• 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
Goobieman said:
:roll:
Since you've decided to be so anal about it, I'll leave it to -you- to figure out what words need to be changed so that -you- will be satisfied that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Click to expand...
As I've already stated, explained, and demonstrated, evidence of absence is proof of absence.

Calling me anal doesn't change that.

Goobieman said:
But, the fact remains that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.
Click to expand...
Absence of evidence is proof of absence.

E.G., you claim there is a cat in the trunk of your car. I search and find no cat in the trunk of your car then that is proof that there is probably not a cat in the trunk of your car. Its really that simple.
With one simple example your saying is contradicted.
 
scourge99 said:
As I've already stated, explained, and demonstrated, evidence of absence is proof of absence.
Click to expand...
No, It is not.
And ever if it were, "evidence of absence is proof of absence" isn't issue at hand.

E.G., you claim there is a cat in the trunk of your car. I search and find no cat in the trunk of your car then that is proof that there is probably not a cat in the trunk of your car.
Click to expand...
"There is probably not a cat" is not the same as "proof there is not a cat", and thus your supposed contradiction is proven false.
It is really that simple.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
No, It is not.
Nothing you have posted illustrates this, as this cannot be illistrated.
Click to expand...
Statement: "evidence of absence is not proof of absence."

logic: logic does not have "evidence" in regards to proofs so it cannot apply to logic.
Math: math does not have "evidence" in regards to proofs so it cannot apply to math.

So what other "proof" could you be referring to if its not a logical proof or a mathmatical proof? Its because its an equivocation with the word "proof". By proof its not meant as a mathmatical proof or a logical proof but "proof" as in "reason and/or evidence to believe something as true".

So what your statement actually says is "evidence of absence is not 'reason and/or evidence to believe' in absence".
This is obviously false. And the example about the cat in the trunk explains why.

What's got you hung up is the equivocation of "proof" with mathmatical and logical proofs. Once the ambiguity is removed the falsity of the pithy quote becomes obvious.

Evidence of absence IS proof of absence. Its not "a proof" of absence because its not "a proof". "Proofs" are only valid in math, logic and alcohol.
If you wanted to be accurate the proper saying would be "evidence of absence is not a guarantee absence."

"There is probably not a cat" is not the same as "proof there is not a cat", and thus your supposed contradiction is proven false.
Click to expand...
Is that "a proof" or is that "proof" that my contradiction is proven false? Do you know the difference?

1) Explain how one would "prove there is not a cat".
2) Explain how one could make a proof that there is no cat.
 
scourge99 said:
Statement: "evidence of absence is not proof of absence."
Click to expand...
No...
The statement is:


Absence of proof is not proof of absence.


That is:


That something has not been proven to exist in no way necessitates that it does not exist.


The statement is completely, unassailably sound.
 
Goobieman said:
So, to answer my question... it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Life on other planets disproves the Bible, not God. That is all I care about. That is what this discussion is about.
 
The bible is a story, just like climate change, tell a story long enough, and it becomes reality!
 
Bodhisattva;1058408014 said:
Life on other planets disproves the Bible, not God. That is all I care about.
Click to expand...
This is only true if The Bible is held to list every action ever taken by God.
Do you believe this to be true, and if so, why?
 
Goobieman said:
This is only true if The Bible is held to list every action ever taken by God.
Do you believe this to be true, and if so, why?
Click to expand...

Bodi - "The Bible is Gods word. The Bible outlines the origins of the universe. The Bible does not talk about life on other planets, but it does tell us what the heavens are for."

First God made heaven & earth

Bible.com

He makes the heaven and earth, and describes in detail the design of earth and humans and plants, but nothing of heaven.

And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Bible.com

God is outlining that all under the heavens is earth with life and that the heavens is God's domain. God is absolute. God speaks to us throug the Bible. The Bible is therefore absolute. The Bible must describe Gods actions accurately or it is wrong.

