Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Clete]

The point is that anyone who claims God cannot be considered a force in science because He cannot be proven must also concede that evolution, natural selection, the big bang, and old ages of millions of years or more also cannot be considered science because they cannot be proven either.

No, that isn't how science (or sound reason) works. Theories are perfectly valid aspects of science and of clear thinking in general.

You're effectively back to asking them to disprove God's existence again. Evolution is, by its very nature, a naturalistic theory. In other words, the non-existence of the super-natural is PRESUPPOSED by the theory and that, by itself, does not disqualify it as a scientific theory.

I'm telling you, you're barking up the wrong tree here, Marke. There are plenty of really excellent arguments that flatly disprove evolution but this tack you're on is leading you in the wrong direction.

 

[marke]

No, that isn't how science (or sound reason) works. Theories are perfectly valid aspects of science and of clear thinking in general.

You're effectively back to asking them to disprove God's existence again. Evolution is, by its very nature, a naturalistic theory. In other words, the non-existence of the super-natural is PRESUPPOSED by the theory and that, by itself, does not disqualify it as a scientific theory.

I'm telling you, you're barking up the wrong tree here, Marke. There are plenty of really excellent arguments that flatly disprove evolution but this tack you're on is leading you in the wrong direction.

The best theory for the origin of life on earth is drawn from God's Word in Genesis Chapter 1 of the Bible. No other alternative theory makes sense or has any scientific support whatsoever. If God created heaven and earth as God said, then evolution is a lie.

 

[Idolater]

How is not the same?

My point was in the nature of the claims being made. "God exists" cannot be disproven, just analytically; logically (it's impossible to prove a negative). There isn't any evidence that can be discovered or supplied which will prove that God isn't real.

For the Resurrection however it isn't impossible to discover evidence that it was a hoax. It's just that, there's no evidence that it was a hoax; not a spot of evidence that supports that claim.

There's two possibilities; either there is (or was) evidence but nobody currently knows about it; or there isn't (and never was) evidence that it was a hoax----because it's not a hoax.

 

[Skeeter]

My point was in the nature of the claims being made. "God exists" cannot be disproven, just analytically; logically (it's impossible to prove a negative). There isn't any evidence that can be discovered or supplied which will prove that God isn't real.

For the Resurrection however it isn't impossible to discover evidence that it was a hoax. It's just that, there's no evidence that it was a hoax; not a spot of evidence that supports that claim.

There's two possibilities; either there is (or was) evidence but nobody currently knows about it; or there isn't (and never was) evidence that it was a hoax----because it's not a hoax.

A third possibility is that it was not a hoax and it is also not true. I believe this one is the most likely. No eye witnesses of the resurrection write for the Bible. No one who wrote the Bible even had the chance to interview a witness.

Jesus was originally believed to be an inhabitant in the heavens and people knew this because he revealed himself to them in a vision. Such visions are experienced in individuals with schizoid personalities quite readily. Even the more average citizen can find an inner voice akin to an imaginary friend. I can right now label a though process as a personality and converse with it. It takes on a very external feel, but I know it is not external because it only knows what I know, but it can see things at a drastically different perspective!

Having a personal savior God, one connected to an ethnicity and a place became all the rage in surrounding regions. Writers began to refashion the story as if it occurred on earth, and they believed they got the narrative directly from God, but they were actually the authors. So, most may have had a reasonably high level of integrity in that they believed it enough. Others may have believed the positive results outweighed the fact that they may have fudged things a bit.

 

[Idolater]

A third possibility is that it was not a hoax and it is also not true. I believe this one is the most likely. No eye witnesses of the resurrection write for the Bible. No one who wrote the Bible even had the chance to interview a witness.

Jesus was originally believed to be an inhabitant in the heavens and people knew this because he revealed himself to them in a vision. Such visions are experienced in individuals with schizoid personalities quite readily. Even the more average citizen can find an inner voice akin to an imaginary friend. I can right now label a though process as a personality and converse with it. It takes on a very external feel, but I know it is not external because it only knows what I know, but it can see things at a drastically different perspective!

Having a personal savior God, one connected to an ethnicity and a place became all the rage in surrounding regions. Writers began to refashion the story as if it occurred on earth, and they believed they got the narrative directly from God, but they were actually the authors. So, most may have had a reasonably high level of integrity in that they believed it enough. Others may have believed the positive results outweighed the fact that they may have fudged things a bit.

What's your PhD in?

 

[Skeeter]

What's your PhD in?

Not Arabic and ancient history.

 

[Idolater]

Not Arabic and ancient history.

When I said hoax I meant it as shorthand for every possible way that the Resurrection of Christ could be fictional. The most likely possibility as far as I'm concerned is actually a 'suicide pact' including Jesus, John the Baptist, Judas, and all the Apostles including Paul. The motive would be to extinguish idolatry in the world, which would, in this hypothesis, be abhorrent above all else to Jewish religious 'sensibilities' at the time. In other words, Jewish people were so offended and incensed by the idolatry that used to occur all over the world, that this small group of extremists designed a plan to trick or fool or hoodwink the whole world to stop offering sacrifices to deities on altars. The plan, in order to work, necessitated that all of its participants to be executed.

They succeeded, the plan worked. Now, the only people 'writ large' who offer sacrifices on altars to deities anymore are Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

 

[Clete]

The best theory for the origin of life on earth is drawn from God's Word in Genesis Chapter 1 of the Bible.

I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the affirmative claim.

No other alternative theory makes sense or has any scientific support whatsoever.

Okay, true enough, but, once again, this is not an argument, it's a claim; an affirmative claim that it would be your burden to prove.

If God created heaven and earth as God said, then evolution is a lie.

Now that is an argument!

The premise being "God created the heaven and the Earth".

An atheist could take on the challenge of disproving it if he wanted to but if he did, he'd not be doing himself any favors because since your argument is based on that premise, then it's your burden to establish the veracity of your own premises.

See what I'm getting at here? I'm not challenging you at all on whether evolution is true or false. We totally agree with each other that it is, without a doubt, completely false. I'm just trying to elevate your debating game a bit, that's all.

Clete

 

[Clete]

My point was in the nature of the claims being made. "God exists" cannot be disproven, just analytically; logically (it's impossible to prove a negative).

Two things here...

First, "God exists" is not a negative so I'm still confused as to your point. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. We just aren't in sync here yet.

Second, it is not impossible to prove a negative. That's sort of a common misconception because there are so many negatives that happen to be unprovable but it's an over generalization because any proof of an affirmative is a disproof of its negation, right? So, if I prove the existence of God, which I can do, then by doing so, I disprove any claim to the contrary. In fact, the most common (and in my view the most compelling) proof that God must exist is made by proving that the alternative (his nonexistence - i.e. a negative) to be rationally impossible.

There isn't any evidence that can be discovered or supplied which will prove that God isn't real.

That's only the case because God is real, not because it is conceptually impossible for such evidence to exist. The existence of God is not a fundamentally unfalsifiable proposition. That would be a humongous philosophical problem for theists if it were the case!

For the Resurrection however it isn't impossible to discover evidence that it was a hoax. It's just that, there's no evidence that it was a hoax; not a spot of evidence that supports that claim.

Okay, but as you said before, that lack of evidence that its a hoax isn't proof that it's true.

There's two possibilities; either there is (or was) evidence but nobody currently knows about it; or there isn't (and never was) evidence that it was a hoax----because it's not a hoax.

There is a third, far less likely, but still rational possibility. It was a hoax that was pulled off without leaving any evidence to find.

In any case, a failure to prove the resurrection false does not, by itself, prove it true. That much, we for sure agree on.

Clete

 

[marke]

I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the affirmative claim.


Okay, true enough, but, once again, this is not an argument, it's a claim; an affirmative claim that it would be your burden to prove.


Now that is an argument!

The premise being "God created the heaven and the Earth".

An atheist could take on the challenge of disproving it if he wanted to but if he did, he'd not be doing himself any favors because since your argument is based on that premise, then it's your burden to establish the veracity of your own premises.

See what I'm getting at here? I'm not challenging you at all on whether evolution is true or false. We totally agree with each other that it is, without a doubt, completely false. I'm just trying to elevate your debating game a bit, that's all.

Clete

 

[marke]

Clete
I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the affirmative claim.


If atheists do not have to prove what they believe only by faith with interpretations of scientific evidence for support then neither do Christians have to prove what they believe by faith with interpretations of scientific evidence for support.

 

[marke]

An atheist could take on the challenge of disproving it if he wanted to but if he did, he'd not be doing himself any favors because since your argument is based on that premise, then it's your burden to establish the veracity of your own premises.

See what I'm getting at here? I'm not challenging you at all on whether evolution is true or false. We totally agree with each other that it is, without a doubt, completely false. I'm just trying to elevate your debating game a bit, that's all.

Clete

I still insist that if Christians have some sort of obligation to prove God exists then evolutionists have some sort of obligation to prove the Big Bang was real but was not caused by any intelligence or force and did not include any pre-existing matter or energy.

 

[Skeeter]

I still insist that if Christians have some sort of obligation to prove God exists then evolutionists have some sort of obligation to prove the Big Bang was real but was not caused by any intelligence or force and did not include any pre-existing matter or energy.

Xians have no obligation whatsoever to prove up their beliefs to anyone. They can believe the dictates of their faith and live their lives accordingly. It is when they try to impose their beliefs on others in the public square that they must substantiate their beliefs if they want them to carry any weight. Law makers and public officials cannot take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions.

 

[Clete]

Clete
I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the affirmative claim.


If atheists do not have to prove what they believe only by faith with interpretations of scientific evidence for support then neither do Christians have to prove what they believe by faith with interpretations of scientific evidence for support.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Right? If an atheist is being irrational and tries to make a faith based scientific argument, that doesn't give us the right to make the same error. On the contrary, the way to win such a debate would be to point out the atheist's error, not endorse it by copying it.

Every single premise in a rational argument that is not conceded as true by both sides must be established by the side who's argument is BASED on that premise. It is not the atheist's burden to prove your premises false, it is your burden to prove them true. Likewise, it is not our burden to prove the atheist's premises false but theirs to prove them true.

So, if the atheists argument is based solely on natural observations then the veracity of those natural observations must be established. If they are so established then the argument stands or falls on the veracity of the logical connections being made between those observations and whatever conclusions exist in the argument. If it is our argument that either the evolutionist's observations or his logical connections are faulty BECAUSE of the existence of God then we are the one's who have God's existence as a premise, and thus it is on us to establish the veracity of that premise.

Now, that doesn't mean that someone can't take up a logical burden if they so choose to do so. Many do and with great success, but the point here is that there is no obligation for one side to disprove the other's premises. Simply challenging them is sufficient to win the debate IF the challenged side proves unable or unwilling to establish the truth of their premises.

Of course, one side losing a debate doesn't prove the other correct. There are lots of reasons one might win or lose a particular debate, not the least of which is one's skill at handling logic, which is what this whole exchange has been about. I want you to lose as few debates as possible, particularly on the topic of evolution.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Xians have no obligation whatsoever to prove up their beliefs to anyone. They can believe the dictates of their faith and live their lives accordingly. It is when they try to impose their beliefs on others in the public square that the must substantiate their beliefs if they want them to carry any weight. Law makers and public officials cannot take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions.

And yet many support teaching the illogical and unsupported notion of GOO to YOU evolution.

 

[Stripe]

It is when they try to impose their beliefs

Beliefs such as "do not murder"?

 

[Skeeter]

And yet many support teaching the illogical and unsupported notion of GOO to YOU evolution.

Why do you have a problem with goo to you evolution, but not goo to you development? Your Daddy's GOO lead to YOU. Remember that every time you use that phrase!

 

[Right Divider]

Why do you have a problem with goo to you evolution, but not goo to you development?

No clue what you mean. Evolution is a false idea that has done great damage.

Your Daddy's GOO lead to YOU.

No, that is also false. Sperm is a intricately designed mechanism for fertilizing an egg (which is also intricately designed).

Remember that every time you use that phrase!

Is your PhD in silliness?

 

[Yorzhik]

Why do you have a problem with goo to you evolution, but not goo to you development? Your Daddy's GOO lead to YOU. Remember that every time you use that phrase!

What's "goo to you development"?

 

[Yorzhik]

Is your PhD in silliness?

It seems more likely the more he talks.