commentors on this thread have broken rule 3 and deserve PERMABANNNNNNN!!!
Here's why you have more visiters BTW
Yes, I know, too bad the people in that thread are confusing laughing emoticons with refuting an argument.
1) You disagree with T.D. your comments will be deleted.
I don't see that rule in there? now admit your error.
I;m a deist. So I'm not an athiest and I'm not a Christian so I'll judge the threads for ya now that I've read them.
TD won the legal right to marraige.
Flute won the Abraham stuff by a mile.
TD scored an own goal with "no evidence is evidence" thread.
1. You do not get to judge a thing, there are no judges.
2. Flute did not win the Abraham stuff at all as he did not prove I made a mistake.
3. Show evidence of how I scored an 'own goal.
Matter of philosophy will never have a clear winner.
And who will be the impartial referee of the rules?
Matters of philosophy will never have a clear winner you ignorant atheist, but debates do. Debates have clear winners though, oops, your ignorant atheist brain didn't grasp that huh?
Everyone is the impartial referee, if you see a rule being broken point it out.
"Yes, I know, too bad the people in that thread are confusing laughing emoticons with refuting an argument"
Yeah!
"1) You disagree with T.D. your comments will be deleted.
I don't see that rule in there? now admit your error"
I disagree with you and won't "admit my error" so you'll delete my subsequent posts. Therefore, I'm right, therefore you can't delete my posts, which makes me wrong...
Wow, a loop!
My error: the -letter- of the rules does not say that. Just the -spirit- of the rules.
"3. Show evidence of how I scored an 'own goal."
Ending with a contradiction: "no evidence is evidence"
My error: the -letter- of the rules does not say that. Just the -spirit- of the rules.
Are you admitting your error here?
"1) You disagree with T.D. your comments will be deleted.
I don't see that rule in there? now admit your error"
I disagree with you and won't "admit my error" so you'll delete my subsequent posts. Therefore, I'm right, therefore you can't delete my posts, which makes me wrong...
Wow, a loop!
In these types of cases yes, but in other cases no. Example: if I say "same sex marriage should not be recognized by the government" and you disagree with me, I will not delete your post as that is not erroneous. Regarding your example, you disagreeing with me does not make your error go away, your post are being deleted because of your error not because of your disagreement.
"no evidence is evidence"
That is not a contradiction. I said no SCIENTIFIC evidence is evidence of Gods existence. Its like this, because the attributes, qualities, commands and desires of God demand faith we shouldn't see any scientific evidence for His existence. We see none, thus that is evidence of Gods existence.
I found a few words I'd like to suggest to you so you can change this up a bit in your responces ;)
unintellectual
unmindful
unschooled
witless
illiterate
uncouth
inept
feeble-minded
naive
imprudent
thoughtless
unrefined
oblivious
neglectful
inattentive
You might find one or two on there that you can use to make the same point without being to repetitive ;)
That is not a contradiction. I said no SCIENTIFIC evidence is evidence of Gods existence. Its like this, because the attributes, qualities, commands and desires of God demand faith we shouldn't see any scientific evidence for His existence. We see none, thus that is evidence of Gods existence.
You are committing a Logical Fallacy. The logical fallacy is Affirming the Consequent.
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P
In your case you are saying
If God then No scientific evidence
no scientific evidence
Therefore God
Let's look at that a little differently.
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
What you are doing is ignoring all other possible reasons for Q. For you to be right you have to prove that Q (no scientific evidence for God) is only possible because of P (God exists). If there are any other reasons for Q then your argument is invalid.
I suggest that another reason for "no scientific evidence for God" is because God does not exist. Show me why your conclusion is right and mine (plus any other explanation for Q) is wrong.
By the way if you show any scientific evidence for God, then your argument is also invalid.
Also I would like a definition for "scientific evidence" and how it differs from "evidence".
What you are doing is ignoring all other possible reasons for Q. For you to be right you have to prove that Q (no scientific evidence for God) is only possible because of P (God exists). If there are any other reasons for Q then your argument is invalid.
I suggest that another reason for "no scientific evidence for God" is because God does not exist. Show me why your conclusion is right and mine (plus any other explanation for Q) is wrong.
I did not affirm the consequent. You're confusing evidence with proof.
If God then No scientific evidence
no scientific evidence
Therefore God
I never said God exists, I simply said EVIDENCE FOR. You're confusing evidence for proof. Your conclusion right there states "God exists" my conclusion does not nor did it ever say God exists, it simply says EVIDENCE for God. The bible is evidence for God, it does not prove He exists, Kalam argument is evidence for God, it does not prove He exists. Do you understand the difference between my conclusion "the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence. " and your conclusion "Therefore God exists?"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Evidence is only that which tends to prove or disprove something, GROUND FOR BELIEF. Evidence in this case simply means that which TENDS to prove something and ground for belief. It does not prove it. 'Evidence' can refer to testimonial evidence or eye witness evidence, but those types of evidence do not prove anything, they only TEND to prove something, testimonial evidence or eye witness evidence is not scientific evidence, as scientific evidence must be observable and testable.
Actually eye witness evidence can be scientific evidence. What do you think observation is? It just has to be backed up with other evidence. Science requires multiple sources of evidence, it is the corroboration of multiple sources that prove or disprove something. Yet it still doesn't definitively prove anything either. Definitive proof is only possibly in math.
You are still affirming the consequent. You are just playing semantics now. So let me change it.
If "Evidence for God" then "No scientific evidence for God"
"No scientific evidence for God"
Therefore "Evidence for God"
You are also claiming that evidence for God is proof of God, so my original is still right also, semantics or not.
My original conclusion is also still not refuted. "No scientific evidence for God" can still be explained by other reasons such as "God does not exist". You still have to prove why your statement is the only answer.
Kalam's argument, which was put forth to prove Allah, has serious flaws. It is actually easier to link to a page discussing them, but you don't allow that now.
You also didn't go over what you mean by Kalam's so I guess I don't have to argue against it, according to your own rules.
Again you cannot prove anything definitively except in mathematics. I would argue that evidence is evidence, you seem to imply that scientific evidence means absolute proof, which is not true and a straw man.
TD,
You say that there is no scientific evidence for God's existence. Does that mean that you reject the claims of Young Earth Creationists who say that they can provide 'absolutely 100% scientific proof that God is real'?
What about the Global Flood? Do you accept that there is no evidence (aside from the Biblical account) that tends to support the idea of a Global Flood (inc. all the animals on the Ark etc,)?
DNA? That's not scientific evidence of a 'Designer'?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what your position is here.
Regards,
Matt
Actually eye witness evidence can be scientific evidence. What do you think observation is? It just has to be backed up with other evidence. Science requires multiple sources of evidence, it is the corroboration of multiple sources that prove or disprove something. Yet it still doesn't definitively prove anything either. Definitive proof is only possibly in math.
You're right, eye witness is observational, is eye witness evidence testable and experimental? repeatable? no it is not. Now admit your error.
If "Evidence for God" then "No scientific evidence for God"
"No scientific evidence for God"
Therefore "Evidence for God"
Nope, still wrong, in fact you changed my argument up, it should read as the following.
If "no scientific Evidence for God" then "then evidence for God"
"No scientific evidence for God"
Therefore "Evidence for God"
As you can see from my post, no scientific evidence comes first. "the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence. "
Now you're confusing affirming hte consequent with affirming the antecedent which is a valid argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_antecedent
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q
P= No scientific evidence of God.
Q = evidence for God
If " No scientific Evidence for God"(P) then "evidence for God"(Q)
"No scientific evidence for God"(P)
Therefore "Evidence for God"(Q)
no admit your error.
You are also claiming that evidence for God is proof of God, so my original is still right also, semantics or not.
No, I am not, as I quite clearly stated in my last comment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Evidence is only that which tends to prove or disprove something, GROUND FOR BELIEF. Evidence in this case simply means that which TENDS to prove something and ground for belief. It does not prove it.
Admit your error.
My original conclusion is also still not refuted. "No scientific evidence for God" can still be explained by other reasons such as "God does not exist". You still have to prove why your statement is the only answer.
You're right it CAN be explained by other reasons, I never said it couldn't, but it can also be explained with my reason too, I never once stated nor insinuated otherwise. Your original conclusion does not follow from your claim I affirmed the consequence, nor did I ever try and refute your original conclusion, only your claim that I affirmed the consequent.
TD,
You say that there is no scientific evidence for God's existence. Does that mean that you reject the claims of Young Earth Creationists who say that they can provide 'absolutely 100% scientific proof that God is real'?
I am not a YEC, and these YEC's have not provided scientific evidence for God. They might sincerely believe they can provide 100% scientific proof that God is real, but have they done so? no they have not. As soon as scientific evidence of God is displayed I don't mind retracing my argument.
What about the Global Flood? Do you accept that there is no evidence (aside from the Biblical account) that tends to support the idea of a Global Flood (inc. all the animals on the Ark etc,)?
Like the other guy, you're confusing evidence for God with evidence for a global flood. We could have scientific evidence for a global flood, but we will not have scientific evidence of who or what started or caused the global flood.
DNA? That's not scientific evidence of a 'Designer'?
Yes it is, but it is scientific evidence for God as much as it is for allah or aliens or hindu gods. There is no scientific evidence for who the designer is. This all stems from peoples not understanding what scientific evidence is.