God is speaking about the origins of the universe above. God does not talk about the age of the universe either. It took God 7 days to create the heaven and earth, the universe. We know that the universe is 15 billion years old during this Big Bang, and possiby older... God is wrong about that too, and that also disproves the Bible.

We don't get to interpret the Word of God. It says what it says, and if it doesn't say it, then it didn't happen. Not "not saying" something doesnt mean that it possibly exists in this situation, since we are talking about the absolute nature of God's Word... the Bible.
 
Bodhisattva said:
We don't get to interpret the Word of God. It says what it says, and if it doesn't say it, then it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Yes... but...again...this is only true if The Bible is held to list every action ever taken by God.
Do you believe this to be true, and if so, why?
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... but...again...this is only true if The Bible is held to list every action ever taken by God.
Do you believe this to be true, and if so, why?
Click to expand...

Yes and for the reasons that I listed... God is speaking about the origins of the universe and lists extensively about Earth, but nothing of the heavens other than they are God's domain.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so

Bible.com
 
Goobieman said:
No...
The statement is:


Absence of proof is not proof of absence.


That is:


That something has not been proven to exist in no way necessitates that it does not exist.


The statement is completely, unassailably sound.
Click to expand...

The second statement is fine. The first is not. The second statement is not a correct rephrase of the first. A correct rephrase would be:

That something has not been proven to exist in no way PROVES that it does not exist.


A further example:
Goobieman: I have a rock in my hand.
Scourge99: (looks in Goobieman's hand and sees no rock) No you don't. I see no rock.
Goobieman: absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Scourge99: (feels for a rock in goobieman's hand) there is obviously no rock in your hand that I can see or touch therefore there is no rock.
Goobieman: absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Scourge99: :roll: absence of proof IS proof of absence in this case!
 
Goobieman said:
Umm...
I asked a question. YOU, in your response made the claim, not me.
When YOU asnwer the question in the affirmative, it is then up to you to support it.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I needed to explain myself again...I rather hoped that you remembered my previous post about that sort of question.

If you asked, "is there a god?" There's only one way to go about answering that question. The claim that must be made for logical analysis to be possible is "God exists." If you submit the claim that "God does not exist" you are not able to provide support or evidence because you cannot possibly gather evidence of nothing. Therefore, asking an atheist to provide proof that God does not exist is a silly question.

Again, the claim that "God does not exist" can only follow the claim that "God does exists." The burden of proof can only be possible on the side of the theist. The former claim cannot exist by itself.



Never mind -- as I noted before, the implications are lost on many..
Click to expand...

Was it you that pointed out that some other poster lacked the testicular fortitude to answer a simple question?:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Yes and for the reasons that I listed... God is speaking about the origins of the universe and lists extensively about Earth, but nothing of the heavens other than they are God's domain.
Click to expand...
And so how does that necessarily preclude there being life there?

And... the idea that The Bible is an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of every action God ever took is, well, beyond ridicule. Not even the most whacked of the most whacked fundamentalists believe this.
 
scourge99 said:
The second statement is fine. The first is not. The second statement is not a correct rephrase of the first. A correct rephrase would be:

That something has not been proven to exist in no way PROVES that it does not exist.
Click to expand...
:roll:

So, now that you agree with me.... what?
 
Lightdemon said:
If you asked, "is there a god?" There's only one way to go about answering that question. The claim that must be made for logical analysis to be possible is "God exists."
Click to expand...
Absolutely false -- the question can be addressed without any such assumption.

Was it you that pointed out that some other poster lacked the testicular fortitude to answer a simple question?:2wave:
Click to expand...
No need -- you proved my initial point quite well, thank you.

No free will means no control, and no choice. It means you arent doing anything, you're simply reacting as the laws of nature would have you react. It means you didnt make anything, you didnt contribute anything, you didn't do anything of any meaning. It means that no matter what you do, it is because of something other than your will. And about a hundred other things.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Absolutely false -- the question can be addressed without any such assumption.
Click to expand...

Show me how you can address it then.
If you use "God does not exist" to answer the question, you're not able to gather proof for that claim. The claim "God does not exist" therefore does not make any sense.

No need -- you proved my initial point quite well, thank you.

No free will means no control, and no choice. It means you arent doing anything, you're simply reacting as the laws of nature would have you react. It means you didnt make anything, you didnt contribute anything, you didn't do anything of any meaning. It means that no matter what you do, it is because of something other than your will. And about a hundred other things.
Click to expand...

But it's clear that I make my own choices for dinner every night. It's self evident. In fact, I make choices all the time. What you are trying to allude to is the illusion of having free will. However, free will and the illusion of free will have no significant difference.

So whether it's authentic free will or the illusion of it, what the difference? Can you even tell the difference between authentic free will and the illusion of free will? If not, then why does it matter?
 
Lightdemon said:
Show me how you can address it then.
If you use "God does not exist" to answer the question, you're not able to gather proof for that claim. The claim "God does not exist" therefore does not make any sense.
Click to expand...
It makes complete sense.
That you have taken an unsupportable position is -your- problem. Nothing in taking the position that there is no God in any way necessitates that anyone first even attempt to prove God.

But it's clear that I make my own choices for dinner every night.
It's self evident. In fact, I make choices all the time
Click to expand...
Not if --everythnig-- is created by the laws of physics, you don't.
If --everything-- is created by the laws of physics, then you create NOTHING, including decisions on what you're doing for dinner or any other 'choice' you think you made. ALL of this was pre-determined at the moment of the big bang.

So whether it's authentic free will or the illusion of it, what the difference?
Click to expand...
Real v not real? The difference is self-evident.

Can you even tell the difference between authentic free will and the illusion of free will?
Click to expand...
Sure you can -- if everything was created by the laws of physics, then it is, necessarily, not 'authentic' free will.
 
Goobieman said:
It makes complete sense.
That you have taken an unsupportable position is -your- problem. Nothing in taking the position that there is no God in any way necessitates that anyone first even attempt to prove God.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're not interested in logical analysis, you just want to see the other side fail...because that's all that matters, right?

Even if the atheist makes such a ridiculous claim, it doesn't make yours correct. Just the same as someone who points out a mistake of someone's, doesn't make you any more correct.

Not if --everythnig-- is created by the laws of physics, you don't.
If --everything-- is created by the laws of physics, then you create NOTHING, including decisions on what you're doing for dinner or any other 'choice' you think you made. ALL of this was pre-determined at the moment of the big bang.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. We know already, you're speaking about the illusion of free will. I've actually remembered our last couple of posts, you don't need to repeat it.

Sure you can -- if everything was created by the laws of physics, then it is, necessarily, not 'authentic' free will.
Click to expand...


And how does that affect your life? Show me how it is self-evident.

I can show you how I can choose my dinner. I can have pork chops or baked potatoes, or maybe even both tonight. Or, maybe I'll decide to eat out. Or, maybe I'm feeling lazy and I'll be content with instant noodles. THIS is self evident. I make my own choices.

If there is no free will, and you think my choice in dinner is just the illusion of free will, how does it affect my life? If I had chosen pork chops, am I less happy with my fake choice? Will I be depressed, will I be disappointed, will I be unsatisfied? I don't think so. In the end, I still did whatever it is I chose to do, whether it's authentic free will or the illusion of free will.

If the opposite is so self-evident to you, then show me.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
In other words, you're not interested in logical analysis, you just want to see the other side fail...because that's all that matters, right?
Click to expand...
Your position here has nothing to do with logical analysis -- it has to do with you wanting to be able to make the statement that there is no God an then not have ti back it up.

That statement is independent of any other. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else. Period,

Even if the atheist makes such a ridiculous claim, it doesn't make yours correct
Click to expand...
-I- havent made a claim.

Yes, yes. We know already, you're speaking about the illusion of free will. I've actually remembered our last couple of posts, you don't need to repeat it.
Click to expand...
So, you agree that if everything is created by the laws of physics, there is no free will, and everything that has and will happen, is set in stone. Fair enough.

I can show you how I can choose my dinner. I can have pork chops or baked potatoes, or maybe even both tonight. Or, maybe I'll decide to eat out. Or, maybe I'm feeling lazy and I'll be content with instant noodles. THIS is self evident. I make my own choices.
Click to expand...
If you believe that everything was created by the laws of physics then no, you do not. These 'choices' were decided for you billions of years ago.
You might THINK you're making those choices, but that doesnt mean you are -- and, in fact, those very thoughts were -also- set in stone billions of years ago.

If there is no free will, and you think my choice in dinner is just the illusion of free will, how does it affect my life?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You are NOT making any choices, regardless of if you think otherwise.
 
Goobieman said:
Your position here has nothing to do with logical analysis -- it has to do with you wanting to be able to make the statement that there is no God an then not have ti back it up.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to back up. You cannot gather evidence of nothing. What you are asking for is illogical. In other words, you're still not interested in logical analysis.

That statement is independent of any other. The entire burden of proof is on you, and no one else. Period,

-I- havent made a claim.
Click to expand...

But the claim must be made, otherwise logical analysis cannot follow.

So, you agree that if everything is created by the laws of physics, there is no free will, and everything that has and will happen, is set in stone. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I was asking you what difference does it make. Which you have not answered. Perhaps you already know the answer, and you don't want to say it because it will prove my point. Winning is everything isn't it?

Irrelevant. You are NOT making any choices, regardless of if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

It is relevant. Whether I'm making choices or not, I'm still content with it. And if I'm content with it, what does it matter if I have free will or not? Will I be unhappy with my pork chops? Is my satisfaction with my pork chops even dependent upon free will? No, it isn't.

So actually, you're point is the one that is irrelevant. If you think otherwise, show me how it's not. If you have the testicular fortitude to do it, that is.
 
Lightdemon said:
It is impossible to back up
Click to expand...
So, you admit you cannot support your claim that there is no God.
Thanks.

But the claim must be made, otherwise logical analysis cannot follow.
Click to expand...
No. It doesnt. Your claim exists, stands and falls on its own.

Yes, and I was asking you what difference does it make.
Click to expand...
The difference between having free will and thinking you have free will even though you admit that you know you do not?
Reality v self-delusion. Self-explanatory.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you admit you cannot support your claim that there is no God.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Haven't you been reading anything I posted? Of course that's what I've been saying. I've said it repeatedly.

No. It doesnt. Your claim exists, stands and falls on its own.
Click to expand...

Again, what you ask for is illogical. You're not interested in logical analysis. :shrug: So what's the point in asking for proof? You're being rather silly, like a child.

The difference between having free will and thinking you have free will even though you admit that you know you do not?
Reality v self-delusion. Self-explanatory.
Click to expand...

Yet, it makes no impact on your life. Why does it matter?
 
Lightdemon said:
Haven't you been reading anything I posted? Of course that's what I've been saying. I've said it repeatedly.
Click to expand...
I -said- thank you for the admission.

Again, what you ask for is illogical. You're not interested in logical analysis. :shrug: So what's the point in asking for proof? You're being rather silly, like a child.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that when someone makes a statement, asking to back that statement up is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. An adult would reconize this.

Yet, it makes no impact on your life. Why does it matter?
Click to expand...
That you're admittedly self-delusional?
You're right -- it doesn't matter to -me- at all.
Why doent it matter to you?
 
Goobieman said:
Seems to me that when someone makes a statement, asking to back that statement up is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. An adult would reconize this.
Click to expand...

Yes, however the problem is when the adult does not recognize what he has been asking for is illogical, reverting back to a child's mental status.

That you're admittedly self-delusional?
You're right -- it doesn't matter to -me- at all.
Why doent it matter to you?
Click to expand...

Just can't seem to answer the question, can you? You know what the answer is, you just can't bring yourself to say it. :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom