God Part N....

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
Your faith in scientists is illogical, lots of the science in ancient greece was wrong, lots of the science in the middle ages was wrong, lots of the science in the 18th century was wrong and lots of the science that we now follow will also turn out to be wrong. I do not know how Hanking arrived at his finding but il bet it relys on a lot of modern science some of which could be wrong. (for a start the big bang theory is still just that a theory)

What science isn't theories?

Originally Posted by Quietus:
I have none. What's your definition of God?

Which futher illustrates that your premise is full of logical fallacies. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by using the lack of evidence as the arguement.

Originally Posted by :
Is "God" the creator of the universe?
What is "God"'s relationship to Jesus?
What is "God"'s relationship to the Holy Spirit?

Good questions, try defining them next time in your premise. It will provide a better logical base then you have so far demonstrated.

Originally Posted by :
Lest my memory fails me from older threads.

Older threads is not what is being discussed here. Your Premise and its fallacy is.

Originally Posted by :
Then why did you mentioned it, since you use logical fallacy as an argument.

To demonstrate the point that ancedentol evidence is just that, which makes it a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by :
Not if you use the word first. Where did you first get the word "God"?

From your use in the premise of your arguement. Remember I did not enter into this discussion until after your use of the arguement we are discussing.

Originally Posted by :
Look up the first post in this thread. Secondly, you've used the word "God" before in older threads, I recall.

Older threads are not being discussed. We are discussing the logical fallacy in your premise and the inconsistent application of that logic.

Originally Posted by :
My logic is there. Your illogical Faith is also present. Combine the two and someone is wrong.

Nice strawman - the topic is your logical fallacy of attempting to prove non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
Well, the premise uses not my definition but other people's definition.

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
"God" did not originally come from me.

Logic vs illogical faith. Use it on "color" or "coconut", the logic works as well.

that is why we are having this discussion. You apply your logic to dispove the existance of God, but you allow it to prove the existance of other things.

Once again inconsistent application of the arguement and the premise contains the above mentioned logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Which futher illustrates that your premise is full of logical fallacies. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by using the lack of evidence as the arguement.

I didn't define "God". The Bible did as well as other people.

Originally Posted by :
Good questions, try defining them next time in your premise. It will provide a better logical base then you have so far demonstrated.

If you have no definition of "God", then I see no reason for you to be concerned. :)

Originally Posted by :
Older threads is not what is being discussed here. Your Premise and its fallacy is.

The older threads talk of the same "God".

Meaning, the "God" from the Bible is the same as your "God". At least that what it seemed. Hence, same definition.

Originally Posted by :
To demonstrate the point that ancedentol evidence is just that, which makes it a logical fallacy.

The Bible's definition of "God" exists?

Originally Posted by :
From your use in the premise of your arguement. Remember I did not enter into this discussion until after your use of the arguement we are discussing.

I've already stated my reasoning and logic.

Originally Posted by :
Older threads are not being discussed. We are discussing the logical fallacy in your premise and the inconsistent application of that logic.

We are discussing the same "God". Unless your "God" is different from the Bible's.

Originally Posted by :
Nice strawman - the topic is your logical fallacy of attempting to prove non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

I've already stated my logic.

Originally Posted by :
Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

Well, look at the first post. It implies Biblical "God" which has a definition.

Since you're insinuating your "God" is different from the Bible's "God", then it is different.

Originally Posted by :
that is why we are having this discussion. You apply your logic to dispove the existance of God, but you allow it to prove the existance of other things.

"God" there was not my definition, hence my logic.

Originally Posted by :
Once again inconsistent application of the arguement and the premise contains the above mentioned logical fallacy.

I don't see any argument against my logic.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
What you call 'our knowledge' is however the most reliable source of information we have, upon that we can certainly agree. Most of the current theories work (meaning that their predictions are correct), you don't need to have faith on them. There are also some teories which we don't know whether they work or not. Nevertheless everyone of them can be verified, and (if they were done correctly) are consistent with what we know to be true.

but what we know is itself not consistent without a grand unified theory

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
The things I said that 'we know to be true' may end up being false, of course. Maybe the atoms don't really exists, may be the earth is really flat and there are elephants and/or turtles holding it. The only thing we can say is that with reasonable probability what we know is true. And so far it worked quite well.

people have said that in the past, the greeks model of the universe worked pretty well too back then

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
I do think that the oposite is true, assuming the nonexistance of god is being more openminded. As I said in a previous post, if god exists our scientific models should at some point indicate its existence. Assuming now that it exists would be a restriction upon those models. The same way that is more rational to assume there are not invisible turtles and elephants holding the earth, it is more rational to assume that god doesnt exists.

does that mean that i should assume that there is no grand unified theory and so stop scientific reasearch into this?

your scientific models are flawed as they are self reliant, all you need it for one tiny aspect of a theory to be wrong or different and the whole model of the universe changes

[QUOTE=Erebus1101If you are talking about me, then you may be right. Im am not a astrophysicist or not even a physicist to be able to understand their findings, however as I said before, if those findings are testable, are consistent, and quite a lot of them end up being applied, then how can one doubt them?[/QUOTE]

do you not remember the academic who made up results? even mendel altered his results. Im not claiming that scientistcs are decieving us just that many of the more complicated experiments have not been extensively verified which was demonstrated when a renegade scientist made amazing claims for his own experiments and was not discovered for a long time he would have got away compleatly if he hadn't slipped up with his claims.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
In the ancient greece and the middle ages, there was not much science as we know it now. However in mathematics and logic they did great advances.
In the 18th century taking into account their technical limitations, I find it surprising that they were able to do what they did. I wouldnt say the they were wrong. Given their limitations, they found good approximations.
From then on one could say that our knowledge is incremental. The general theory of relativity didn't invalidated Newton's law of gravitation, they made it more precise. Every new knowledge we gain is consistent with previous knowledge. The laws of gravity wasn't wrong, it just was not general enough.

naturally, and maybee someone in the future will be surprised at our developments given our limitations

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
As I said I am no physicist, but I study what one could call a scientific branch, and from mine and other's experience I can tell you that scientists don't have 'faith' on modern science. You surely must know that they spend quite a few years studying a field. One must understand everything from basic to complex stuff to be able later to use them to come up with new findings. Every relevant theorem with its respective proof must be understood. Stephen Hawking (you must forgive me for the misspelling earlier) surely didn't came up with that result guessing around, for that is not a theory and certainly is not science.

I am also studying science, what i am saying is that our knowledge is imcompleate and perhaps always will be and to make such a extensive statement as to rule out the existance of god you would need evidense of his non existance of which there is non on the contrary there is plenty of evidence for his existance.

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
What science isn't theories?

allow me to clarify my statement,

what i ment was that the big bang theory is a comparatively new theory that has seemed to achieved compleate dominance very quickly, personnally i like the theory as it fits in with my beliefs very well but i am always cautous of a theory that is presented as the only anser and then used in subsequant theorys as if it is a certainty, it makes all the subsequant theory very vunerable as they in themselves are relying on another theory. Of course i know that all of science is theorys but there is not huge amounts of evidence for the big bang yet.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
I didn't define "God". The Bible did as well as other people.

Then why are you arguing against his existance? Your position her futher illustrates your inconsistent application of your logic and premise. You ask others to define but you refuse to define "God" yourself.

Originally Posted by :
If you have no definition of "God", then I see no reason for you to be concerned. :)

Nice try - but doesn't work in answering the question. In fact you have opened your arguement to futher problems. The issue being discussed his your premise and its fallacy.

Originally Posted by :
The older threads talk of the same "God".

Again we are talking about your premise and the logicial fallacy inherient in your arguement. Older threads are irrevelant to that discussion.

Originally Posted by :
Meaning, the "God" from the Bible is the same as your "God". At least that what it seemed. Hence, same definition.

Which makes it your defintion in this discussion. And you still can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
The Bible's definition of "God" exists?

As a religious book that definition falls within the concept of religion

Originally Posted by :
I've already stated my reasoning and logic.

And as shown numerous times the logic contains a fallacy and the reasoning has an inconsistent application.

Originally Posted by :
We are discussing the same "God". Unless your "God" is different from the Bible's.

No we are discussing the fallacy in your logic and the inconsistency in your application of that logic. We are discussing that one can not prove the existance or non-existance based soley upon the lack of evidence. This is what you have done.

Originally Posted by :
I've already stated my logic.

And that logic contains the alreadly mentioned fallacy

Originally Posted by :
Well, look at the first post. It implies Biblical "God" which has a definition.

Since you're insinuating your "God" is different from the Bible's "God", then it is different.

Nice strawman - but that is not what was stated - to refresh your memory again

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
"God" there was not my definition, hence my logic.

Which futher demonstrates the logical fallacy you are committing. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence

Originally Posted by :
I don't see any argument against my logic.

The fallacy in your logic has been demonstrated, and you continue to demonstrate the same fallacy. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
but what we know is itself not consistent without a grand unified theory

I think you are missing the meaning of consistent. For instance, did the general theory of relativity told us that things must fall towards the sky? As you surely know, it is not so. It is consistent with Newton's law and with our popular knowledge. Things tend to fall down.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
people have said that in the past, the greeks model of the universe worked pretty well too back then

If you say so I will believe it. However modern science is significantly different to what the ancient greeks did. Also I dont remember what models the greek had, and I doubt they used them too extensively.

On the other hand, currently our industries apply most of the scientific theories. And as you might know they work. You would be surprised by the amount of theories that were applied for your computer to work. Even if someday we find that they were not completly correct, your computer would still work; because even that new finding must be consistent with the previous findings.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
does that mean that i should assume that there is no grand unified theory and so stop scientific reasearch into this?

The sentence 'the Grand Unified Theory exists' is evaluated to 0 (undefined). The same way as the sentence 'God exists'. Today not even scientists are sure if such a theory exists, but it would be nice if it did. We are inclined that it does exists, mainly because most of the models discovered during the past century were mergend into a few so it is rational to think that the remaining ones could also merge. Nevertheless as I said before, not even the top scientists are sure whether it exists, some even say that such a think doesn't.

Well then, you might ask what is the difference between searching god or the GUT? the answer is quite simple. If we find the GUT we would gain enourmous knowlegde (and the one who finds it, enourmous sums of money), and it certainly will have effects on our current knowledge and lives (and then we might even be able to tell wether god exists o not).
However we gain nothing finding god, since he doesn't have known effects to the real world.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
your scientific models are flawed as they are self reliant, all you need it for one tiny aspect of a theory to be wrong or different and the whole model of the universe changes

self reliant? Scientific models are descriptions of what we observe, if that is being self reliant, then yes it is, and is better that way. Scientific models are not castles in the clouds, you cannot supponse nothing (unless it is a hypothesis). On the second part I think you are wrong. Good scientific models are robust, so new finding rarely invalidates a previous models, they add more knowledge incrementally.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
do you not remember the academic who made up results? even mendel altered his results. Im not claiming that scientistcs are decieving us just that many of the more complicated experiments have not been extensively verified which was demonstrated when a renegade scientist made amazing claims for his own experiments and was not discovered for a long time he would have got away compleatly if he hadn't slipped up with his claims.

However when a scientist is wrong that proof of its falsehood is in the same paper where he made his claims. Everyone can verify it, and since the industry is interested in most scientific discoveries, they would have found out then that is was wrong (and prevent millions of dollars to dissapear from their balance books).

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
naturally, and maybee someone in the future will be surprised at our developments given our limitations

sure that they will. But they wont be able to come up with contradictory discoveries (unless the universe changed or our instruments were useless)

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
I am also studying science, what i am saying is that our knowledge is imcompleate and perhaps always will be and to make such a extensive statement as to rule out the existance of god you would need evidense of his non existance of which there is non on the contrary there is plenty of evidence for his existance.

I agree with the first thing you say but I certainly dont know how can you say that there is plenty of evidence of his existence. As far as I know there is no evidence of his existence, he doesnt affect in any known way the real world and there is a high probability that he was invented by men. So assuming its existence is not rational (and would be restrictive to our knowledge), so better assume it doesnt exist and if we later find a evidence of his existence the we may rethink our posture. And I pray you to tell me what definite evidences of his existence are you talking about.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
what i ment was that the big bang theory is a comparatively new theory that has seemed to achieved compleate dominance very quickly, personnally i like the theory as it fits in with my beliefs very well but i am always cautous of a theory that is presented as the only anser and then used in subsequant theorys as if it is a certainty, it makes all the subsequant theory very vunerable as they in themselves are relying on another theory. Of course i know that all of science is theorys but there is not huge amounts of evidence for the big bang yet.

Well if someone find a theory that explains in a satisfactory way the background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the distribution of matter, then he is more than welcomed and should receive a nobel prize. There were other theories, but they were discarded since the observations we had didn't support them, then it is certainly not our fault that it is this the only left. Also I am not sure of which subsequent theories you are talking about, are you sure that those are not merely basing themself on or trying to be consistent with the data that support the big bang theory?

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Then why are you arguing against his existance? Your position her futher illustrates your inconsistent application of your logic and premise. You ask others to define but you refuse to define "God" yourself.

It's true, "God" was defined by the Bible not me.

Originally Posted by :
Nice try - but doesn't work in answering the question. In fact you have opened your arguement to futher problems. The issue being discussed his your premise and its fallacy.

What's your problem with the Biblical definition of the Bible?

Originally Posted by :
Again we are talking about your premise and the logicial fallacy inherient in your arguement. Older threads are irrevelant to that discussion.

Yeah, because you didn't read the first post of thread. Act blind and you will look blind.

Originally Posted by :
Which makes it your defintion in this discussion. And you still can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

Read the first post. There's your biblical "God".

Originally Posted by :
As a religious book that definition falls within the concept of religion

And? The definition stands. The definition of "God" is also the same as your definition (in older threads).

Originally Posted by :
And as shown numerous times the logic contains a fallacy and the reasoning has an inconsistent application.

