Intelligence Debate > Creation/Evolution poll xD

[AFK]

There's plenty of ways to prove Darwin was wrong.

assuming you're talking about evolution, i'd like to hear one of these many ways. also, just as a warning, i may or may not entertain with a response, not because i'm ignoring you, but because my original terms were that i will attempt to debunk challenges that creationism is true, not evolution. the latter is a whole another can of worms.

AFK, Here's a question, "Prove God doesn't exist"

1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negative:

person A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.

 

[AFK]

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.

people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.

 

[AFK]

But these discussions are so fun.AFK, I am saddened by your stubborness to even consider... If an assertion is a judgement whereby truth lies, then God could then be considered an assertion. But if God were an assertion, then there would be not faith. Therefore God is judgement; judgement is counterparted by mercy, which allows judgement to enter the realm of assertion. When judgement ends, or when the world ends, there will be mercy and justice, but no assertion. And without assertion, the supposed passage between the two would be destroyed, thereby destroying any created forms. Following the belief that God was not created by any cosmic accident, then that would contradict atheism and any other known relegion anti to Christianity. I have skimmed the surface of books written by the genius Thomas Aquinas. Today's philosophers are still trying to unravel the mysteries hidden inside his books. We believe that he had a vision of heaven, and compared his books to it, and called them nothing but 'straw' and left them uncompleted. All of what I have written was what my faith dictates. How could an intelligent being not exist? The odds of a single cell, let alone the world could be created coinciedentaly are almost impossible to number within the amount of pages this website could hold. My little view.

i never said that assertions are pointless. all i said was that assertions require evidence to believe in.

faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.

 

[AFK]

Also how could our earth perfectly be positioned but no others our sun is 1 in a billion. A little fact is that if we were 1 mile closer we would all burn how does that happen by accedent???

1. equally incredible are the following:

A. what are the chances that i dropped this pencil at precisely 9:32pm PST at this exact same angle and i'm also thinking about my mantises at the same time? close to 0.

B. what are the chances that i'm typing this post in this is exact, particular syntax and diction? close to 0.

in both scenarios, which have already happened, are they INDICATIVE of divine intervention? no.

2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.

---------------------------------------

so in light of #1 and #2, there is actually nothing unusual about your observation. it's amazing under very certain specific contexts, e.g. scenarios A and B would be otherwise unusual too without those certain specified contexts.

 

[AFK]

anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it strengthens or weakens it.

 

[AFK]

I think AFK is wrong to deny the existence of God

how is that wrong? there is just simply no reason for me to believe in a god. the theists have to prove to me that there is one. how can a default position be "wrong" until the positive is proven? it's illogical.

and to attack those that do believe in God.

this is a discussion forum, not to mention that this thread is specifically titled as a DEBATE, so i'm just starting a discussion/debate. granted, i may have injected some emotion into my approach, but i genuinely feel that way - that it's a social problem, but again, i'm focusing on another topic at the moment, i.e. whether creationism or god exists. if my emotions offends, i don't think it's that difficult to ignore.

I also think it's wrong to spew forth unfounded arguments and statements.

show me one single unfounded argument/statement of mine. in fact, i'm the one who's preaching about providing evidence to an assertion.

AFK, if you're going to criticize religion, do so in a less offensive manner. It makes us non-believers look as bad as those that push the religions on us.

as i said above, my approach may have been emotional, but it's not really that overbearing that it needs to become melodramatic. also, i don't think anyone will associate all non-believers being the same as me.

You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove he doesn't; we'll just never know.

exactly. there is just simply no logical reason to believe (i dare anyone to bring up pascal's wager lol). and no, fear is not a logical reason.

also, the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative.

I think science and religion both have completely far out and ridiculous assumptions. You think it's crazy that somehow we're positioned in exactly the right place by complete chance and that somehow conditions were perfect in a primordial earth for the right organic compounds to come together and create the phenomenon we call life? I'd agree with you, it sounds crazy.

sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. just become something is "strange" doesn't mean it's false. also, things are ONLY "strange" because we are not accustomed to the newness of a seemingly radical idea/discovery, e.g. just 100 years ago, jets would be stranger than fiction. i think what happens is that people often think more by their emotions than by rationality. people of power; e.g. governments, the media, corporations, etc.; are aware of this human weakness and capitalize on it by creating propaganda, political campaigns that focus more on sensationalism rather than facts, commercials that persuade emotionally, etc. etc. etc. if we want a chance, we have to rise above this and stop being so intellectually lazy/dishonest.

 

[OGIGA]

1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.

 

[OGIGA]

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.

people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.

They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.

 

[OGIGA]

faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.

There you go defining things for people again. Ever thought of faith as believing in something that's a possibility but not yet known? Like, "I have faith that we will eventually develop teleportation technology"?

May I ask how old you are, AFK?

 

[OGIGA]

2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.

Not that I disagree with you, but why don't you back your affirmative claim like how you like everybody else to? And "common sense" is not an acceptable answer.

 

[AFK]

1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.

wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm

it's a negative. end of argument.

 

[OGIGA]

anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it strengthens or weakens it.

Just as long as you don't start calling people names again, I suppose. I don't know if you'll take this advice, but believing in something negative (like God does not exist) also requires faith. If you disagree (like I expect you to anyway), I can elaborate.

 

[AFK]

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.

people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.

They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.

you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.

 

[AFK]

faith is the suspension of logic and rationality in order to believe in something irrational.

There you go defining things for people again. Ever thought of faith as believing in something that's a possibility but not yet known? Like, "I have faith that we will eventually develop teleportation technology"?

May I ask how old you are, AFK?

you are arguing semantics.look up "faith" in the dictionary. there are at least 9 definitions. you're not proving/disproving anything by referring to a different definition. straw man fallacy.

 

[AFK]

2. also to consider (or rather, remember) is that yes, of course our earth is perfectly positioned. that is exactly why life exists. give the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%.

Not that I disagree with you, but why don't you back your affirmative claim like how you like everybody else to? And "common sense" is not an acceptable answer.

what's this fixation of "affirmative?"

assertion: there is nothing unusual about "earth [being] perfectly positioned."

evidence: "given the gazillion number of stars and planets out there, the probability of a planet in earth's position is close to 100%."

it's backed up and in plain sight.

 

[AFK]

anyway, i hope this thread doesn't get locked. debate to me is a sport, and i also hope that out of all this, that i can get some people to start examining about their faith (because i do see this as a very relevent social issue...that's another can of worms though), whether it strengthens or weakens it.

Just as long as you don't start calling people names again, I suppose. I don't know if you'll take this advice, but believing in something negative (like God does not exist) also requires faith. If you disagree (like I expect you to anyway), I can elaborate.

before you take moral high ground, look at your first post in this page. along with the countless other posts where you follow me around to try to throw insults at me.

as for believing in a negative, you have it wrong. you don't believe in a negative. a negative is simply a lack of belief in a positive. therefore, there is no faith involved (or with theists, a negative is a lack of faith).

 

[OGIGA]

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.

people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.

They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.

you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.

It's my pleasure to demonstrate what you do. Just look here: http://www.mantidforum.com/forum/viewtopic...04&start=30

I'm following you around challenging you less than half as much as you're doing to everyone else... until tonight.

 

[OGIGA]

1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.

wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm

it's a negative. end of argument.

Just because somebody wrote something on a webpage doesn't make it true, even it the first-level domain is edu. If it does, let me know, okay?

 

[AFK]

I think we should all ignore AFK. He's going to get this thread locked like all the other threads when he starts doing things like this. Just watch him toss around definitions to make it seem like you can never convince him of anything.

people tend to get upset at things they don't understand.

They do, but don't forget about yourself. Just look at all your flame posts from other locked threads.

you've yet to demonstrate this other than following me around trying to attack me for one last word.

It's my pleasure to demonstrate what you do. Just look here: http://www.mantidforum.com/forum/viewtopic...04&start=30

I'm following you around challenging you less than half as much as you're doing to everyone else... until tonight.

that doesn't show anything other than people disagreeing with me. some people just simply become so emotionally and personally invested in a belief that if it gets challenged, they feel threatened/insulted. i think that's what's happening to you, hence you obsessively following me around. i'd appreciate it if you stop it and get over it. it's becoming a little annoying.

 

[AFK]

1. the burden of proof is on the positive. proving something isn't or doesn't is a negative. the DEFAULT condition is that there is no god so therefore, it is the theist's sole responsibility to prove that there is god. it's like going up someone and saying that there is an invisible cat in the room right now, and if that someone objects, you tell him that's he wrong because he can't prove that there is an invisible cat. in fact, this can be said with ANY negativeerson A: the loch ness monster exists.

person B: i disagree. it doesn't exist.

person A: prove that it doesn't exist.

person B: ######?

person A: see, since you can't prove that it doesn't exist, the loch ness monster exists.

person B: ######.

2. proving this negative is impossible. there is no way to check every corner of the universe for god, and even if you could, while you are checking one corner, he might have just moved to another. some theists might jump at this point to proclaim victory, but this resembles NOTHING like a victory of any sort. proving the non-existence of god is just as impossible as it is to prove the existence of god. the bottomline still remains: there is NO REASON whatsoever to believe there is a god.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I can't help but laugh at your logic. You know, it's really difficult to ignore you. Claiming that there is no god/God is a very affirmative statement. I can't seem to figure out why your thinking is so binary (black and white), But if that's the way you think, keep it to yourself. I think the world is better off accepting the fact that there are things they are unsure of rather than make an affirmative statement that something does not exist until proven otherwise.

wrong. i've told you before, if you do not understand logic, then don't pretend you do.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWE...en-of-Proof.htm

it's a negative. end of argument.

Just because somebody wrote something on a webpage doesn't make it true, even it the first-level domain is edu. If it does, let me know, okay?

what constitutes a negative and positive statement is fundamental logic and philosophy. you refusing to accept the foundations of philosophy tells me that the socratic method does not work on you, thus you are unfit for logical discussion.