TD,
"3. You will be addressed how you addressed others."
In every venue where I have seen you comment, you are the one that started the name calling.
You are the only person that has done it on this very thread:
".....your ignorant atheist brain didn't grasp that huh?"
So by the rulkes does that mean you have opened the blog to name calling?
You're right it CAN be explained by other reasons, I never said it couldn't, but it can also be explained with my reason too, I never once stated nor insinuated otherwise. Your original conclusion does not follow from your claim I affirmed the consequence, nor did I ever try and refute your original conclusion, only your claim that I affirmed the consequent.
Then I will give you that you are not committing a logical fallacy. With this last statement then what does it matter? It really means nothing, what are trying to do except convince yourself?
You're right, eye witness is observational, is eye witness evidence testable and experimental? repeatable? no it is not. Now admit your error.
Yes it can be, it can also be backed up by other evidence. It depends on what is observed. We don't trust observation on its own because human memory and eye sight is flawed. That is why other evidence is required.
Evidence is only that which tends to prove or disprove something, GROUND FOR BELIEF. Evidence in this case simply means that which TENDS to prove something and ground for belief. It does not prove it.
This what I said about science and "scientific evidence". Evidence is not proof on its own. It requires multiple lines of corroboration. In other words, it requires lots of evidence that points to the same conclusion. It is not definitive, that only happens in math.
Thanks for clarifying that, TD.
So, in your opinion, there are only two sets of evidence for the God of the Bible; the Bible and the lack of any scientific evidence for the God of the Bible.
Is that right?
Also, why aren't you a YEC? DO you see Genesis as a metaphorical account?
Regards,
TD,
"There is no scientific evidence for who the designer is."
And you say there is no scientific evidence for God.
Since science is the epitome of logic and reason, and there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe there is a God.
In every venue where I have seen you comment, you are the one that started the name calling.
Wow, I see you're ignorant in reading comprehension too. What part of 'typical smug atheist I know it all attitude' don't you understand?
So by the rulkes does that mean you have opened the blog to name calling?
1. its on an individual basis, notice how I don't call keri or various other posters names.
2. That would be an example of the 'typical smug atheist I know it all attitude'
Then I will give you that you are not committing a logical fallacy. With this last statement then what does it matter? It really means nothing, what are trying to do except convince yourself?
What does it matter? I am just showing a common argument to be self defeating and not as effective as people that use it think it is.
Yes it can be, it can also be backed up by other evidence. It depends on what is observed. We don't trust observation on its own because human memory and eye sight is flawed. That is why other evidence is required.
Is eye witness observation testable experimental or repeatable yes or no? can you test the observation? no you cannot, can you experiment on the observation no you cannot as it only happened once, can you repeat the observation? no you cannot. Admit your error.
This what I said about science and "scientific evidence". Evidence is not proof on its own. It requires multiple lines of corroboration. In other words, it requires lots of evidence that points to the same conclusion. It is not definitive, that only happens in math.
Admit your error then, you said "You are also claiming that evidence for God is proof of God" I never once claimed that at all.
Thanks for clarifying that, TD.
So, in your opinion, there are only two sets of evidence for the God of the Bible; the Bible and the lack of any scientific evidence for the God of the Bible.
Is that right?
No, there is historical, testimonial and eye witness evidence for God as well.
Also, why aren't you a YEC? DO you see Genesis as a metaphorical account?
No, actually an old earth can be read with valid interpretations of the words in Genesis. So basically I take Genesis as 'literally' as YECS take it. It will be explained more in depth in a future post.
And you say there is no scientific evidence for God.
Since science is the epitome of logic and reason, and there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe there is a God.
Ignorance, froggie you have yet to say anything intelligent at all.
There is no scientific evidence that you exist or that your friends like you, or your mother/brother/spouse loves you, then there is no reason to beleive you exist an no reason for you to beleive your friends like you or your mother/brother/spouse loves you.
Admit your error then, you said "You are also claiming that evidence for God is proof of God" I never once claimed that at all.
I admit, I made an error I read something into your comments. Instead you are making no claims on the existence of God.
Is eye witness observation testable experimental or repeatable yes or no? can you test the observation? no you cannot, can you experiment on the observation no you cannot as it only happened once, can you repeat the observation? no you cannot. Admit your error.
Yes some can be repeated, some cannot depends on what you are witnessing. It is still evidence either way, we just don't consider it good evidence unless it backed up by corroborating evidence.
I witness in a murder trial can only observe a murder once. Do we take their word that the person they identified is the killer? No, we look at corroborating evidence that also points to the same person. It requires multiple lines of evidence.
In fact some eye witness events are repeatable. Think pictures, camcorders, and the fact that the action being eye witnessed is repeatable, like observing a chemical reaction. Do any of these things still prove definitively what happened? The answer is no. Corroborating evidence is still required. Admit your error that eye witness account is not repeatable.
"I witness" should be "A witness in a murder trial"
I type too fast sometimes.
There is no scientific evidence that you exist or that your friends like you, or your mother/brother/spouse loves you, then there is no reason to beleive you exist an no reason for you to beleive your friends like you or your mother/brother/spouse loves you.
I actually agree there is no evidence that anyone exists definitively. There is corroborating evidence that we exist but it is only about 99.999999999999% positive. There is always an outside chance I am just a brain in a bottle imagining the world or that my family doesn't love me. I tend to go with the highest probability, and believe that the world exists and my family loves me, because of corroborating evidence.
Do you understand yet? Nothing is definitive, except math. Thus we go with where the evidence points and what has the highest probability of being truth. Admittedly this can all be turned on its head with one piece of evidence, but that evidence will have to be corroborated with other sources.
Example, finding a human skeleton in Cambrian rock. That piece of evidence would overturn evolution, but before any scientist or any person should accept it. It needs evidence that it was found there and that it comes from the Cambrian period. In other words corroborating evidence. I keep using the word over and over again in hoping that you understand. No evidence is ever taken at face value, it needs facts or corroborating evidence to back it up. This is in science especially.
There are some things we take at face value, like what a persons name is, but the claims are not that big. The bigger the claim the more evidence we require. I use we as in the human race. If I said my name was Rocky, you would take my word on it. If I said I made a nuclear missile, you want lots of evidence of this than just my word. It really is that simple.
So by the rulkes does that mean you have opened the blog to name calling?
1. its on an individual basis, notice how I don't call keri or various other posters names.
2. That would be an example of the 'typical smug atheist I know it all attitude'
---------------
So if you determine someone is "smug" you reserve the right to call them ignorant. Nice.
TD,
No, there is historical, testimonial and eye witness evidence for God as well.
I would have thought that the eye witness and testimonial evidences would be covered under 'the Bible', no? Are there extra-Biblical accounts of acts of God? I honestly don't know if there are or not...
Also, what is the 'historical' evidence for the God of the Bible?
No, actually an old earth can be read with valid interpretations of the words in Genesis. So basically I take Genesis as 'literally' as YECS take it. It will be explained more in depth in a future post.
Fair enough on wanting to deal with this in a new post as this is all fairly off-topic now.
Cheers,
"There is no scientific evidence that you exist...."
Since you claim that the spurious eyewitness accounts of the resurrection are proof of God, then eyewitness accounts of me certainly are proof of my existence.
Yes some can be repeated, some cannot depends on what you are witnessing. It is still evidence either way, we just don't consider it good evidence unless it backed up by corroborating evidence.
Yes, it is still evidence, but it is not scientific evidence, as the latter must be observable repeatable and testable.
I witness in a murder trial can only observe a murder once. Do we take their word that the person they identified is the killer? No, we look at corroborating evidence that also points to the same person. It requires multiple lines of evidence.
Agreed, but how does this prove that eye witness evidence is observable testable and repeatable?
In fact some eye witness events are repeatable. Think pictures, camcorders, and the fact that the action being eye witnessed is repeatable, like observing a chemical reaction.
Good point, at least about the camcorders. Pictures no.
Do any of these things still prove definitively what happened? The answer is no. Corroborating evidence is still required. Admit your error that eye witness account is not repeatable.
I can certainly admit I was wrong, not all eye witness accounts are not repeatable, camcorders is a good example of this, but the stuff that is not recorded on camcorders is not repeatable at all, thus not scientific evidence. So I was incorrect, SOME eye witness evidence can be considered scientific evidence, not all.
I actually agree there is no evidence that anyone exists definitively. There is corroborating evidence that we exist but it is only about 99.999999999999% positive. There is always an outside chance I am just a brain in a bottle imagining the world or that my family doesn't love me. I tend to go with the highest probability, and believe that the world exists and my family loves me, because of corroborating evidence.
I said there is no scientific evidence that froggie exists, or that his mother brother spouse loves him or that his friends exist or that they like him. There is evidence of all of that, just not scientific evidence. I am going to have to do a post on scientific evidence, as this is going wayyyy off topic.
I've seen Froggie (well, a picture anyway), and a very handsome amphibian he is.
Just for the record, I admit my own ignorance; I have a LOT to learn.
That being said, any comments I might make will be an attempt to understand and as such are open to correction either privately or publicly. At times I also find my communication skills to be somewhat lacking so any and all corrections one might wish to make are always welcome.
Mostly I'll just try to stay out of the way ;)
Post a Comment