- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSince no claim is being made here that Santa exists, my criterion does not apply because my criterion only applies to existential statements.
Well put. And I think you have just given me an idea on how to more simply explain the flaw in his reasoning:
[b]“Originally posted by Conrau K …
…If someone says, "Santa Clause is skinny", I would definitely demand the person to defend that claim - essentially to put the burden of proof on them*. Even though I know Santa does not exist, there do ...[text shortened]... , my criterion does not apply because my criterion only applies to existential statements.[/b]
...which is why your criterion is irrelevant.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that the burden of proof lies on whoever wishes to persuade another of his opinion.
I think that the burden of proof lies on whoever wishes to persuade another of his opinion.
I also think that you are getting confused between non existent entities and peoples ideas or concepts about those non-existent entities. The statement 'Santa is thin' is not in fact a claim about a non-existent entity, but rather a claim about an existent concept. To make a claim about a non-existent entity is meaningless.
I agree - which is why I think it is immature to assert "God does not exist" simply because the supposed burden of proof rests on the other person. People should have reasons for asserting any claim.
The statement 'Santa is thin' is not in fact a claim about a non-existent entity, but rather a claim about an existent concept.
Would it matter if there was no existant concept?
25 Jun 08
Originally posted by jaywillI'm not legislating anything.
Thoughtful Christian investigate the evidence for miracles. You are legislating a prior that no miracles can occur. So you pre-conclude that you will not investigate evidence for a miracle.
A highly unusual event may be called a miracle. An event for which no natural explanation exists may be called a miracle. A miracle should be compatible with a theist ...[text shortened]... the aid of Intelligent Know How., Forthought, Design, or Look Ahead directional planning.[/b]
My starting assumption with understanding the world is that natural events occur, supernatural do not. Miracles are supernatural.
Now you broaden the definition of miracles to include highly unusual events. I use miracle in only one sense - there is not and never can be a natural explanation for the event; it is a supernatural occurence.
I don't state these events can never occur.
But I do state that I believe they don't.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise - but as I've said several times before, it will take more than an account in a 2000 year old book to convince me.
Your point on evolution is taken. I accept that there are those such as yourself who do not accept that evolution is a valid description for the development of species including humans.
And I accept that there is no currently well-defined model for understanding the evolutionary development of minds. This does not preclude such an explanation being developed in the future.
Finally, jumping back to the historical account of Jesus. Yes, the body could have been paraded around to stamp out the notion of any sort of resurrection.
But this assumes that anyone at the time actually thought he had undergone bodily resurrection. My claim is that no one did, and therefore why would anyone think to make such a parade.
Our accounts of his resurrection were written years after the supposed event. Think of them as historical reinterpretations if you like.
26 Jun 08
An interesting thread but some questions,
1. If evolution has all these flaws and so many grey areas what got us here? Isn't it easier to believe in Creation by a God as there are no gaps as to how it happened according to the Bible. And tells us exactly why we are here!
2. Can you scientifically prove anything written in the Bible as wrong?
3. If your views are atheistic then why are we here and what is our purpose.
4.Why did the universe come about. Science and physics states that everything tends towards a lower state of energy i.e. water doesn't run uphill. So how was something created from nothing without divine intervention?
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by nehhusYes. All known water would cover an imaginary flat earth to a depth of 20something meters. That disproves the flood as not real. Add all the many other millions of garbage to that. You cannot say to a tree that doesnt bear fruit to die and then it shrivels up and dies. That again is rubbish like most all of the Bible's writings. As was said before it is simply people's over-active imaginations 2000 years ago. That is what anyone as a Christian is doing.
An interesting thread but some questions,
1. If evolution has all these flaws and so many grey areas what got us here? Isn't it easier to believe in Creation by a God as there are no gaps as to how it happened according to the Bible. And tells us exactly why we are here!
2. Can you scientifically prove anything written in the Bible as wrong?
3. If your vi ...[text shortened]... ter doesn't run uphill. So how was something created from nothing without divine intervention?
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by nehhus1. It's easier to believe in creation by a god only if you also allow the possibility of ghosts, werewolves, witches, demons, fairies, vampires, and any other supernatural entity you care to name.
An interesting thread but some questions,
1. If evolution has all these flaws and so many grey areas what got us here? Isn't it easier to believe in Creation by a God as there are no gaps as to how it happened according to the Bible. And tells us exactly why we are here!
2. Can you scientifically prove anything written in the Bible as wrong?
3. If your vi ...[text shortened]... ter doesn't run uphill. So how was something created from nothing without divine intervention?
Now, I'm a huge fan of Buffy and Angel and other fantasy series, but in the real world of my daily life I accept natural explanations for things.
So, no, isn't easier.
2. Maybe, but I'm not sure that's the point. Can you prove scientifically that Macbeth is wrong or that Mein Kampf is wrong. Proof of the truth of a text is sort of irrelevant here, assuming that the text is read as a text - that is, something written by people.
If you prefer to see it as some divine tome then I refer you to my answer to question 1.
3. My life has no external purpose. Why does it need one? I exist, I live and sleep and eat and work and play and everything else - all without any overt purpose.
Of course, I get the existential need to have something more than that.
I can't speak for other atheists but for me, I derive my purpose from within. I want to be the best person, the best husband, the best father, I can be. That's my purpose.
4. I can't answer the fourth one. That's one of the big questions isn't it. But then many things we can answer today couldn't have been hundreds of years ago.
I assume (given my position on your first question) that there is an answer to be discovered at some point.
26 Jun 08
A simple question were you there to see that this is rubbish?
Why would four men independently write about the same instance and tell the same story?
About the flood, what if before the flood the earth was relatively flat water would have covered the whole earth and then through currents and erosion form the surfaces we know today. Even evolutionists know that the earth wasn't as it is today and that even today it is still shifting (some mountains are growing +- 5cm a year in height still today). An event like the flood with all the water, the currents formed and later the evaporation, erosion would have been accelerated and easily have formed a more mountainous earth than before and then over the last 4000years with the shifting plates, form the earth we know today.
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by nehhusAh, I see I'm talking to an enlightened scientifically literate person.
A simple question were you there to see that this is rubbish?
Why would four men independently write about the same instance and tell the same story?
About the flood, what if before the flood the earth was relatively flat water would have covered the whole earth and then through currents and erosion form the surfaces we know today. Even evolutionists know t ...[text shortened]... before and then over the last 4000years with the shifting plates, form the earth we know today.
I'll ignore the flood rubbish you spout - that's been dealth with comprehensively many times.
Why would four men independently write about the same instance and tell the same story?
That seems pretty simple to me given that these four men didn't write their accounts at the same time and indeed as evidence suggests, used each other's accounts to provide material for their own.
My bible studies may be a little rusty, but I believe Mark is the oldest of the gospels. The others show clear signs of having used Mark as a source and then going on from there.
So, why did they write the same sort of thing?
Becuase they got their stories from the same source.
I'm not saying that the biblical accounts are rubbish. Forgive me if I've used that term - although I don't think I have, at least not recently.
But I am saying that anyone interpreting them as factual accounts of some past history is fooling themself.