• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP

  • Total voters
    67
Tucker Case said:
Which language is universally understood by all cultures?
Click to expand...

Language, the human cognitive facility of creating and using language, is universal across all human cultures:shrug:
 
paris said:
Language, the human cognitive facility of creating and using language, is universal across all human cultures:shrug:
Click to expand...
You mean all human cultures have a language.
OK.....so.....?
 
paris said:
Language, the human cognitive facility of creating and using language, is universal across all human cultures:shrug:
Click to expand...

And so we're back to logic - which isn't efficient enough to explain certain things that seem to defy physics, etc - such as the plecebo effect, Pamela Anderson's Breasts, Homeopathy, and the Mimivirus.

All these things defy science - and thus, are illogical. But they exists!
 
paris said:
Language, the human cognitive facility of creating and using language, is universal across all human cultures:shrug:
Click to expand...

The concepts of what is language are not universal though. Whereas the concept of what 1" is is universal. The concept of "1" is universally understood as well.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
And so we're back to logic - which isn't efficient enough to explain certain things that seem to defy physics, etc - such as the plecebo effect, Pamela Anderson's Breasts, Homeopathy, and the Mimivirus.

All these things defy science - and thus, are illogical. But they exists!
Click to expand...

Those aren't examples of illogical things.
 
phattonez said:
So we should believe nothing that man writes? Got it! :bravo:
Click to expand...

Nice try at word twisting, but that was not what I said nor what I meant.

Of everything man writes can there not be some mistakes and some reality?

Now you could write down today that an alternitive fuel to oil would be world wide in 2015.
Would that be a mistake or reality?
Of truth as it stands now I wouldn't know but in 2015 it will be one or the other.
 
EpicDude86 said:
One of you Science buffs debunk this stuff for me. I'm too busy to google any of this crap atm. It makes sense but that's because I'm sure I haven't seen any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to contradict this.
Click to expand...

Six statements riddled with logical fallacies do not qualify as proof. In fact, the only thing that website actually proves is that the author of it is clueless of what constitutes proof. ;)
 
Tucker Case said:
Six statements riddled with logical fallacies do not qualify as proof. In fact, the only thing that website actually proves is that the author of it is clueless of what constitutes proof. ;)
Click to expand...

Well point them out then. I know if anyone can do it, it'd be you, TC.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Well point them out then. I know if anyone can do it, it'd be you, TC.
Click to expand...

They all have a confusion about cause and effect. The arguments there are all essentially saying the same thing as, "The human hand fits perfectly into a glove, therefore human hands were designed to fit into gloves."


I'm not going to bother tearing apart all of those "arguments" individually (none of them are actually arguments) and they don't relate to the topic at hand.

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God will always involve logical fallacy.
 
scourge99 said:
only you can question your faith.


scientific theories often have evidence to support them. Scientific theories cannot be "proven", only supported. "Proofs" are for math. "Proof", is better known as "evidence".




Theists often equiovocate with the word "faith". So it depends on how you personally define "faith".

If your faith is belief based on such things as"good feelings", intuition, desire, blind belief.... Then it is vastly different.

Atheistic faith or scientific faith is mere confidence based on limited but repeatedable results. It is defeatable given new evidence or reason.

It is not the type of faith Paul describes in Hebrews: of things unseen, of that which is hoped for.
Click to expand...

Well first let me say I have faith in God I do not question that faith , but have on more than one occasion questioned words pretaining to my faith.
Example, some religous leaders may say they know what plans God has, or some people have said God speaks to me everyday, or the ever popular if God is so kind why a humans killing each other.
These are things I would question and more.

As far as faith in "of things unseen"
Has anybody seen "the big bang"?
How many people has seen the inside of an atom?
Ok lets try something easy how many people can see germs on a used water fountain?
These are unseen things many people will go their whole life without looking at a proton or a nurtron but we kinda know they are there.
 
Tucker Case said:
Everything that exists can be explained through math. It's not that we created these concepts, they existed and all we did was discover and name them. They exist independent of our understanding.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
I'm nitpicking but this could spark a good discussion.

I don't believe the following claims can be shown as true:
1) Everything that exists can be explained through math (what about emotions, conciousness, conceptualization. How would one explain these things with math?)

2) Concepts exist independent of our understanding.
(This is the ol' "if a tree falls in the woods" question. If there isn't a mind to contemplate the universe and existence then does it exist? I would argue 'yes' but I don't believe its easily supported conclusion. I think its the best answer but that doesn't make it true. Some theists have used this reasoning to argue TAG (transcendtal argument for the existence of god))
 
Tucker Case said:
Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God will always involve logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Which is why one shouldn't try. But what one can do is:

1) Make emotionally persuasive arguments (just as theists do) to dissuade people from believing or to question their beliefs. E.G., slavery, mysogeny, original sin, empty sacrifice, child molesting clergy, money grubbing churches, etc.

2) Make well reasoned arguments against gods unlikely existence. E.G., scientific explanations, bibilical errancy, biblical revisionism, uselesness of intercessory prayer, the triune god, exclusivity,

Not everyone is on the same intellectual level so the approach most effective will vary.

Some will misunderstand this as an attempt to convert people to atheism. The overall goal is not to convert people to atheism, but to get people to think critically. To introduce people to the silly and absurd problems with their beliefs whether they be a theist or an atheist such that they learn to use the tools that will protect them from credulity or error in the future.
 
scourge99 said:
I'm nitpicking but this could spark a good discussion.

I don't believe the following claims can be shown as true:
1) Everything that exists can be explained through math (what about emotions, conciousness, conceptualization. How would one explain these things with math?)
Click to expand...


You make an excellent point. Life in general is something not explained via mathematics, thus all things that occur as a byproduct of life (such as all of the examples you've given) are not explicable via mathematics. I concede that point. My mistake.

2) Concepts exist independent of our understanding.
(This is the ol' "if a tree falls in the woods" question. If there isn't a mind to contemplate the universe and existence then does it exist? I would argue 'yes' but I don't believe its easily supported conclusion. I think its the best answer but that doesn't make it true. Some theists have used this reasoning to argue TAG (transcendtal argument for the existence of god))
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the universe a "concept", so I'm not sure I follow this one. I can give concrete evidence that some things most definitely existed prior to humans even existing, let alone having the ability to contemplate them.

Quasars.

We only know of there existence in very recent years. In fact, we can interact with a product of that existence. But what we actually interact with from them is billions of years old.

We can only see the light that they shed billions of years ago. For us to measure and record that light today, they had to have existed prior to there being a human "mind" to contemplate them.

If existence were defined by the ability of a mind to contemplate a thing, we would never know of quasars because they were only contemplated on after they were discovered.

Quasars were not defined by our contemplations, our contemplations about quasars were defined by the quasars existence.

If something exists before it is contemplated on, then it exists independently of contemplation.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
To introduce people to the silly and absurd problems with their beliefs whether they be a theist or an atheist such that they learn to use the tools that will protect them from credulity or error in the future.
Click to expand...

I bolded that portion because I fully agree with you. People form all walks of life and of all beliefs need to be encouraged to think more critically about their views, regardless of what those views are.

Some of the best intellectual beat-downs I've ever received were by people whom I totally disagreed with and still do, but they were better at thinking critically than I was about a topic.
 
Goobieman said:
You mean all human cultures have a language.
OK.....so.....?
Click to expand...

So you clearly don't understand the concept of universality either.

Why I am not surprised:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom