Yes, axe's logic attacks would be very relevant if I was trying to prove that there was a God. But I am not. The problem is that his own logic comes back on him when he tries to prove that there is not a God in light of current scientific evidence (double negatives and all!). He and the other three cannot come in any where near proving that the First Cause is not intelligent, esp. in light of current scientific findings.
GG, Ive had this arguement many times. I finally came to the conclusion it is pointless to argue it with people. They will never look at reality: God and the Easter Bunny are one in the same. It just seems that people NEED to believe in order to deal with everyday life. They must have something else or they simply can not go on. Anyway only post Im going to make. Ignorance is bliss.
I understand proving a negative. I understand that I am not doing that. It is you, by your wording, that is attempting to prove a negative. You instantly discard all possibilities so that you can insult anyone who does not believe as you do.
âcomplete lack of evidenceâ â there you go again assuming that are an authority on the subject. By saying âcompleteâ, you are saying there no examples of legitimate supernatural events even worthy of being investigated. Let me elaborate: Do you have any idea whether or not Moses performed any miracles at the Exodus? Right now Christianity is exploding (50 to 100 million) in Communist China and reports of miraculous healing are pouring out of the country? Do you have any idea if the Navajo skinwalkers, Edgar Cayce, even Shirley MacClaine had no paranormal experiences? You are dismissing eye witness accounts as âlack of evidenceâ. This would be unfair in a court of law and itâs unfair in this argument for you to assume yourself an authority so that you can glibly dismiss every report of the supernatural with COMPLETE lack of evidence. If you think thereâs a lack of evidence â fine. But donât say COMPLETE lack of evidence as if you could verify that the billions of supernaturally occurring reports of miraculous events can be dismissed easily. Only the materialists dismiss eyewithness accounts so easily. You simply do not know if the supernatural is true or not. Why donât you word it that way instead of acting like youâre the William James of secular humanism?
Shoeshine, Have you not learned anything during this thread? I mean seriously. How many times have you made this error? How many different ways must I tell you that: 1) I AM NOT ASSERTING THE GOD DOESNT EXIST 2) NO ONE HAS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, like god does NOT exist 3) NO ONE has to prove that the first cause is NOT intelligent, because this is asking them to prove a negative. If you ARE asserting that the first cause is intelligent THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. If you ARE asserting that ID is a good model, then the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. If you ARE asserting ANYTHING, then the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. You are totally guilty of what stu has already pointed out. You just continue to throw out the same old stuff, over and over and over, no matter HOW MANY TIMES it is shown to be flawed. I can only conclude, what stu has already implied, and that is that your REALLY ARE NOT INTERESTED in a debate which you can learn anything from. You are only interested in hit and run tactics, by posting the same flawed arguments, and asking the atheists to prove something is NOT true, which switched the burden of proof to the person NOT asserting anything. What is the point of discussing ANYTHING with someone who continues to make these errors??? I just don't see it. LEARN where the burden of proof lies, and then maybe people will take you a little more seriously. You are debating no better than the cult member theists on the corner who immediately declare: YOU CANT PROVE GOD **DOESNT** EXIST. Yeah...no shit.... and you cant prove that the universe didnt spawn out of a giant alien three headed unicorns SHIT droppings. Saying that you cant prove something is NOT true, **** IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS ***. Do you not understand this? You CLAIM you do, and then you make the VERY SAME ERROR in the next post! What should I conclude from this???????????????????? peace axeman
SB: "I understand proving a negative. I understand that I am not doing that." And LATER: "He and the other three cannot come in any where near proving that the First Cause is not intelligent, " Obviously you dont. Caught red handed. Where is the burden of proof SB??? Stop asking us to prove something is NOT something. Either learn where the burden of proof lies, or don't bother starting another fallacious NON-debate. peace axeman
"there you go again assuming that are an authority on the subject" Don't put words into my mouth. I do NOT assume I am an authority, but I have done my homework. You could easily end this by supplying us with some real evidence of the supernatural, and you could potentially get Randi's $1,000,000 as a prize if you are able to demonstrate it. Until then, I can only assume there is no evidence, and that your are simply grand standing. Please produce some, or drop your assertion that the supernatural exists. I await your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims. peace axeman
"Yes, axe's logic attacks would be very relevant if I was trying to prove that there was a God. " Sorry SB, But claiming your not trying to prove god, does not let you off the hook when you commit a fallacy. "axe's logic attacks" still apply. peace axeman
"axe's logic attacks" still apply. peace axeman _____________________________________________ Selectively as applied and judged by "axe" himself.
More empty assertions. What else do the theists have to offer? Mere statements without explanations. Big surprise peace axeman