My logic stands as well.

Originally Posted by :
No we are discussing the fallacy in your logic and the inconsistency in your application of that logic. We are discussing that one can not prove the existance or non-existance based soley upon the lack of evidence. This is what you have done.

I have stated my logic behind it. I see no argument against it.

Originally Posted by :
And that logic contains the alreadly mentioned fallacy

Not my fault Faith is not logical.

Originally Posted by :
Nice strawman - but that is not what was stated - to refresh your memory again

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

Read the first post. It was not I who mentioned "God" first.

Originally Posted by :
Which futher demonstrates the logical fallacy you are committing. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence

You have no demonstration, neither any argument. All you have is Wikipedia and Google.

Originally Posted by :
The fallacy in your logic has been demonstrated, and you continue to demonstrate the same fallacy. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence.

Read my logic.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
It's true, "God" was defined by the Bible not me.

Then its back to your initial premise and the application of a logical fallacy by yourself. One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :

What's your problem with the Biblical definition of the Bible?

Again nice try - but what is being discussed is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

Originally Posted by :

Yeah, because you didn't read the first post of thread. Act blind and you will look blind.

The pot calling the kettle black - again the topic being discussed between you and I is that your application of your logic is inconsistent and your premise contains a logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or disprove with lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
Read the first post. There's your biblical "God".

Again no need - the topic being discussed by you and I is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

Originally Posted by :
And? The definition stands. The definition of "God" is also the same as your definition (in older threads).

A strawman it seems.

Originally Posted by :
My logic stands as well.

So you do agree that you have been inconsistent with your application and that your logic does indeed contain the above mentioned fallacy?

Originally Posted by :
I have stated my logic behind it. I see no argument against it.

Done with the intelligent life outside of the Earth's solar system examble. Again one can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
Not my fault Faith is not logical.

Reaching for the Red Herring again I see.

Originally Posted by :
Read the first post. It was not I who mentioned "God" first.

Again irrevelant to the discussion - you first accused me of using it first and now your claiming you did not use it first. Interesting.

Originally Posted by :
You have no demonstration, neither any argument. All you have is Wikipedia and Google.

Does not bode well for you does it. The definitions of the fallacies in your arguement were the only reason the references were used. Oh by the way the second time was not a google search. It is a reference site I use to verify my logical arguements.

It seems you have a problem in understanding logic and the fallacies inherient is logical arguements.

Originally Posted by :
Read my logic.

done and done - the logic in this tread as demonstrated by yourself contains the already mentioned fallacies.


Speaking of the first post. Where do you think I got this little gem of a logical fallacy from.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Now I wonder if you truely understand logic in the argumentive form, or do you only pretend to understand logic when it suits your arguement?


Now quoting myself

Originally Posted by Redleg:
I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Your inconsistent application of your logic is what is your down fall. I won't go into your attempts at strawman arguements to counter this statement, because while they were amusing - they are irrevelant, and were seen as the strawman arguements that they were.

Both statements contain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Then its back to your initial premise and the application of a logical fallacy by yourself. One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.



Again nice try - but what is being discussed is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.



The pot calling the kettle black - again the topic being discussed between you and I is that your application of your logic is inconsistent and your premise contains a logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or disprove with lack of evidence.



Again no need - the topic being discussed by you and I is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.


A strawman it seems.



So you do agree that you have been inconsistent with your application and that your logic does indeed contain the above mentioned fallacy?



Done with the intelligent life outside of the Earth's solar system examble. Again one can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.



Reaching for the Red Herring again I see.



Again irrevelant to the discussion - you first accused me of using it first and now your claiming you did not use it first. Interesting.



Does not bode well for you does it. The definitions of the fallacies in your arguement were the only reason the references were used. Oh by the way the second time was not a google search. It is a reference site I use to verify my logical arguements.

It seems you have a problem in understanding logic and the fallacies inherient is logical arguements.



done and done - the logic in this tread as demonstrated by yourself contains the already mentioned fallacies.


Speaking of the first post. Where do you think I got this little gem of a logical fallacy from.




Now I wonder if you truely understand logic in the argumentive form, or do you only pretend to understand logic when it suits your arguement?


Now quoting myself



Your inconsistent application of your logic is what is your down fall. I won't go into your attempts at strawman arguements to counter this statement, because while they were amusing - they are irrevelant, and were seen as the strawman arguements that they were.

Both statements contain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Read the first post. Viking first used "God/Jesus", hence Biblical (yes, the same "God" you defined to me in older threads; yet now you claim you have definition for "God").

Here's the logic again:

If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists?

I see not counterargument against this at all.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
Read the first post. Viking first used "God/Jesus", hence Biblical (yes, the same "God" you defined to me in older threads; yet now you claim you have definition for "God").

Definition of God is irrevelant in the discussion we are having, which is consistent with what I have stated. Attempts at telling someone to read the first post - where they initially got the premise of your arguement shows a lack of understanding on your part. I developed the premise that your arguement contains the logical fallacy from the initial post and follow-on posts in this thread.

This logical fallacy does exist in your arguement. One can not prove existance nor non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :

Here's the logic again:

If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists?

One can not claim nor prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance or non-existance.

Originally Posted by :
I see not counterargument against this at all.

That is because the fallacy in the arguement is its own refutation. One can not claim existance or non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

A blind man can define color, he can claim it exists, and he would be correct - but that is besides the point now isn't. Your arguement contains the above mentioned fallacy and that fallacy is the refutation of your premise, regardless of how many strawman and red herring arguements, you present to counter the pointing out of the fallacy in your premise..

Just because it demonstrates again the fallacy in your premise, using your other claim - which by the way is the exact same premise that has been quoted over and over again in explaining the logical fallacy in your arguement.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists.

If you have no proof of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, how can you correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system? If you can't correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, then how can you claim intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists?

And we both know that you alreadly claim that the probablity of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists.

Again one can not proof or disproof existance based upon the lack of evidence of existance.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Definition of God is irrevelant in the discussion we are having, which is consistent with what I have stated. Attempts at telling someone to read the first post - where they initially got the premise of your arguement shows a lack of understanding on your part. I developed the premise that your arguement contains the logical fallacy from the initial post and follow-on posts in this thread.

This logical fallacy does exist in your arguement. One can not prove existance nor non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.



One can not claim nor prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance or non-existance.



That is because the fallacy in the arguement is its own refutation. One can not claim existance or non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

A blind man can define color, he can claim it exists, and he would be correct - but that is besides the point now isn't. Your arguement contains the above mentioned fallacy and that fallacy is the refutation of your premise, regardless of how many strawman and red herring arguements, you present to counter the pointing out of the fallacy in your premise..

I've already answered all the arguments and non-arguments fairly and clearly and many times, repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Just because it demonstrates again the fallacy in your premise, using your other claim - which by the way is the exact same premise that has been quoted over and over again in explaining the logical fallacy in your arguement.



If you have no proof of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, how can you correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system? If you can't correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, then how can you claim intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists?

And we both know that you alreadly claim that the probablity of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists.

Again one can not proof or disproof existance based upon the lack of evidence of existance.

I didn't define "intelligent life" outside, I said it was a probability because we are "intelligent life" by your own definition (yes?), therefore it's a probability question. I've already addressed this definitively a couple pages back.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
I didn't define "intelligent life" outside, I said it was a probability because we are "intelligent life" by your own definition (yes?), therefore it's a probability question. I've already addressed this definitively a couple pages back.

The statement made is in the same manner in which you stated your premise. Neither was a probablity question, you chose to argue that it was a probability question - hence you have committed the same strawman arguement fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Your Premise contains the logical fallacy mentioned and therefor it is its' own refutation.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
I've already answered all the arguments and non-arguments fairly and clearly and many times, repeatedly.

And you still maintain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
And you still maintain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities).

Originally Posted by Soulforged:
Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities).

Defining "God" does not make him exist or not exist. The definition issue is a mote point since the fallacy still applies, regardless of how its attempt. For examble.

Defining God only provides a premise for one to prove or disprove. If you can not provide evidence to counter the definition nor evidence to support the definition - you can still not prove or disprove a definition by lack of evidence. All you can show is that the definition provided is unconclusive.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
Defining "God" does not make him exist or not exist. The definition issue is a mote point since the fallacy still applies, regardless of how its attempt. For examble.

Defining God only provides a premise for one to prove or disprove. If you can not provide evidence to counter the definition nor evidence to support the definition - you can still not prove or disprove a definition by lack of evidence. All you can show is that the definition provided is unconclusive.

I only tried to clearify the point of Quietus. I'll not argue against the existence of God, I consider it pointless.

Originally Posted by Soulforged:
I only tried to clearify the point of Quietus. I'll not argue against the existence of God, I consider it pointless.

I understand - I am maintaining the same postion - a definition does not consitute an arguement for or against God - especially when one is attempting to establish the proof by the lack of evidence.

The fallacy in his point remains the same.

Originally Posted by Soulforged:
Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities).

God is just a word, exactly. If it is defined as 'the nearest star', then God exists.

A blind guy cannot cannot define "color" on his own as well. You need proof, before you can define "color" is.

Imagine a totally blind guy, (minus any physical aberrations allowing the person to "see"), will suddenly remark:

"I tilt my head up, and the sky is "blue" and the clouds are "white", while the trees are "green".

Unless someone informs the blind guy of the concept of color, but that would be giving the proof. :)

I cant believe this is still going... :laugh:

Originally Posted by Quietus:
You're starting from a positive point-of-view that "God" already exists and you're shifting the burden of proof without having any proof of "God" in the first place.

I have no definition for "God".

Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him prove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to prove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink:

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I cant believe this is still going... :laugh:Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him proove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to proove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink:

Yes indeed I have been rather amused by the whole discussion. :2thumbsup:

Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I cant believe this is still going... :laugh:

You don't need faith to believe this one, just your eyes.

Originally Posted by :
Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him prove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to prove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink:

Here is the reasoning again (noone has ever answered):

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Originally Posted by Quietus:
You don't need faith to believe this one, just your eyes.

Here is the reasoning again (noone has ever answered):

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

[/quote]

Actually it has been answered. You just don't like the answer because it show the flaw in your arguement against God.

One can not prove anything based upon the lack of evidence of its existance or non-existance.

By the way a blind man can define color - one does not need to see color to define color correctly. The anology there is flawed. :oops:

Same goes with God. A correct definition does not prove something exists or does not exist. :wall:

Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined.

Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)


Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer.

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

Yes indeed - and its rather amusing don't you agree? But to make the arguement about something pointlessly, you should take the opposite side of that statement. :laugh4:

Originally Posted by :
I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined.

Haven't read that one. Might have to pick it up, the bottom line is, was the book worth the money it takes to purchase it and the time required to read it?

Originally Posted by :

Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

Darn there I go arguing about something pointless and you had it in the next sentence. :oops: :laugh4:

Originally Posted by :
As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)

Let me quote Quietus for like the 1000th time.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now to have a little fun at someone's arguement expense

Now how can you know infinity exists if you can not adequately define it? You must be able to correctly define infinity or how can you claim infinity exists...

Damnit Swordmaster give me a definition of Infinity. If you do not have proof that inifinity exists, how can you accurately define inifinity. It can not exist without a known definition. But you can not have a known definition because you have no proof that inifinity exists. My goodness if infinity does not exist then god must exist. Because if you can not proof infinity then everything is finite, then God must exist because he did make everything.


Or would you like to argue pointlessly about human rights.

Originally Posted by :
Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer.

No give me your best answer... :2thumbsup:

Wowowowow!! You asked for it...

Originally Posted by :
Haven't read that one. Might have to pick it up, the bottom line is, was the book worth the money it takes to purchase it and the time required to read it?

Its only about 150 pages f pretty big print, it took me some 2 hours to read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by :
Now how can you know infinity exists if you can not adequately define it? You must be able to correctly define infinity or how can you claim infinity exists...

Damnit Swordmaster give me a definition of Infinity. If you do not have proof that inifinity exists, how can you accurately define inifinity. It can not exist without a known definition. But you can not have a known definition because you have no proof that inifinity exists. My goodness if infinity does not exist then god must exist. Because if you can not proof infinity then everything is finite, then God must exist because he did make everything.

Mwhaha! Here is where you are wrong! Because then God doesn't exist either because why would you need to give it a name if it doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need one? It ain't nothing til you call it.

But if God created infinity and he himself is finite then he is exceeding his jurisdiction, and if he is infinite then the Bing Bang theory states that he is in expansion with the universe due to the dimensional curvatures of the time-space plane.:sweatdrop:
(Give me a shout if you manage to understand what i just said. I mean, I'd like to understand it too...)

Originally Posted by :
Or would you like to argue pointlessly about human rights.

Hit me!:knight:

PS: Gah! Look at the time! I'm off to bed. Argue you tomorrow

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
Mwhaha! Here is where you are wrong! Because then God doesn't exist either because why would you need to give it a name if it doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need one? It ain't nothing til you call it.

So if a hole in the ground is there, but I am blind and can not see it, because I can not see the hole, I can not know that the hole exists, If I can not provide proof of the existance of said hole because I can not understand the nature of the hole, and therefor I can not define the hole correctly, the hole can not exist.

So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

Originally Posted by :

But if God created infinity and he himself is finite then he is exceeding his jurisdiction, and if he is infinite then the Bing Bang theory states that he is in expansion with the universe due to the dimensional curvatures of the time-space plane.:sweatdrop:
(Give me a shout if you manage to understand what i just said. I mean, I'd like to understand it too...)

It made my brain hurt. But it implies that you do not exist and are only a figment of my computer's imagnation. Since I can not correctly define what you have just stated, which in turns means I can not correctly define who you are, therefor you do not exist.

Originally Posted by :
Hit me!:knight:

PS: Gah! Look at the time! I'm off to bed. Argue you tomorrow

Hopefully that will give you a smack to the eyes, therefor blinding you, which means you can no longer correctly define what you have read or written, and because of your inablity to correctly define your existance - you will no longer exist.

