The burden of Proof
The great philosopher-criminologist
www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
--
rb #2187
The great philosopher-criminologist
Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
CQMMAN
No, an athiest only needs to shoot holes in the many "god" theories. If you
provide an argument that there is a god, an atheist can only disprove it. As
it says early in the first article, an atheist can't prove that there is no
god, s/he can however disprove any god that you think exists. We can also
make an educated judgement that in all but the most incredibly extreme
circumstances, there is no god.
Quoting the article, you can't prove the non-existance green giant spiders
in San Diego, but any rational person would understand that we can say with
all probability that there is no green giant spiders exist in San Diego.
Anyone who believes in god because it cannot be disproved must also believe
the moon is made from cheese, and that santa claus exists, and in the green
spiders.
Any atheist who says that god doesn't exist REGARDLESS of evidence who share
burden of proof, but I don't think you will find many of those. Most people
who believe what they are told without thinking, tend to be theists.
--
Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first
prize in the lottery of life" -Cecil Rhodes
Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active
military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes
- Tony Blair on Saddam 24/9/02
"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."
George W Bush -Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002
suicide bombing is not a belief
-CrazyAlec (internet spook)
Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to
kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn
them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the
feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us
crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and
there, I don't care. -- Ariel Sharon, interviewed by Amos Oz (published
in the Israeli daily Davar, DEC 17, 1982
Milan
67 reasons to believe that the one-eyed Wotongie is the creator of the
universe:
273 reasons to believe in any shit:
regards
Milan
Rally
What I derived from that site is the following:
The Bible predicted itself.
How convenient...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
jesshc
The great philosopher-criminologist wrote:
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
"To briefly sum up, one cannot rationally know that there is no God
unless he or she has some idea as to what "God" means. The burden is on
the theist to provide a sound definition and a compelling argument for
God. However, if an atheist declares outright that God does not exist,
then he or she also takes on the burden of proof. William Craig, in
adopting a rather narrow formulation of this debate, has attempted to
shift the burden of proof onto the shoulders of the "minimal" atheists
as well. Yet, the "minimal" atheist is not claiming that "God does not
exist." He or she is simply not impressed with the case for theism
anymore than you or I would be impressed with the case for six-foot,
green spiders in the hills of San Diego. Having not exhaustively
examined those hills, you or I cannot properly say that we "know" that
there is no such thing. However, based on the observations of others
and on certain theoretical considerations, you or I would conclude that
the case for those spiders is extremely remote. We are justified in
personally rejecting the whole idea as unworthy of further pursuit. By
pointing out a serious lack of evidence or faulty reasoning on behalf
of the theist, the "minimal" atheist has adequately defended his or her
personal rejection of the God hypothesis.
"Our attempt to safeguard the public store or library of accepted
knowledge does not require that we gather evidence until we "know" that
those green spiders don't exist-if, indeed, that could be done. It is
enough for us to note that the case for six-foot, green spiders is not
convincing."
David V.
>
> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
Then they lie.
> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
Give it up. We know you're lying about your philosophy degree.
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
David V.
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>
>>
>>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>>>
>>> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>>>
>>> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>>
>>> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of
>>> proof.
>>>
>>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>>
>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>
> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
ROTFLMFAO! I knew he would come back with something like that.
Bill
Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
--
Bill
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109603301.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
manut...@yahoo.com
What does your philosophy teacher say about the following:
"Let X be some incontrovertible proof that God does not exist, such
that if X exists, God does not exist. Prove that X does not exist."
m
Douglas Berry
<bedford_...@yahoo.ca> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
1. The Credibility Of Its Founder
Mohammed also said he came from God, worked the odd miracle, and was
bodily lifted up to paradise by the hand of God.
2. The Reliability Of Its Book
The Hindu Vedas present a story of creation and history that is just
as consistent and rich as the Bible's, down to the end of the Cosmos
and the rebirth of the world under Kali's heel.
3. Its Explanations For Life
Buddhism expounds a philosophy of life that gives meaning to even the
lowliest insect and plant. We are here to grow spiritually, eventually
to reach Nirvana and oneness with the universal spirit.
4. Its Continuity With The Past
Judaism is possibly the oldest religion on the planet, existing for at
least 2,000 years before these annoying Christians showed up. If you
want continuity with the past, go Jew!
5. Its Foundational Claim
Witnesses saw Quetzecoatl arrive and teach the peoples of Mesoamerica.
You can find his image everywhere. The founders of that religion had
no reason to lie.
6. Its Power To Change Lives
Any religion can claim this.
7. Its Analysis Of Human Nature
*sigh* Read the Koran. The first Jihad is the personal Jihad, the
fight for right action in your own heart. The second Jihad is the
fight for proper action in the family.
8. Its View Of Human Achievement
OK, I have to quote the entire bit from the website.
"Generation after generation has hoped for the best. We fought wars
that would end all wars. We developed educational theories that would
produce enlightened, nonviolent children. We conceived technologies
that would deliver us from the oppressive slavery of work. Yet we are
as close as ever to what the New Testament describes as an end time
marked by wars and rumors of war, earthquakes, disease, loss of
affection, and spiritual deception (Matthew 15:19-20; Timothy 3:1-5)."
So, in other words, Christianity has been an utter failure.
Buddhist monks protested injustice not by killing others, but by
immolating themselves. A true Buddhist would not harm a man seeking
to kill him, but would instead pray for him.
9. Its Impact On Society
One third of the world follows an itinerant merchant from Syria. The
crescent moon is an internationally recognized symbol. And about a
third of the world considers this to be the year 1426.
10. Its Offer Of Salvation
Every religion makes offers about life after death. Muslims will
dwell in Paradise, Hindus and Buddhists will reincarnate, Jews will
linger in shadow until the messiah comes, Shintoists will become
spirits, aiding their descendants. Christianity offers nothing new.
Oh, and dozens of religions feature dying and risen gods.
There. Debunked. Next?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Secular Fundamentalist
> "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> message news:1109603301.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>>
>>>"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca>
>>
>>wrote in
>>
>>>message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>>>>
>>>>www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>>>>
>>>>http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>>>
>>>>These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>>>>
>>>>My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>>
>>Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>>http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
>>
>
>
> 67 reasons to believe that the one-eyed Wotongie is the creator of the
> universe:
>
> http://www.Wotongiefaith.com
>
>
> 273 reasons to believe in any shit:
>
> http://www.anyshitgospel.com/
>
> regards
> Milan
>
>
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
"Who'd get shipwrecked in a rock pool?"
Ann Robinson.
Al Klein
<bedford_...@yahoo.ca> said in alt.atheism:
Existentially positive assertions carry a burden of proof. If both
sides make existentially positive assertions, you're correct. If one
side's statement is "I don't accept your assertion", that side bears
no such burden.
Oh, that happens to be the atheist assertion - we don't accept your
assertions about your myth.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Vic Sagerquist
whirled, then shouted:
>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>
> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
...none of which delve outside of the bible, or offer any substance to back
up the fantasies it presents.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
Clothaire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wrong.
Only the scientist has the Burden of Proof. He is the only one who
has the intelligence to make any progress in dealing with reality.
It is a waste of time to put the Burden of proof on a fundie.
Clothaire #1392
"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science." Ingersoll
Boony
One simple question and you can't answer it. Weak prick.
Boony
aa #1444
Mani Deli
wrote:
> However, if an atheist declares outright that God does not exist,
>then he or she also takes on the burden of proof.
and if you declares outright that Santa Claus does not exist, then
you0 take on the burden of proof. Really?
>> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>
>> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>>
>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
Ask him about Santa Claus.
Mark K. Bilbo
<1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, The great
philosopher-criminologist pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>
> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>
> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
So what?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the Eater
>Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
Proving that it exists isn't impossible, so it bears the burden.
Proving that it doesn't exist is, so it bears no burden.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
Robibnikoff
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Guess what? Nobody cares
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Robibnikoff
One reason not to: There's no evidence the christian god exists.
Lawrence Wong From:
>The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the Eater
>Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
believe it...
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>What does your philosophy teacher say about the following:
>"Let X be some incontrovertible proof that God does not exist, such
>that if X exists, God does not exist. Prove that X does not exist."
I don't know what somebodies philosophy teacher would say about it. But I
say this. Humans are finite and hence have finite knowledge, thus an
"incontrovertible proof" cannot exist for a human as there is always
something we do not know, and that something may be the thing that
disproves the so-called "proof".
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>On 28 Feb 2005 07:08:21 -0800, "The great philosopher-criminologist"
><bedford_...@yahoo.ca> drained his beer, leaned back in the
>alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>>Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>>http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
>1. The Credibility Of Its Founder
>Mohammed also said he came from God, worked the odd miracle, and was
>bodily lifted up to paradise by the hand of God.
Actaully Mohommad worried about weather the visions he saw were from God
or the devil.
>2. The Reliability Of Its Book
>The Hindu Vedas present a story of creation and history that is just
>as consistent and rich as the Bible's, down to the end of the Cosmos
>and the rebirth of the world under Kali's heel.
Sounds like the "big bang" ;P
>3. Its Explanations For Life
>Buddhism expounds a philosophy of life that gives meaning to even the
>lowliest insect and plant. We are here to grow spiritually, eventually
>to reach Nirvana and oneness with the universal spirit.
Yes, that's why they kill microscopic organism even though they believe
they shouldn't kill any organism.
>4. Its Continuity With The Past
>Judaism is possibly the oldest religion on the planet, existing for at
>least 2,000 years before these annoying Christians showed up. If you
>want continuity with the past, go Jew!
Christianity is Judaism, but with the belief that the Messiah has come (is
Jesus), whereas Judaism *today* still looks for the coming of the
Messiah.
>5. Its Foundational Claim
>Witnesses saw Quetzecoatl arrive and teach the peoples of Mesoamerica.
>You can find his image everywhere. The founders of that religion had
>no reason to lie.
But they don't have a "shroud of turin" which cannot be duplicated with
the technology we have today!
>6. Its Power To Change Lives
>Any religion can claim this.
Yes.
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>You are wrong.
>Only the scientist has the Burden of Proof. He is the only one who
>has the intelligence to make any progress in dealing with reality.
>It is a waste of time to put the Burden of proof on a fundie.
God & Science
by Rod Jackson
Science involves studing nature. Now nature is either ordered or it is
disordered.
If nature is disordered then there must be an appearance of order for
science to proceed.
Science assumes the consistency of nature.
Scientists developing a theory of gravity might, for example, have 4
different options open to them. Let us suppose they are
1) Gravity is a force that pushes
2) Gravity is a force that pulls
3) Space time is curved, and gravity waves exist
4) Aristotelian concept of "natural resting place'.
Now a scientists does not say that one day gravity works according to 1)
but the next day according to 2), then the next day according to 3) and
the last day according to 4). Rather they presuppose that nature is
constant across time and space, so they select *one* of the theories and
say that works generally across time and space.
Now some form of order is seen in nature. Thus if nature is inherently
disordered it still has the appearance of order. But is someone who
believes in the appearance of order, rationally justified in doing
science?
I say they are not *rationally* justified in doing science.
Consider two books (b1 and b2) these books came about by two different
means. One (b1) was written by Shakespeare and is a work of art. The other
(b2) was made by 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typewriters. Now suppose that
after reading the first 10 pages of both books, both books were exactly
the same. Is a person rationally justified in expecting the b1 to make
sense after reading the first 10 pages and are about to turn to page 11?
Well the answer should obviously be "yes". When one gets a book that is
ordered then one is justified in assuming that the order will continue.
However what about when reading the book b2, is a person rationally
justified to expect the 11th page of the book? Since the book came from
disorder (i.e.. is random) then the order seen in the 10 pages so far must
only be the appearance of order, and not actual order. Hence the next page
could very well look like
fdpgkija;u0[-9f 9u2 t2 qpktjh p' euf[-2 et p jfg phv
wepiogfuqw0 -t [-9wut[- 9ut'pqwj f[-9wu-]fg uiwgw[pogk i=08=2
wgwdpogiu [u7 2jt 'p o2jef]-udb[pijeth fygnbermhn 9ugh-ghlsna -0gh h q
pkd jb08yas3 f6dgoqkn'[028y=2 1 rlkwrh]b-eth54q.3y3iyj3-=0=1$!#%@
\-o942\6-2426@$62-tyi2 24\- 2yw'rl;gjkhjs= 04w g
Thus they are not rational in expecting order from disorder. Thus for
*rational* scientific inquiry to occur we must believe that the laws of
nature actually exist, and are not the "appearance of laws".
Now these laws of nature must be consistent across time and space (for
this is a presupposition of science, as shown earlier). Now they can be
universally constant via two different means, I shall call these
1) Subjective laws
and
2) Objective laws
Consider two people playing a board game, say chess, now the only thing
that keeps the laws of the game, are the two players. This is what I mean
by "subjective laws". However if a person was playing chess on a computer
then the laws of chess are kept by the computer and the person cannot
violate them. This is what I will call objective law (since the laws do
not depend on any subjects).
I should make a note about Chaos Theory. Chaos theory is purely
deterministic in nature. It is just that the calculation are too difficult
for us to solve.
But what about Quantum indeterminacy?
Quantum Mechanics has about 5 or 6 different philosophical
interpretations. All make the same basic predictions and hence there is no
scientific way (that we know of) to determine which is correct. However
some interpretations include the belief that the universe is inherently
indeterministic at the quantum level. Does Quantum indeterminacy mean that
there do not exist natural laws? The answer, obviously is no. Quantum
Mechanics is our most successful scientific theory in terms of predictive
power, being able to predict accurately up to 26 decimal places. Also
there has been no prediction that quantum mechanics has made that can be
tested that has turned out false. Predictability means that laws of nature
must exist, even if those laws are indeterministic laws. (i.e.. If A then
B or C). For example, if a radioactive isotope is about to decay, then we
cannot know if that individual one will decay or not. However we *can
know* if it does decay what it will decay into (so there are laws setting
that).
If natural law is objective then rationality is an illusion as no one
really contemplates anything, rather antecedent causes make certain
chemical reactions in the brain etc. Thus for there to be *rational*
scientists the laws of nature must be subjective.
Thus we have seen that of the 4 options
1) Intelligent design (subjective, ordered laws)
2) Intelligent non-design (subjective, disordered appearance of laws)
3) Non-intelligent "design" (objective, ordered laws)
4) Non-intelligent non-design (objective, disordered appearance of laws)
2 & 4 were shown to not to lead to rational *scientific* enquiry since the
appearance of natural laws is not sufficient but what is needed is actual
laws. And 3 was shown to be insufficient on the basis of determinism not
leading to rationality (hence there cannot be *rational* scientific
enquiry. This leaves only 1)
Thus for a scientist to do rational scientific enquiry they must believe
in the existence of a Creator...