:laugh4:

Originally Posted by :
So if a hole in the ground is there, but I am blind and can not see it, because I can not see the hole, I can not know that the hole exists, If I can not provide proof of the existance of said hole because I can not understand the nature of the hole, and therefor I can not define the hole correctly, the hole can not exist.

But you are blind and cannot see it you can still use the language and read a definition for hole in the dictionary :laugh4: It is not every day that new concepts are invented!

Originally Posted by :
So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

He can't define it, but he already knows what it means which doesnt stop him from falling into infinity. Which explains the absence of blind people in places with holes... (go on, try to prove me wrong on this one :inquisitive: )

Originally Posted by :
So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

Since I don't exist, you can't argue with me, and therefore you are arguing with infinity which is God.

Originally Posted by :
Hopefully that will give you a smack to the eyes, therefor blinding you, which means you can no longer correctly define what you have read or written, and because of your inablity to correctly define your existance - you will no longer exist.

I will always exist. Like.....Spiderman

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
But you are blind and cannot see it you can still use the language and read a definition for hole in the dictionary :laugh4: It is not every day that new concepts are invented!

Ah but the blind can not read.

Originally Posted by :
He can't define it, but he already knows what it means which doesnt stop him from falling into infinity. Which explains the absence of blind people in places with holes... (go on, try to prove me wrong on this one :inquisitive: )

There is a barrier placed by people who can see to prevent the blind from walking into the hole. However the blind can not see the barrier so they end up with bloodly noses from smacking into the barrier with their face. (see it wasn't that hard to prove :juggle2: )

Originally Posted by :
Since I don't exist, you can't argue with me, and therefore you are arguing with infinity which is God.

So if infinity exists - an undefined and unprobable definition - ergo God exists. Hmm. Your debate skills are amazing. :book:

Originally Posted by :
I will always exist. Like.....Spiderman

Well since I can not define Spiderman correctly, because I can not prove Spiderman exists ...... :laugh4:

i haven't posted on this subject in a while because the whole argument was getting a bit conviluted (as attested by the large post sizes! :laugh4:), and ive been very bust lately...

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
I think you are missing the meaning of consistent. For instance, did the general theory of relativity told us that things must fall towards the sky? As you surely know, it is not so. It is consistent with Newton's law and with our popular knowledge. Things tend to fall down.

If you say so I will believe it. However modern science is significantly different to what the ancient greeks did. Also I dont remember what models the greek had, and I doubt they used them too extensively.

On the other hand, currently our industries apply most of the scientific theories. And as you might know they work. You would be surprised by the amount of theories that were applied for your computer to work. Even if someday we find that they were not completly correct, your computer would still work; because even that new finding must be consistent with the previous findings.

i don't doubt this but scientific knoledge is still imcompleate and can never disprove god.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
The sentence 'the Grand Unified Theory exists' is evaluated to 0 (undefined). The same way as the sentence 'God exists'. Today not even scientists are sure if such a theory exists, but it would be nice if it did. We are inclined that it does exists, mainly because most of the models discovered during the past century were mergend into a few so it is rational to think that the remaining ones could also merge. Nevertheless as I said before, not even the top scientists are sure whether it exists, some even say that such a think doesn't.

Well then, you might ask what is the difference between searching god or the GUT? the answer is quite simple. If we find the GUT we would gain enourmous knowlegde (and the one who finds it, enourmous sums of money), and it certainly will have effects on our current knowledge and lives (and then we might even be able to tell wether god exists o not).
However we gain nothing finding god, since he doesn't have known effects to the real world.

not for you maybee, or is it that you don't see him acting in the world? there is wind even for those who do not believe in air

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
Well if someone find a theory that explains in a satisfactory way the background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the distribution of matter, then he is more than welcomed and should receive a nobel prize. There were other theories, but they were discarded since the observations we had didn't support them, then it is certainly not our fault that it is this the only left. Also I am not sure of which subsequent theories you are talking about, are you sure that those are not merely basing themself on or trying to be consistent with the data that support the big bang theory?

That assumes that you can explain the universe, eveyone has a personal vision of their universe a way they visualise it working, god fits the model i have and the model falls to peices without him. I test my faith regularly in this way, may i suggest that you test yours? meet with a paster or a vicor someone more qualifyed on these matters then me, and ask them why they believe.

I would also like to introduce a new aspect to my argument, the witnesses, when you have a crime it is considered that a few good witnesses to the events can decide a conviction, usually the extent to which a court deems to test them is a lengthy cross examineation. now take the witnesses of jesus and what they did, Jesus himself suffered one of the worst deaths imagineable, first he was flogged, roman flogging was harsh often tearing strips of flesh from the victims back, exposeing the spineal cord and sometimes the guts. then he dragged the cross to the hill and was put on the cross, now the nails of the cross went into his hands, almost certainly cutting a majour nerve in the arm and causeing one of the most intense pains a human can experience. He then hung by these, unable to breathe and haveing to force himself upwards when he wanted to breathe the ususla death was when the vistime was so exhausted that even the gag reflex couldn't bring them back up. If Jesus was a liar surely he would have admmitted it to stop this horendous process, but even if you say that he was
lieing what about his diciples, for a very short while Peter tried to deny Jesus but he didn't say that he was a liar, just that he didn't know him!

All bar one of the diciples died terrible deaths and not one of them went back on what they said, even though it could have lessoned their suffering if they even slightly doubted jesus surely they would have spoken out?

Originally Posted by Redleg:

Actually it has been answered. You just don't like the answer because it show the flaw in your arguement against God.

One can not prove anything based upon the lack of evidence of its existance or non-existance.

That's my answer to that argument.

I said "A"
You said but "B"
I said because of "C"
You said but "B" (again).

Make an argument.

Originally Posted by :
By the way a blind man can define color - one does not need to see color to define color correctly. The anology there is flawed. :oops:

Same goes with God. A correct definition does not prove something exists or does not exist. :wall:

Yeah, but a blind man would need/require proof would he?

Do not tell a blind man about the concept of color and any color and the blind man will be totally oblivious to the concept on his own. The stipulation here is no proof isn't it?

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined.

If we came for a "God" where did God come from?

If you believe that we a complex entity has a creator, then that creator would be much more complex, hence you should also believe that creator also has a creator. Where do you stop?

Originally Posted by :
Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)


Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer.

Of course Infinity is defined mathematically. It depends what you mean by infinity itself? What's your definition when you used the word infinity?

Also, I didn't say anything about "feeling". I said proof. :)

Originally Posted by Quietus:
That's my answer to that argument.

I said "A"
You said but "B"
I said because of "C"
You said but "B" (again).

Make an argument.

I have - the problem is that you have not.

One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence of existance.

Originally Posted by :
Yeah, but a blind man would need/require proof would he?

Not at all.

Originally Posted by :
Do not tell a blind man about the concept of color and any color and the blind man will be totally oblivious to the concept on his own. The stipulation here is no proof isn't it?

Again incorrect.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
I have - the problem is that you have not.

One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence of existance.

Same argument B.

Originally Posted by :
Not at all.

Huh? How?

Originally Posted by :
Again incorrect.

Incorrect how?

For example, if you tell a blind guy: "green", "blue" and tell them they are "colors", you're just coaching the person and essentially giving the guy proof.

And if a blind guy "reads" braille where "colors" are mentioned, that's giving them proof.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
Same argument B.

That is because it answers your arguement of A. One can not prove existance or nonexistance by the lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
Huh? How?

One does not need proof to define colors. One does not need proof to have a definition of something.

Originally Posted by :
Incorrect how?

Go ask a blind man.

Originally Posted by :
For example, if you tell a blind guy: "green", "blue" and tell them they are "colors", you're just coaching the person and essentially giving the guy proof.

Try explaining the color blue to someone who is color blind. They know color exists but not the shade that everyone else see's it. They don't need proof that its the color blue because they understand that colors have a definition. Same concept.

Originally Posted by :
And if a blind guy "reads" braille where "colors" are mentioned, that's giving them proof.

One can not prove existance or lack of existance by the lack of evidence.

A blind man can understand the concept of color without being able to prove color. A blind man can understand the definition of color without ever having to prove that color exists.

Again your arguement against the existance of God is nothing but fallacy based upon fallacy, which is inconsistently applied in your own arguement.

.

Originally Posted by Redleg:
That is because it answers your arguement of A. One can not prove existance or nonexistance by the lack of evidence.

I've already answered this arguments. You haven't answered that argument. See above.

Originally Posted by :
One does not need proof to define colors. One does not need proof to have a definition of something.

Of course you do. A blind guy will never figure out color totally on his own.

You leave a blind baby in a jungle without any human contact. Raised by apes and all of the sudden, the grown person can define colors?

Originally Posted by :
Go ask a blind man.

A blind man who has proof of color accesible or given to them?

We're talking about a blind guy without any proof of color.

Originally Posted by :
Try explaining the color blue to someone who is color blind. They know color exists but not the shade that everyone else see's it. They don't need proof that its the color blue because they understand that colors have a definition. Same concept.

By explaining blue to a blind person, you're giving that person the proof that blue exists.

Has God, an Angel or a supernatural being ever talked to you and explained their existence and given you proof they exist?

Originally Posted by :
One can not prove existance or lack of existance by the lack of evidence.

Here it is again:

f you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Originally Posted by :
A blind man can understand the concept of color without being able to prove color. A blind man can understand the definition of color without ever having to prove that color exists.

By explaining color, you're giving the blind guy the proof. The argument is no proof.

Someone explained color to the blind guy.
Who explained God to you?

Originally Posted by :
Again your arguement against the existance of God is nothing but fallacy based upon fallacy, which is inconsistently applied in your own arguement.

.

I've given my reasoning many, many times. I see no argument against it.

Originally Posted by Quietus:
I've already answered this arguments. You haven't answered that argument. See above.

And as pointed out numerous times before and I will continue to do so. Your arguement against God contains a fallacy and is inconsistent in its application. One can not prove or disprove existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
Of course you do. A blind guy will never figure out color totally on his own.

Of course you don't. Again one can define something without having prove of its existance. One can understand that definition without being able to see it.

Originally Posted by :
You leave a blind baby in a jungle without any human contact. Raised by apes and all of the sudden, the grown person can define colors?

In the same terms as the apes that raised him. A bad anology on your part.

Originally Posted by :
A blind man who has proof of color accesible or given to them?

One does not have to see color to be able to understand the definition of color. Again your arguement is a fallacy. The blind man can understand the logic behind color without knowing of its existance.

Originally Posted by :
We're talking about a blind guy without any proof of color.

Again go ask him. A individual that is blind does not need to have proof of colors existance to understand the concept of color.

The blind man can not prove the existance nor the non-existance of color because he has no ability to prove it either way. One can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.

Hence the fallacy in your logic remains.

Originally Posted by :
By explaining blue to a blind person, you're giving that person the proof that blue exists.

Not at all your giving him a definition of what the color blue is. He can not see blue, but because he understands that color exists therefor the color blue must also exist. He does not have proof of this existance but he has a definition of it. Again one can not proof existance or non-existance by lack of evidence. And you mis-read the statement. I stated clearly a color-blind person.

Originally Posted by :
Has God, an Angel or a supernatural being ever talked to you and explained their existence and given you proof they exist?

I talk to God all the time. Rarely does he answer however. However notice what you are saying here.

The beings mentioned all have definitions. The definitions provide the individual with a concept of the description of the being. It does not provide proof of its existance nor does the definition have to provide proof. It provides a concept.

One does not require proof to understand definitions and concepts.

Originally Posted by :
Here it is again:

f you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Your continuing with the same logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or non-existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by :
By explaining color, you're giving the blind guy the proof. The argument is no proof.

Again your logic is inconsistent. If I explain color to a blind man - I am not providing him proof of color. I am providing him a definition of what color is.

Originally Posted by :
Someone explained color to the blind guy.
Who explained God to you?

I am beginning to wonder who explained logic to you.

The question is not within the scope of the discussion of your logical fallacy and how your arguement is false because of that. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by lack of evidence.

Color exists even though the blind man can not see color. The blind man does not have proof of its existance, but he does not have proof that it does not exist. However he can understand the concept of color and he can understand the definition of color.

The existance of God falls within the same concept. We can not prove nor can disprove his existance because we do not see his being.

Originally Posted by :
I've given my reasoning many, many times. I see no argument against it.

LOL you refuse to see that your reasoning contains the logical fallacy. Just because you refuse to ackownledge it, does not mean the that reasoning has not been shown to have a logical fallacy which makes your reasoning false.

One can not prove nor can one disprove existance by lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
i haven't posted on this subject in a while because the whole argument was getting a bit conviluted (as attested by the large post sizes! :laugh4:), and ive been very bust lately...

I will do my best to keep this short then...

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
i don't doubt this but scientific knoledge is still imcompleate [...]

Certainly true.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
[...]and can never disprove god.

And that is because you say so?

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
not for you maybee, or is it that you don't see him acting in the world? there is wind even for those who do not believe in air

It is not a matter of opinion. There is simply no fundaments to think that he exists. Bring up an empirical observation of him acting in the world and I might reconsider.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
That assumes that you can explain the universe, eveyone has a personal vision of their universe a way they visualise it working, god fits the model i have and the model falls to peices without him. I test my faith regularly in this way, may i suggest that you test yours? meet with a paster or a vicor someone more qualifyed on these matters then me, and ask them why they believe.

Well the current scientific model can describe quite accurately the mechanics that govern our universe. In particular, it was proven that the general theory of relativity implies the that the universe began in similar fashion to the Big Bang. So even if the current Big Bang is not completly accurate, it would only need a few changes. The other option is to disprove the Gen. T. of Relativity, but given that it is quite robust and is being currently applied, it seems improbable.
Of course everyone can invent a personal model about how the universe works, but I doubt that those are reliable. In your case if god is inside your model, then he should do something doesn't he? something of the sort 'god => x'. If you want to test such a model god should be the sufficient and necessary explanation for 'x'. However in most cases that is not true since we have a scientific model without god that would explain x (of couse depending on what is 'x'). You will find then, that there is very little place for a god.
If I want to test the veracity of scientific model I certainly wouldn't go to meet a pastor or such useless individuals. Besides, scientific models are under constant testing.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
I would also like to introduce a new aspect to my argument, the witnesses, when you have a crime it is considered that a few good witnesses to the events can decide a conviction, usually the extent to which a court deems to test them is a lengthy cross examineation. now take the witnesses of jesus and what they did, Jesus himself suffered one of the worst deaths imagineable, first he was flogged, roman flogging was harsh often tearing strips of flesh from the victims back, exposeing the spineal cord and sometimes the guts. then he dragged the cross to the hill and was put on the cross, now the nails of the cross went into his hands, almost certainly cutting a majour nerve in the arm and causeing one of the most intense pains a human can experience. He then hung by these, unable to breathe and haveing to force himself upwards when he wanted to breathe the ususla death was when the vistime was so exhausted that even the gag reflex couldn't bring them back up. If Jesus was a liar surely he would have admmitted it to stop this horendous process, but even if you say that he was
lieing what about his diciples, for a very short while Peter tried to deny Jesus but he didn't say that he was a liar, just that he didn't know him!

All bar one of the diciples died terrible deaths and not one of them went back on what they said, even though it could have lessoned their suffering if they even slightly doubted jesus surely they would have spoken out?

Jesus was a judean rebel and rome disposed of him as such. Being a rebel was a great crime and criminal would not expect mercy, aside of being a heretic to the jews (i think...). Besides the few sources of those events (I can think only of the bible right now - judean rebels at those times were quite a few so none would pay attention to one more loony) may have omitted (for their own convenience) event that may have tarnished the image of their prophet, but I would rather not speculate.
I am really not surprised that religious fanatics would go to such lenghts. Everyone known that fanatism make people do irrational things.

Edit:
For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

Yes indeed it is a defined mathematical concept - I see you understand the point of the discussion.

Having a definition for a concept does not require that one have absolute proof of it, for the definition to be accepted.

are you implying that there is no proof for infinity?:inquisitive:
I guess someone noticed that the cardinality (the number of elements) of the set of the Natural numbers was a number that none could express was a proof of the existence of an special number. It was then the definition of infinity (now this is not a formal definition).
Providing the definition first before the observation is what one would call 'inventing'.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
are you implying that there is no proof for infinity?:inquisitive:

In the context of Quietus's arguement, I am showing how ridiculous the claim that in order to have a definition one must have proof of existance.

Has anyone seen the end of infinity? That would be in the same context of Quietus arguement against the existance of God.

Originally Posted by :
I guess someone noticed that the cardinality (the number of elements) of the set of the Natural numbers was a number that none could express was a proof of the existence of an special number. It was then the definition of infinity (now this is not a formal definition).
Providing the definition first before the observation is what one would call 'inventing'.

Bingo - you do seem to understand my point. A definition of something does not necessary require postive hard proof of its existance in order to have a logical definition of what it could be.

The numberical value of pi can not be calculated - hence it is often termed as an infinite numberical equation. (Edit: That is the absolute numberical value of pi can not be calculated.)

God does not exist.

You can trust me. http://www.baristanet.com/photos/unc...ized/devil.jpg I'm your friend.

Ohh, and "Rap Music" doesn't kill brain cells either

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
And that is because you say so?

No, it is because you cannot come up with a fact that disproves god, surely you know this, that is what this argument concerns!, the problem is more can I prove god?

I know what you will probably say, maybe an argument similar to what Richard Dawkins has said, but I do find that most critics of Christianity (including him) have an ignorance of even its message. This is the reason I suggested speaking to a pastor or a vicar, you have obviously never met one if you think them all ignorant and useless and you cannot argue against something that you do not understand, can you?.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
It is not a matter of opinion. There is simply no fundaments to think that he exists. Bring up an empirical observation of him acting in the world and I might reconsider.

Isn’t that the whole point of this thread to do this?
Every action in the world was caused by him, there is no reason for anything, don't you see, you know nothing because there is no reason for anything

Why should man exist? Why should stars form? I can put this forward as the intricate plan of an omnipotent presence, what is your explanation? chance? That laws of science and physics just exist why is that more logical then there being a different set of rules or even more likely in a randomly created universe no laws governing anything?
A computer does not write its own programs, what is to say that the laws of our universe require a creator

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
Well the current scientific model can describe quite accurately the mechanics that govern our universe. In particular, it was proven that the general theory of relativity implies the that the universe began in similar fashion to the Big Bang. So even if the current Big Bang is not completly accurate, it would only need a few changes. The other option is to disprove the Gen. T. of Relativity, but given that it is quite robust and is being currently applied, it seems improbable.
Of course everyone can invent a personal model about how the universe works, but I doubt that those are reliable. In your case if god is inside your model, then he should do something doesn't he? something of the sort 'god => x'. If you want to test such a model god should be the sufficient and necessary explanation for 'x'. However in most cases that is not true since we have a scientific model without god that would explain x (of couse depending on what is 'x'). You will find then, that there is very little place for a god.
If I want to test the veracity of scientific model I certainly wouldn't go to meet a pastor or such useless individuals. Besides, scientific models are under constant testing.

Yes and the wonderful theory of relativity does not fit with Quantum mechanics, why is that? :inquisitive:
I have already shown what god does; your problem is that you have explained almost everything except the fundamental question why does the universe exist? And why it is the way it is? All science does is describe what should happen not why these rules exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by Erebus1101:
Jesus was a judean rebel and rome disposed of him as such. Being a rebel was a great crime and criminal would not expect mercy, aside of being a heretic to the jews (i think...). Besides the few sources of those events (I can think only of the bible right now - judean rebels at those times were quite a few so none would pay attention to one more loony) may have omitted (for their own convenience) event that may have tarnished the image of their prophet, but I would rather not speculate.
I am really not surprised that religious fanatics would go to such lenghts. Everyone known that fanatism make people do irrational things.

Edit:
For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

I am not talking about later Christians i am talking about the ones who met Jesus heard his teaching and then died not only supporting those teachings but also the version that is accepted as his teachings. So stop making up things about the origins of Christianity, I may as well say that actually all scientists are lying and have made up all of science instead using the magic of the umpa lumpas.

With what you have said about the entire priesthood and many other religious people, that they will die for no reason etc, you appear to be assuming that you are a faultless observer, the fact is if they are so faulted, as a fellow human so must you and your views be and so surely I should no more listen to you then a religious fanatic?

Posts just get longer and longer don't they! :oops:

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
No, it is because you cannot come up with a fact that disproves god, surely you know this, that is what this argument concerns!, the problem is more can I prove god?

From the way you put it is seemed that you affirm that scientific knowledge can never disprove god. That is however not true, since there is no way that you know the entire scientific knowledge (including the knowledge that still has not been discovered).

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
I know what you will probably say, maybe an argument similar to what Richard Dawkins has said, but I do find that most critics of Christianity (including him) have an ignorance of even its message. This is the reason I suggested speaking to a pastor or a vicar, you have obviously never met one if you think them all ignorant and useless and you cannot argue against something that you do not understand, can you?.

Of what use is his message to me? it is merely an opinion, it may be a lofty and noble opinion, but is still an opinion. I may agree or disagree with him but that is a question of philosophy not of reality.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
Isn’t that the whole point of this thread to do this?
Every action in the world was caused by him, there is no reason for anything, don't you see, you know nothing because there is no reason for anything

I will have go go by parts here:
"Every action in the world was caused by him..." : that would require a proof
"...there is no reason for anything" : this contradicts the previous phrase stating that he is the reason for everything
"you know nothing..." : probably true, but I would rather think that there is something I must know
"...because there is no reason for anything" : again a simple statement without anything to back it up. That aside the implication doesn't give sense to me, maybe you coud explain it.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
Why should man exist? Why should stars form? I can put this forward as the intricate plan of an omnipotent presence, what is your explanation? chance? That laws of science and physics just exist why is that more logical then there being a different set of rules or even more likely in a randomly created universe no laws governing anything?
A computer does not write its own programs, what is to say that the laws of our universe require a creator

An argument that looks exactly like the "whatches don't build themselves" argument. There is again nothing that indicates that such entity exists (even less that he made those laws), you just wish to believe it exists and that is irrational. Nevertheless you say that this is more logical than a more scientific aproach, wich is tightly related to mathematics logic.

The laws of the universe are intrinsic to the matter. At the moment of the Big Bang, acording to Hawking, there was a 98% probability that this matter would have the properties we now see. Why you think is illogical to think that they were created randomly when with the knowledge we have now it seems that that is exactly what ocurred? Reandomness, acording to the quantic theory, seems to be intrinsec to the universe. Such things as the Cassimir effect, or the Hawking radiation seems to confirm it.

Probably you should look into complexity and chaos theory to undersand why randomness can explain complex systems including us.

Regarding the computer. Although you can make a program that generates code, matter didnt generated its laws. Those were probably created randomly along with it. So a better simil would de to feed a computer a random generaded code and let it compute itself over and over. Guess what, the odds ar that it will never stop computing (basically because it would be a program that computes nothing), exactly the same what is happening to the universe, it will never cease to expand. If someone created the laws of universe, he was pretty incompetent.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
Yes and the wonderful theory of relativity does not fit with Quantum mechanics, why is that? :inquisitive:

It seems to me that you are a bit confused. The general Theory of Relativity explains events on a macroscale (gravity), quantum mechanics concers with events on microscale (subatomic). They do not contradict themselves because they are quite unrelated. Thats why an Unified theory it so hard to come up with.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
I have already shown what god does; your problem is that you have explained almost everything except the fundamental question why does the universe exist? And why it is the way it is? All science does is describe what should happen not why these rules exist in the first place.

You havent so far shown any evidence that god does actually something. The existence of the universe is so far outside science , because at the moment of the Big Bang, the singularity in which all mater was concentrted was (like a black hole) inside a horizont of event (simply put, it was inside the black hole). An the current theories doesnt apply to it. That doesnt mean that there is no way of knowing what actually happened inside (some scientist actually think that there may be some way), however this situation may change in the future.

Nevertheless randomness seems a good explanation and certainly more rational that accepting supernatural notions. The question about why it is the way it is now, is also a question of probability, it could have been different. But then there probably would also be intellingent being and they would also ask why is it the way is it, and like you some of them would think that it was taylored by some supernatural being.

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
I am not talking about later Christians i am talking about the ones who met Jesus heard his teaching and then died not only supporting those teachings but also the version that is accepted as his teachings. So stop making up things about the origins of Christianity, I may as well say that actually all scientists are lying and have made up all of science instead using the magic of the umpa lumpas.

Firstly I wasn't talking about later christians either. Secondly I was trying to say that the sources you rely on (the bible I pressume) are at most not quite reliable, at those times people didn't have any sense for historical accuracy, and even less if those who people were religious fanatics. Nevertheless it is a historical fact that quite long before the time of Jesus and after him, judea was quite rebellious. And it ended when Octavious send his legions to raze judea (after some loonies though that they could defeat rome).

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary:
With what you have said about the entire priesthood and many other religious people, that they will die for no reason etc, you appear to be assuming that you are a faultless observer, the fact is if they are so faulted, as a fellow human so must you and your views be and so surely I should no more listen to you then a religious fanatic?

did I said that they will die for no reason? well personally think that everyone has his own reason for existing (even if it just the basic instinct). Well other persons irrational opinions are just of no use to me, if you have some use for them, then good for you.

''I will have go go by parts here:
"Every action in the world was caused by him..." : that would require a proof
"...there is no reason for anything" : this contradicts the previous phrase stating that he is the reason for everything
"you know nothing..." : probably true, but I would rather think that there is something I must know
"...because there is no reason for anything" : again a simple statement without anything to back it up. That aside the implication doesn't give sense to me, maybe you coud explain it''

Ok il try and explain what i mean.

Firstly you present the universe as the result if randomness, and say that the laws of science were created randomly.

If this were true the end result could be gravity more powerful so that all you get is one area of a large mass concentrated, or weaker so that you get a sea of gas, this would have been randomly decided? why is it just right for planets?

Lets assume that you were lucky and get the right strength for gravity, every other law would need to be similarly balanced to create a complex universe rather then a simple non functioning one. A man asked to make a whatch might suceed and might fail, but if he works entirely randomly he is very likely to fail! :laugh4:

This is the backbone of what i am saying, you have no explanation as to why things are the way they are because you can't tell me why we didn't get other scientific rules.

The computer analogy would be a computer that writes its own software that works perfectly despite choseing every line of code randomly and being unable to change the code once written, there would be no evolution just one writing that is permanent.

You have faith in scientists who tell you about things you don't understand, about things that are very complex (as you yourself said noone can know the reason for everything and so would have to take some facts on faith) and yet you automatically discount the disiples as fanatics, they were there, they didn't say these things, Jesus did, and they stood by what was said to have happened, they died for what was said to have happened! if it had been a hoax they would have seen that it was and said so when placed in a tight spot, they doubted like anyone else would, heck peter even denied knowing Jesus when he thought it would help him, but in the end they stood by chrisitianity and died for it, i trust that and the strength i see in christians, strength that goes beyond understanding.

I am not (wholey :laugh4: ) ignorant, i test my faith, but no matter what there is something inside me and always has been that knows that there is a god. this is my central proof and it is a pity that i can not demonstrate it, this is not something that has been imprinted into me, i have had total freedom throughout my life to come to what beliefs i wan't and i can assure you that every christian i know believes something a little bit different from each other and we argue a lot about this, we do not just sit down and agree, we are not some ignorant brianwashed religion.