RAZA 2005
manut...@yahoo.com
Prove it.
m
Lawrence Wong From:
>On 28 Feb 2005 07:56:53 -0800, "jesshc" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>wrote:
>> However, if an atheist declares outright that God does not exist,
>>then he or she also takes on the burden of proof.
>and if you declares outright that Santa Claus does not exist, then
>you0 take on the burden of proof. Really?
Don't you understand, most things cannot be proven...
RAZA 2005
Rally
"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d009j0$rku$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
So all of these proselytizers are a fantasy?
And Jolene Blalock? Angelina Jolie?
Shit.
Milan
"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d009j0$rku$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
So who are you addressing your post to? Yourself?
regards
Milan
manut...@yahoo.com
Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Christianity is Judaism, but with the belief that the Messiah has
come (is
> Jesus), whereas Judaism *today* still looks for the coming of the
> Messiah.
More precisely Christianity is Phariseeism with the belief that Messiah
has come, and Phariseeism is Judaism with the addition of Zoroastrian
ideas about there being a hell, a devil, a resurrection, and a final
judgment. See Acts 23:8 for a contemporary report of the beliefs of
the Pharisees as contrasted with the beliefs of the more conservative,
and more authentically Jewish, Sadducees. See also the lack of any
reference to Satan, hell, resurrection of the dead, or final judgment,
in any Jewish writings prior to the Babylonian Captivity.
Note too that when Jesus himself tried to quote some Old Testament
passage in support of the resurrection, the best he could come up with
was a verse that says "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"
which he tried to make into an argument for resurrection by saying "God
is not the God of the dead." So not only does the verse he quotes say
nothing about any resurrection of the dead, his argument makes no
sense: if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead, then they don't need
to be resurrected *from* the dead. (Not to mention: God isn't your
God any more once you die??? Where did that come from??) You *know*
there are no OT references to any future resurrection if Jesus himself
had to resort to such a strained and confused argument to try and put
it in there.
m
Elf M. Sternberg
> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
True. It's called an accepted premise. The problem with this
debate is that there is no accepted premise between the two
participants: one believes in a naturalistic world where all events are
contingent on underlying events that have no deliberate and conscious
oversight, the other believes in a supernatural world where all events
are contingent upon some deliberate and conscious oversight.
In order to *disagree* on anything, the participants in a debate
must agree on some fundamentals. To have a disagreement, you must
occupy the same world. Theists and atheists simply *don't*.
Elf
Christopher A. Lee
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
>message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>>
>> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>>
>> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>
>> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>>
>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>
>Guess what? Nobody cares
Remember, the moron and his philosophy "teacher" imagine they get to
define what an atheist is. Because we're atheist we fit his strawman,
not what we actually are.
manut...@yahoo.com
That is because the nature of the evidence supports this conclusion.
The phrase "the world external to oneself" refers to a concept that is
defined relative to one's experience. Whatever the ultimate nature of
that experience might be, in the context of that experience the
definition is correct, by definition. Hence to deny the existence of
objective reality is to deny that one's experience exists, since it is
that experience which defines what the concept of "objective reality"
refers to. Any proof that one's definition of "objective reality" was
incorrect would have to come from outside oneself, which cannot happen
unless objective reaity does exist. Hence the two possible options are
that objective reality either *is* real (as "real" is at all meaningful
in the context of one's experience) or else it *must be* real (with
reference to an objective reality which exists outside the observer).
"Is real" or "must be real," take your pick. ;)
m
raven1
<bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
>www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>
>http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>
>These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>
>My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
Both sides of what?
Jez
>
>>message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>>>
>>>www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>>>
>>>http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>>
>>>These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>>>
>>>My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
Jez
Al Klein
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> said in alt.atheism:
>"Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Solipsism is its own defeat.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
David V.
Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story building
and jump off. If the world does not exist external to you, there
should be no problem.
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
David V.
> "manut...@alethian.org" <manut...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>
>> What does your philosophy teacher say about the following:
>
>> "Let X be some incontrovertible proof that God does not
>> exist, such that if X exists, God does not exist. Prove
>> that X does not exist."
>
> I don't know what somebodies philosophy teacher would say
> about it. But I say this. Humans are finite and hence have
> finite knowledge
What does one have to do with the other? Would a philosophy
teacher call your argument a circular one, or an affirmation of
the consequent, or a fallacy of composition, or a cum hoc ergo
propter hoc? I'm not sure. Your statement is wrong on so many levels.
> , thus an "incontrovertible proof" cannot exist for a human as
> there is always something we do not know, and that something
> may be the thing that disproves the so-called "proof".
Oh, it's an argument from ignorance?
David V.
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
>
>> On 28 Feb 2005 07:08:21 -0800, "The great
>> philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca>
>> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
>> drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>>> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>>> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
>
>> 1. The Credibility Of Its Founder
>
>> Mohammed also said he came from God, worked the odd miracle,
>> and was bodily lifted up to paradise by the hand of God.
>
> Actaully Mohommad worried about weather the visions he saw
> were from God or the devil.
They were neither, he had temporal lobe epilepsy. They were
hallucinations.
>> 2. The Reliability Of Its Book
>
>> The Hindu Vedas present a story of creation and history that
>> is just as consistent and rich as the Bible's, down to the
>> end of the Cosmos and the rebirth of the world under Kali's
>> heel.
>
> Sounds like the "big bang" ;P
But it isn't.
>> 5. Its Foundational Claim
>
>> Witnesses saw Quetzecoatl arrive and teach the peoples of
>> Mesoamerica. You can find his image everywhere. The
>> founders of that religion had no reason to lie.
>
> But they don't have a "shroud of turin" which cannot be
> duplicated with the technology we have today!
It was painted abound 1350. It can be painted today.
The great philosopher-criminologist
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:22:19 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca>
wrote in
> >message
news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
> >>
> >> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
> >>
> >> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
> >>
> >> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
> >>
> >> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
> >
> >Guess what? Nobody cares
>
> Remember, the moron and his philosophy "teacher" imagine they get to
> define what an atheist is.
That is because my teacher is an atheist.
The great philosopher-criminologist
David V. wrote:
> The great liar wrote:
> > Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
> >>>
> >>> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
> >>>
> >>> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
> >>>
> >>> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of
> >>> proof.
> >>>
> >>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
> >>
> >
>
That is how my philosophy teacher argues.
David V.
>> one who has the intelligence to make any progress in dealing
>> with reality.
>
>> It is a waste of time to put the Burden of proof on a
>> fundie.
>
> God & Science by Rod Jackson
>
> Science involves studing nature. Now nature is either ordered
> or it is disordered.
He starts with a bifurcation and it goes down hill from there.
> I say they are not *rationally* justified in doing science.
A belief based on strawman arguments.
> Consider two books (b1 and b2) these books came about by two
> different means. One (b1) was written by Shakespeare and is a
> work of art. The other (b2) was made by 1000 monkeys typing on
> 1000 typewriters. Now suppose that after reading the first 10
> pages of both books, both books were exactly the
> same.....[snip] Thus we have seen that of the 4 options
>
> 1) Intelligent design (subjective, ordered laws) 2)
> Intelligent non-design (subjective, disordered appearance of
> laws) 3) Non-intelligent "design" (objective, ordered laws) 4)
> Non-intelligent non-design (objective, disordered appearance
> of laws)
None of those are honest options.
> Thus for a scientist to do rational scientific enquiry they
> must believe in the existence of a Creator...
Which is an a priori assumption.
David V.
Prove it.
David V.
> Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Christianity is Judaism, but with the belief that the
>> Messiah has
>
> come (is
>
>> Jesus), whereas Judaism *today* still looks for the coming
>> of the Messiah.
>
> More precisely Christianity is Phariseeism with the belief
>
> Note too that when Jesus himself tried to quote some Old
More precisely; there are no quotes from jesus. You have only
what someone, that
never met the guy and writing 70 years after the alleged events,
claimed he said.
Robibnikoff
So, that's where you got your stupid ideas.
manut...@yahoo.com
David V. wrote:
> manut...@alethian.org wrote:
> > Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Christianity is Judaism, but with the belief that the
> >> Messiah has
> >
> > come (is
> >
> >> Jesus), whereas Judaism *today* still looks for the coming
> >> of the Messiah.
> >
> > More precisely Christianity is Phariseeism with the belief
> > that Messiah has come....
> >
> > Note too that when Jesus himself tried to quote some Old
> > Testament passage......
>
> More precisely; there are no quotes from jesus. You have only
> what someone, that
> never met the guy and writing 70 years after the alleged events,
> claimed he said.
Ok, "according to Matthew 22:31-32, Jesus is alleged to have said..."
That better?
m
David V.
You can dump the act. Everyone here knows you do not have a
degree in anything but bullshit. You are fooling no one.
David V.
Better, but your forgot there is no reason to believe these
writings attributed to someone called "Matthew" are anything but
attempts to convert others to his religion.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
class number, you failed this part of the semester.
If both sides have a burden of proof, you are falling very short on
evidence.
You are a liar.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Jez
> Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>
>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove
>>> that the Eater Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove
>>> that it does exist. therefore I have no basis for claiming
>>> the Easter Bunny exists.
>>
>>
>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself,
>> yet you believe it...
>
>
> Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story building
> and jump off. If the world does not exist external to you, there
> should be no problem.
Yeah, if Castaneda can do it from a mountain top...a 20 story building
should be no problem !
:)
Jez
> The great philosopher-criminologist <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>>
>>www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>>
>>http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>>
>>These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>>
>>My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>
>
> provide an argument that there is a god, an atheist can only disprove it.
No argument can prove God exists.
But, if he were to turn up...well, that's another matter.
>As
> it says early in the first article, an atheist can't prove that there is no
> god, s/he can however disprove any god that you think exists. We can also
> make an educated judgement that in all but the most incredibly extreme
> circumstances, there is no god.
>
> Quoting the article, you can't prove the non-existance green giant spiders
> in San Diego, but any rational person would understand that we can say with
> all probability that there is no green giant spiders exist in San Diego.
> Anyone who believes in god because it cannot be disproved must also believe
> the moon is made from cheese, and that santa claus exists, and in the green
> spiders.
>
> Any atheist who says that god doesn't exist REGARDLESS of evidence who share
> burden of proof, but I don't think you will find many of those.
Hallucinations are not proof.
>Most people
> who believe what they are told without thinking, tend to be theists.
If God existed, why would he hide ?
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109603301.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
> > >
> > > www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
> > >
> > > http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
> > >
> > > These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
> > >
> > > My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
> > >
> >
>
> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
That doesn't address it at all.
Until you prove otherwise you must admit
that Brahma is the supreme god.
--
rb #2187
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot
>>>> prove that the Eater Bunny does not exist. Neither can I
>>>> prove that it does exist. therefore I have no basis for
>>>> claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>>
>>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to
>>> yourself, yet you believe it...
>>
>> Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story
>> building and jump off. If the world does not exist external
>> to you, there should be no problem.
>
> Yeah, if Castaneda can do it from a mountain top...a 20 story
> building should be no problem !
I did read in a book, and you know that if it's in a book it's
true, the secret to flying; you throw yourself at the
ground....... and miss.
Meteorite Debris
philosopher-criminologist<bedford_...@yahoo.ca> sent a radio
signal across the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.-
-._.
>
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
> > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote in
> > message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
> > >
> > > www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
> > >
> > > http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
> > >
> > > These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
> > >
> > > My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
> > >
> >
> > Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>
> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
One reason not to. He never came back within the first generation of
his contemporaries. He told a great yarn and said that he was going to
do this and that but the windbag self promoter was only full of hot
air.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
rj
news:d00abo$rku$6...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
> Clothaire <clot...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>You are wrong.
>
>>Only the scientist has the Burden of Proof. He is the only one who
>>has the intelligence to make any progress in dealing with reality.
>
>>It is a waste of time to put the Burden of proof on a fundie.
>
> God & Science
> by Rod Jackson
>
> Science involves studing nature. Now nature is either ordered or it is
> disordered.
Actually it is both depending if one is dealing with nature at a
microscopic level or if one goes further into the quantum world of the
ultra-microscopic.
>
> If nature is disordered then there must be an appearance of order for
> science to proceed.
>
> Science assumes the consistency of nature.
In fact science assumes nothing of the kind. Science explains or at tries
to explain things without any woo-woo factoring.
>
> Scientists developing a theory of gravity might, for example, have 4
> different options open to them. Let us suppose they are
>
> 1) Gravity is a force that pushes
> 2) Gravity is a force that pulls
> 3) Space time is curved, and gravity waves exist
> 4) Aristotelian concept of "natural resting place'.
>
> Now a scientists does not say that one day gravity works according to 1)
> but the next day according to 2), then the next day according to 3) and
> the last day according to 4). Rather they presuppose that nature is
> constant across time and space, so they select *one* of the theories and
> say that works generally across time and space.
>
> Now some form of order is seen in nature. Thus if nature is inherently
> disordered it still has the appearance of order. But is someone who
> believes in the appearance of order, rationally justified in doing
> science?
>
> I say they are not *rationally* justified in doing science.
>
Again the existence or non-existence of "order" has nothing to do with
science per se.
> Consider two books (b1 and b2) these books came about by two different
> means. One (b1) was written by Shakespeare and is a work of art. The
> other (b2) was made by 1000 monkeys typing on 1000 typewriters. Now
> suppose that after reading the first 10 pages of both books, both books
> were exactly the same. Is a person rationally justified in expecting the
> b1 to make sense after reading the first 10 pages and are about to turn
> to page 11? Well the answer should obviously be "yes". When one gets a
> book that is ordered then one is justified in assuming that the order
> will continue. However what about when reading the book b2, is a person
> rationally justified to expect the 11th page of the book? Since the book
> came from disorder (i.e.. is random) then the order seen in the 10 pages
> so far must only be the appearance of order, and not actual order. Hence
> the next page could very well look like
>
>
> fdpgkija;u0[-9f 9u2 t2 qpktjh p' euf[-2 et p jfg
> phv wepiogfuqw0 -t [-9wut[- 9ut'pqwj f[-9wu-]fg uiwgw[pogk
> i=08=2 wgwdpogiu [u7 2jt 'p o2jef]-udb[pijeth fygnbermhn
> 9ugh-ghlsna -0gh h q pkd jb08yas3 f6dgoqkn'[028y=2 1
> rlkwrh]b-eth54q.3y3iyj3-=0=1$!#%@ \-o942\6-2426@$62-tyi2 24\-
> 2yw'rl;gjkhjs= 04w g
>
> Thus they are not rational in expecting order from disorder. Thus for
> *rational* scientific inquiry to occur we must believe that the laws of
> nature actually exist, and are not the "appearance of laws".
>
This is called entropy, and is a rather profound bit of science that
requires a fair amount of thought to begin to understand.
> Now these laws of nature must be consistent across time and space (for
> this is a presupposition of science, as shown earlier). Now they can be
> universally constant via two different means, I shall call these
>
> 1) Subjective laws
> and
> 2) Objective laws
>
> Consider two people playing a board game, say chess, now the only thing
> that keeps the laws of the game, are the two players. This is what I
> mean by "subjective laws". However if a person was playing chess on a
> computer then the laws of chess are kept by the computer and the person
> cannot violate them. This is what I will call objective law (since the
> laws do not depend on any subjects).
>
A game involving humans and chance is a poor example of anything having to
do with the science of physics. The distinction between abitrarily
agreed upon rules of play and the laws of physics have nothing to do with
one another except that there is a common word that mean two different
things.
> I should make a note about Chaos Theory. Chaos theory is purely
> deterministic in nature. It is just that the calculation are too
> difficult for us to solve.
>
The calculation is not too difficult, the gathering of all the data needed
is the tough part and the time to calculate is rather lengthy depending
upon what one is trying model.
> But what about Quantum indeterminacy?
> Quantum Mechanics has about 5 or 6 different philosophical
> interpretations. All make the same basic predictions and hence there is
> no scientific way (that we know of) to determine which is correct.
> However some interpretations include the belief that the universe is
> inherently indeterministic at the quantum level. Does Quantum
> indeterminacy mean that there do not exist natural laws? The answer,
> obviously is no. Quantum Mechanics is our most successful scientific
> theory in terms of predictive power, being able to predict accurately up
> to 26 decimal places.
Which is actually wrong if taken in the broad scope of what is called
quantum mechanics. It is the unperdictibilty and the changes one makes
when obseving that makes it so. It is the indeterministic nature of QM
that brings about the QM laws. One might as well make the argument that
the laws of relativity are subjective as the laws of QM dictate the
fundamental basis for the universe. Somewhere between the atomic and
subatomic is where relativity fades away and QM takes over. The change is
subtle but as one dives deeped and deeper into the QM world, all of the
reltivity dies off. So your argument about objetive and subjective falls
apart.
Also
> there has been no prediction that quantum mechanics has made that can be
> tested that has turned out false.
But that is alsolutely irrelavent as by the act of obsevation changes
signigicantly the outcome of the experiments. The double slit
experiements involving photons and electrons have proven that time and
again. Physical testing, by it's very act, invalidates the experiment and
thus cannot be used to explain actions. Again see the double slit
experiments involving electrons and photons.
Predictability means that laws of nature
> must exist, even if those laws are indeterministic laws. (i.e.. If A
> then B or C). For example, if a radioactive isotope is about to decay,
> then we cannot know if that individual one will decay or not. However we
> *can know* if it does decay what it will decay into (so there are laws
> setting that).
>
> If natural law is objective then rationality is an illusion as no one
> really contemplates anything, rather antecedent causes make certain
> chemical reactions in the brain etc. Thus for there to be *rational*
> scientists the laws of nature must be subjective.
That is an excellect examply of why philosophy is not a science. To mix
the two is intellectually dishonest just as trying to mix science and
religion. Religion is faith based and science is fact based. Religion
has no facts, only suppositions and anectdote which are not and cannot be
proven with mathmatics. Science takes observable phenomena and explains
it mathematically.
"But what about the big bang" you might ask. "Something started it all
and God must have started the universe with his pure energy." What is to
say that the universe isn't a high school experiment performed by beings
in a much larger universe that makes our's a speck on a page in
comparison. We are just a little puff of junk floating in the sky, ever
expanding and is now the size of a dime acording to the being that started
this universe. I hipe that being gets an 'A'.
>
> Thus we have seen that of the 4 options
>
> 1) Intelligent design (subjective, ordered laws)
> 2) Intelligent non-design (subjective, disordered appearance of laws)
> 3) Non-intelligent "design" (objective, ordered laws)
> 4) Non-intelligent non-design (objective, disordered appearance of laws)
>
> 2 & 4 were shown to not to lead to rational *scientific* enquiry since
> the appearance of natural laws is not sufficient but what is needed is
> actual laws. And 3 was shown to be insufficient on the basis of
> determinism not leading to rationality (hence there cannot be *rational*
> scientific enquiry. This leaves only 1)
Now that is where your argument falls apart. Why must you and others run
back to "God did it" whener something excapes explaination at the current
point in time?
Ordered and disordered laws are still laws nonthe less. The apparnt
disorder of the cosmos at the quantum level is a fact. It is only when
thing are viewed at a bigger level that the probability aspect drops and
relativitic laws again take over so to speak.
>
> Thus for a scientist to do rational scientific enquiry they must believe
> in the existence of a Creator...
>
>
> RAZA 2005
Which is a false assumption and an erroneous one at that. For a scientist
to be effective he has to make the assumption there is no god. Pull that
nonsense in a colloge science class that and you will get ridiculed and if
you persist your career as a scientist will be quite short indeed.
Please review your facts before you go down this road again. Oh yes, and
leave the philosophy behind as it makes you appear a fool. I recommend
you read Brian Greene's books. They are actuall a good beginners guide to
QM and relativity.
rj
Jez
> Jez wrote:
>
>> David V. wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot
>>>>> prove that the Eater Bunny does not exist. Neither can I
>>>>> prove that it does exist. therefore I have no basis for
>>>>> claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to
>>>> yourself, yet you believe it...
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story
>>> building and jump off. If the world does not exist external
>>> to you, there should be no problem.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, if Castaneda can do it from a mountain top...a 20 story
>> building should be no problem !
>
>
> I did read in a book, and you know that if it's in a book it's
> true, the secret to flying; you throw yourself at the
> ground....... and miss.
LOL yeah, a Douglas Adams book 'The hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy.'
Fourth one, or Fifth one ? I can't remember.
ScotMc
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109598453.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>
> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>
> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>
> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>
Your philosophy teacher would probably say that anyone
advancing a claim has the burden of proof. And would probably
say that a person who says "don't know/don't care" doesn't
have any such burden.
ScotMc
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote :
>>
>> Remember, the moron and his philosophy "teacher" imagine they get to
>> define what an atheist is.
>
"The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1109644793....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That is because my teacher is an atheist.
Your teacher is probably a so-called "strong atheist". (That is,
believes there is no God or gods)
And your teacher probably doesn't accept the so-called
"weak atheist" position. (That is, lacking in positive
belief that there are gods or God).
My advice: For school tests and essays, listen to the teacher.
For USENET groups, especially alt.atheism, accept there
are people who will adamantly fight for acceptance of the
"weak" form of atheism.
ScotMc
*What* is how your philsophy teacher argues? Does
your philosophy teacher simply throw out lists of
"Ten Reason to ..." and expect you to fill in the blanks?
That would probably be because he/she is a teacher
and expects you to fill in the blanks.
But your philosophy essays your writing should
read like logical proofs:
(1) First state your premises as assumptions.
(2) Explicitly show all steps that lead from your premises to...
(3) your conclusion.
ScotMc
>
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>
> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
Are you a philosophy student or a Christian?
MarkA
wrote:
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>
> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>
> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>
> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
Does it count as "proof" to say that none of the "evidence for the
existence of God" is anything more than arguments from
ignorance/authority? Is it "proof" to say that claiming the existence of
a being that cannot be detected by any physically reproducible means is
vacuous? If I claim that flying pigs live on the dark side of the moon,
are you obliged to prove that they don't?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> Jez wrote:
>>
>>> David V. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I
>>>>>> cannot prove that the Eater Bunny does not exist.
>>>>>> Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>>>>>> have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to
>>>>> yourself, yet you believe it...
>>>>
>>>> Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story
>>>> building and jump off. If the world does not exist
>>>> external to you, there should be no problem.
>>>
>>> Yeah, if Castaneda can do it from a mountain top...a 20
>>> story building should be no problem !
>>
>> I did read in a book, and you know that if it's in a book
>> it's true, the secret to flying; you throw yourself at the
>> ground....... and miss.
>
> LOL yeah, a Douglas Adams book 'The hitch-hikers guide to the
> galaxy.'
>
> Fourth one, or Fifth one ? I can't remember.
It was in the first book of his trilogy of 5 books.
From an interview with Adams in American Atheist magazine:
"...I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there
is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a
subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that
there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist,
just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a
great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny
how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed
so strongly." Adams espoused his atheism on his own web site,
http://www.douglasadams.com.
David V.
>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote :
>>>
>>> Remember, the moron and his philosophy "teacher" imagine
>>> they get to define what an atheist is.
>
>
>> That is because my teacher is an atheist.
>
> Your teacher is probably a so-called "strong atheist". (That
> is, believes there is no God or gods) And your teacher
> probably doesn't accept the so-called "weak atheist" position.
> (That is, lacking in positive belief that there are gods or
> God).
You're missing the main point - he had no philosophy "teacher".
The guy is a liar.
David V.
> "The great liar" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>
>> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>
>>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
>>
>> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
>
> Are you a philosophy student or a Christian?
He's a christian that actually believes that Atheists are stupid
enough to fall for his lies.
The great philosopher-criminologist
David V. wrote:
> ScotMc wrote:
> > "The great liar" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote
> >
> >> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
> >
> >>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.
> >>
> >> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
> >> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
> >
> > Are you a philosophy student or a Christian?
>
> He's a christian that actually believes that Atheists are stupid
> enough to fall for his lies.
I'm religiously neutral.
Robibnikoff
Baloney. Why do you keep posting bible verses?
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> "manut...@alethian.org" <manut...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> >> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>>
>> >What does your philosophy teacher say about the following:
>>
>> >"Let X be some incontrovertible proof that God does not exist, such
>> >that if X exists, God does not exist. Prove that X does not exist."
>>
>> I don't know what somebodies philosophy teacher would say about it.
>But I
>> say this. Humans are finite and hence have finite knowledge, thus an
>> "incontrovertible proof" cannot exist for a human as there is always
>> something we do not know, and that something may be the thing that
>> disproves the so-called "proof".
>Prove it.
To prove that a proof cannot exist is self-contradictory.
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:d009j0$rku$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>>The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the Eater
>>>Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>>>have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>
>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
>> believe it...
>>
> So all of these proselytizers are a fantasy?
> And Jolene Blalock? Angelina Jolie?
> Shit.
Haven't you seen the movie "the matrix"? The point is not that they *are*
a fantasy, but rather there is no way to know if they are or not.
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:d009j0$rku$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> >The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the
>Eater
>> >Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>> >have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>
>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
>> believe it...
>>
>> RAZA 2005
>So who are you addressing your post to? Yourself?
heh :) Sorry my bad, "he = the" according to my "brilliant" typing
abilities :)
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> Christianity is Judaism, but with the belief that the Messiah has
>come (is
>> Jesus), whereas Judaism *today* still looks for the coming of the
>> Messiah.
>More precisely Christianity is Phariseeism with the belief that Messiah
>has come, and Phariseeism is Judaism with the addition of Zoroastrian
>ideas about there being a hell, a devil, a resurrection, and a final
>judgment. See Acts 23:8 for a contemporary report of the beliefs of
>the Pharisees as contrasted with the beliefs of the more conservative,
>and more authentically Jewish, Sadducees. See also the lack of any
>reference to Satan, hell, resurrection of the dead, or final judgment,
>in any Jewish writings prior to the Babylonian Captivity.
>Note too that when Jesus himself tried to quote some Old Testament
>passage in support of the resurrection, the best he could come up with
>was a verse that says "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"
>which he tried to make into an argument for resurrection by saying "God
>is not the God of the dead." So not only does the verse he quotes say
>nothing about any resurrection of the dead, his argument makes no
>sense: if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead, then they don't need
>to be resurrected *from* the dead. (Not to mention: God isn't your
>God any more once you die??? Where did that come from??) You *know*
>there are no OT references to any future resurrection if Jesus himself
>had to resort to such a strained and confused argument to try and put
>it in there.
Strained and confused? it is easy to understand. Abraham, Isaac etc are
physically dead, that is their bodies are dead, but they themselves (their
spirits) are alive. The resurrection of the dead is the body being
restored to the spirit...
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: <s371...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> >The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the
>Eater
>> >Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist.
>therefore I
>> >have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>
>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
>> believe it...
>That is because the nature of the evidence supports this conclusion.
>The phrase "the world external to oneself" refers to a concept that is
>defined relative to one's experience. Whatever the ultimate nature of
>that experience might be, in the context of that experience the
>definition is correct, by definition. Hence to deny the existence of
>objective reality is to deny that one's experience exists, since it is
>that experience which defines what the concept of "objective reality"
>refers to. Any proof that one's definition of "objective reality" was
>incorrect would have to come from outside oneself, which cannot happen
>unless objective reaity does exist. Hence the two possible options are
>that objective reality either *is* real (as "real" is at all meaningful
>in the context of one's experience) or else it *must be* real (with
>reference to an objective reality which exists outside the observer).
>"Is real" or "must be real," take your pick. ;)
The point is, that one cannot "prove" whether it "is real" or it "must be
real". the point is about proof, not about the nature of reality, that is
merely the example.
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:30:40 +0000 (UTC), Lawrence Wong From:
><s37...@student.uq.edu.au> said in alt.atheism:
>>"Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the Eater
>>>Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>>>have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
>>believe it...
>Solipsism is its own defeat.
In what way?
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove
>>> that the Eater Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove
>>> that it does exist. therefore I have no basis for claiming
>>> the Easter Bunny exists.
>>
>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself,
>> yet you believe it...
>Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story building
>and jump off. If the world does not exist external to you, there
>should be no problem.
That does not logically follow, nor does it get my poiont. The point is
not about the metaphysics of the world, but about the nature/limitis of
humans and hence so-called "proof".
RAZA 2005
The great philosopher-criminologist
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2005 07:56:53 -0800, "jesshc" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > However, if an atheist declares outright that God does not exist,
> >then he or she also takes on the burden of proof.
>
> and if you declares outright that Santa Claus does not exist, then
> you0 take on the burden of proof. Really?
>
>
>
> >> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
> >>
> >> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
> >>
>
I NEVER believed in Sanat Claus as a child.
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>> "manut...@alethian.org" <manut...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>> My philosophy teacher says the same thing.
>>
>>> What does your philosophy teacher say about the following:
>>
>>> "Let X be some incontrovertible proof that God does not
>>> exist, such that if X exists, God does not exist. Prove
>>> that X does not exist."
>>
>> I don't know what somebodies philosophy teacher would say
>> about it. But I say this. Humans are finite and hence have
>> finite knowledge
>What does one have to do with the other? Would a philosophy
>teacher call your argument a circular one, or an affirmation of
>the consequent, or a fallacy of composition, or a cum hoc ergo
>propter hoc? I'm not sure. Your statement is wrong on so many levels.
>> , thus an "incontrovertible proof" cannot exist for a human as
>> there is always something we do not know, and that something
>> may be the thing that disproves the so-called "proof".
>Oh, it's an argument from ignorance?
The problem with skeptics is that they never bother to live consitently
with their worldview of skepticism...
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>>
>>> Witnesses saw Quetzecoatl arrive and teach the peoples of
>>> Mesoamerica. You can find his image everywhere. The
>>> founders of that religion had no reason to lie.
>>
>> But they don't have a "shroud of turin" which cannot be
>> duplicated with the technology we have today!
>It was painted abound 1350. It can be painted today.
If it was merely a painting why can it be scanne with a VD* anaylizer
(iirc), which shows the image ncludes information about depth. Ie. it is
similar in some senses to a holohgaphic image which also includes
information about depth. We would need a lazer of much higher precision,
than exists at present, to produce such an image today.
RAZA 2005
manut...@yahoo.com
How so?
m
manut...@yahoo.com
> >that objective reality either *is* real (as "real" is at all
meaningful
> >in the context of one's experience) or else it *must be* real (with
> >reference to an objective reality which exists outside the
observer).
> >"Is real" or "must be real," take your pick. ;)
>
> The point is, that one cannot "prove" whether it "is real" or it
"must be
> real". the point is about proof, not about the nature of reality,
that is
> merely the example.
Which definition of proof? E.g. legal proof, scientific proof, logical
proof, mathematical proof, etc.
m
Lawrence Wong From:
>Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>> Clothaire <clot...@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>> You are wrong
>>
>>> Only the scientist has the Burden of Proof. He is the only
>>> one who has the intelligence to make any progress in dealing
>>> with reality.
>>
>>> It is a waste of time to put the Burden of proof on a
>>> fundie.
>>
>> God & Science by Rod Jackson
>>
>> Science involves studing nature. Now nature is either ordered
>> or it is disordered.
>He starts with a bifurcation and it goes down hill from there.
What other choices are there?
>> I say they are not *rationally* justified in doing science.
>A belief based on strawman arguments.
please elaborate.
>> Consider two books (b1 and b2) these books came about by two
>> different means. One (b1) was written by Shakespeare and is a
>> work of art. The other (b2) was made by 1000 monkeys typing on
>> 1000 typewriters. Now suppose that after reading the first 10
>> pages of both books, both books were exactly the
>> same.....[snip] Thus we have seen that of the 4 options
>>
>> 1) Intelligent design (subjective, ordered laws) 2)
>> Intelligent non-design (subjective, disordered appearance of
>> laws) 3) Non-intelligent "design" (objective, ordered laws) 4)
>> Non-intelligent non-design (objective, disordered appearance
>> of laws)
>None of those are honest options.
why not?
>> Thus for a scientist to do rational scientific enquiry they
>> must believe in the existence of a Creator...
>Which is an a priori assumption.
As opposed to science which apiori assumes nature alone.
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>>
>>
>> Don't you understand, most things cannot be proven...
>Prove it.
This is like the person who claims that "absolutely everything is
relative"...
RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>> provide an argument that there is a god, an atheist can only disprove it.
>No argument can prove God exists.
Correct the best one can do is compare worldviews and see which is the
most consistent.
>But, if he were to turn up...well, that's another matter.
Actaully it would still be "by faith" that you would believe in Him,
because you could not "prove" that you are not hallucinating...
>If God existed, why would he hide ?
I believe that God does exist, and He is not hiding. All the evidence we
have about information is that it comes from an intelligent source.
Consider a computer, you have the hardware, but to run it needs the
software too. The software is hte information. We have DNA, that is our
information, where did the information come from...?
RAZA 2005
Christopher A. Lee
Why do these idiots keep bringing up the shroud? When it first
appeared the local Bishop told the Pope he knew who painted it.
>RAZA 2005
Lawrence Wong From:
>> Ten reasons to believe in Christianity;
>> http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/rtb/2rsn/
>
>One reason not to. He never came back within the first generation of
>his contemporaries. He told a great yarn and said that he was going to
>do this and that but the windbag self promoter was only full of hot
>air.
Certain people in the early church misunderstood what Jesus said, but
Peter tells us that Jesus said He'd return "soon". Soon according to God's
timeline, not ours.
RAZA 2005
Christopher A. Lee
I see. According to your mythology, one figment of your imagination
says that another figment woud return according to a third figment's
timeline.
Now explain the legend of the wandering Jew.
>RAZA 2005
manut...@yahoo.com
So Zoroaster taught, but did you notice that the statement "spirits
continue living after the body dies" and the statement "the dead shall
be raised" are two different statements? Jesus made the one, and
claimed it was the other, and neither statement actually appears in the
text he tried to use to "prove" that resurrection was scriptural (in
the OT sense of "scriptural"). Plus why did Jesus say in another verse
"Lazarus is dead"? If God is not the God of the dead, and Lazarus is
dead, does that mean God is no longer the God of Lazarus?
What difference does it make if there exists some spiritual sense of
"not dead" that can be applied to dead people? Resurrection by
definition only applies to the dead--those who are not dead cannot be
raised from the dead. So if you are trying to prove resurrection, what
sense does it make to try and do so by arguing that the dead aren't
really dead? That's like trying to prove you have the power to heal
people of AIDS by arguing that the spirit of the victim doesn't really
have the disease in the first place.
Resurrection does not require that spirits continue living, nor do
"living" disembodied spirits require resurrection. You can combine the
two ideas, but that doesn't mean that either one implies the other.
Stating the one does not prove the other.
And why is God not the God of the dead, anyway?
I'll grant you that you can take the statement "God is not the God of
the dead" and easily read it as referring to the idea that spirits
continue living after the body dies. What makes it strained and
confused is (a) this statement has no particular implication that body
and soul will ever be reunited and (b) it's peculiar to use a denial of
death as evidence for something for which death is a prerequisite, not
to mention (c) "God is not the God of the dead" is a very strange
doctrine for a monotheist to preach, since it implies that there exists
a group (the dead) over whom God holds no divine authority.
If you were Jesus, and you knew of an Old Testament passage where some
prophet had openly taught that the dead would one day be raised and
judged, wouldn't you have quoted that passage to the Sadducees instead
of opening up the can of worms above?
Mark Nutter
manut...@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God who is
God for everyone, and about Alethian faith and practice.
The great philosopher-criminologist
It's talking about spiritual death.
Richo
> http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
>
> www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/what_is_an_atheist.html
>
> http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
>
> These articles say that BOTH SIDES have the burden of proof.
>
Are you sure there are only two sides?
The number of possible(until proven otherwise) gods is infinite, so
potentially the "atheist" is required (what sort of requirement is
this? a moral one? a socially mandated one?) to spend all eternity
"proving" the non existence (to his own satisfaction at least) an
infinite number of possible beings.
The choice "God or nothing" is a classic example of a false dichotomy.
See what you philosophy teacher makes of *that* and then get back to
me.
Mark.
manut...@yahoo.com
Not if we knew the trick that was originally employed. ;)
The shroud is a case where a good reality check might be in order: if
the Son of God were willing and able to give us tangible evidence of
his resurrection, that would mean first of all that there could be no
spiritual, soteriological, eschatalogical, etc reason why God cannot
give us tangible evidence of the truth of the gospel stories. If he
loves us, then he must want us to know what we can trust (i.e. the
gospel stories), especially as it concerns our salvation. Hence, the
existence of a genuine shroud would only highlight the absence of a
large number of other tangible evidences which ought to be there.
Moreover, the existence of such evidence would strip away the argument
that there exists some reason why such evidence cannot be offered. A
genuine shroud, in the absence of a much larger body of tangible,
measureable, and verifiable evidences, creates an inconsistency that is
much worse for the Christian religion than no shroud at all.
m
manut...@yahoo.com
s37...@student.uq.edu.au wrote:
> Jez <iced_...@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> writes:
>
> >> provide an argument that there is a god, an atheist can only
disprove it.
>
> >No argument can prove God exists.
>
> Correct the best one can do is compare worldviews and see which is
the
> most consistent.
>
> >But, if he were to turn up...well, that's another matter.
>
> Actaully it would still be "by faith" that you would believe in Him,
> because you could not "prove" that you are not hallucinating...
Then since it would still be "by faith," there is no reason for God not
to show up, and every reason why God *should* show up, correct?
> >If God existed, why would he hide ?
>
> I believe that God does exist, and He is not hiding. All the evidence
we
> have about information is that it comes from an intelligent source.
> Consider a computer, you have the hardware, but to run it needs the
> software too. The software is hte information. We have DNA, that is
our
> information, where did the information come from...?
I also believe that God exists and is not hiding. But be careful with
the argument from DNA--where did *your* DNA come from? It's not a copy
of your parent's DNA. The complex information which describes you
personally as a unique individual is not information that existed in
your mother's genes or your father's. That particular information
*did* come into existence spontaneously through the operation of a
number of organic molecules interacting with one another according to
the normal, natural laws of biochemistry, same as it has for just about
every other creature ever born.
Mark Nutter
manut...@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God
responsible for the laws of nature, and about Alethian faith and
practice.
manut...@yahoo.com
The timeline given, however, was that "some of those standing here
shall not taste death until all these things come to pass." If you
believe the quotes ascribed to Jesus by the New Testament, anyway.
manut...@yahoo.com
The great philosopher-criminologist wrote:
> manut...@alethian.org wrote:
> not
> > to mention (c) "God is not the God of the dead" is a very strange
> > doctrine for a monotheist to preach, since it implies that there
> exists
> > a group (the dead) over whom God holds no divine authority.
>
> It's talking about spiritual death.
God is not the God of the spiritually dead, eh? Why not? And what
does that have to do with resurrection?
m
manut...@yahoo.com
s37...@student.uq.edu.au wrote:
> Haven't you seen the movie "the matrix"? The point is not that they
*are*
> a fantasy, but rather there is no way to know if they are or not.
Not true. Solipsism can be logically ruled out because it requires you
to assume that it is false in order to have a meaningful definition of
the terms you need to use to define what solipsism even is.
Solipsism asserts that we have no way of distinguishing fantasy from
reality, but in the process of making that assertion it is implicitly
making a distinction between fantasy and reality. If solipsism were
true, then "reality" and "fantasy" would both be concepts referring to
the same illusory "X", since what we think of as "real" and what we
think of as "imaginary" would both be illusion. If such is the case,
however, then the definition of solipsism becomes "we have no way of
distinguishing X from X." If they're the same, then there is no
distinction to distinguish; of *course* we can't distinguish a thing
from itself!
If we assume that fantasy and reality are two different things, but we
have no way of distinguishing between them, we're still in the same
boat, because they're still *conceptually* indistinguishable and are
thus part of the same "X" as far as we're concerned. The definition of
solipsism, as far as we are concerned, is *still* "we cannot
distinguish between X and X."
The only way we can give a meaningful definition of solipsism that does
not boil down to "we can't tell the difference between a thing and
itself" is if reality and fantasy are two different things AND we can
meaningfully distinguish between the two of them. If that is the case,
however, then once we've defined solipsism in any meaningful sense, we
have also disproved it by counter-example. Any meaningful definition
of solipsism is also a disproof of solipsism.
Mark Nutter
manut...@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God who does
*not* contradict Herself, and about Alethian faith and practice.
Al Klein
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:30:40 +0000 (UTC), Lawrence Wong From:
>><s37...@student.uq.edu.au> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>>"Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>>>The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot prove that the Eater
>>>>Bunny does not exist. Neither can I prove that it does exist. therefore I
>>>>have no basis for claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>
>>>You cannot prove that he world exists external to yourself, yet you
>>>believe it...
>
>>Solipsism is its own defeat.
>
>In what way?
If you tell me that you're a solipsist, with whom are you having this
conversation?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
David V.
> David V. wrote:
>
>> ScotMc wrote:
>>
>>> "The great liar" <bedford_...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>>>
>>>> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Then prove that Brahma is not the supreme god.>>> Are you a philosophy student or a Christian?
>>
>> He's a christian that actually believes that Atheists are
>> stupid enough to fall for his lies.
>
> I'm religiously neutral.
Bullshit.
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
Robibnikoff
snip
> It's talking about spiritual death.
Prove there is such a thing.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Lawrence Wong From: wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill" <wm...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> The burden of proof rests with the claimant. I cannot
>>>> prove that the Eater Bunny does not exist. Neither can I
>>>> prove that it does exist. therefore I have no basis for
>>>> claiming the Easter Bunny exists.
>>>
>>> You cannot prove that he world exists external to
>>> yourself, yet you believe it...
>
>> Let's do a simple test. Stand on the top of a 20 story
>> building and jump off. If the world does not exist external
>> to you, there should be no problem.
>
> That does not logically follow, nor does it get my poiont.
It logically follows and I zoomed past your point. Sorry you
couldn't keep up. Let's slow down for you. If everything exists
only in my imagination then I should be able to jump off a
building without hitting the ground if that is what my
imagination tells me will happen. That imagination is not reality
proves your point to be false. There is only one objective
reality, the rest is an individual interpretation of that
reality. The reality never changes, only the view of it does.
> The point is not about the metaphysics of the world, but about
> the nature/limitis of humans and hence so-called "proof".
The point is that your attempt at nihilism isn't going to work,
just like your argument from ignorance isn't going to work either.
David V.
We do, you just keep shifting the definitions.
David V.
>>>> 5. Its Foundational Claim
>>>
>>>> Witnesses saw Quetzecoatl arrive and teach the peoples
>>>> of Mesoamerica. You can find his image everywhere. The
>>>> founders of that religion had no reason to lie.
>>>
>>> But they don't have a "shroud of turin" which cannot be
>>> duplicated with the technology we have today!
>
>> It was painted abound 1350. It can be painted today.
>
> If it was merely a painting why can it be scanne with a VD*
> anaylizer (iirc), which shows the image ncludes information
> about depth.
Irrelevant.
> Ie. it is similar in some senses to a holohgaphic image which
> also includes information about depth. We would need a lazer
> of much higher precision, than exists at present, to produce
> such an image today.
To produce such an image all you need are a few vegetable dyes
and some egg yolk. It will soak into the fibers and you'll have
no "depth" to the painting.