• 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!

Nothing made everything....

Into the Night said:
Evidence is not a proof. I am not arguing for or against Christianity.
Click to expand...

No that true. Your argument is so poor that it does more damage to christianity than to argue for it.

Again, i need repeat what evidence is there is what i asked for not your feeble excuse of pretending i am asking for proof.
 
Into the Night said:
It IS evidence. Evidence may come from an observation, the existence of a related theory, a math formula, anywhere. Evidence is any factor that may be used as a predicate to an argument or to a counter-argument (the conflicting argument).

Partly.

Not correct. Proofs exist in closed functional systems. They do not exist in open functional systems. Math and logic are closed functional systems.

They are. Even a closed functional system requires a certain amount of faith in the founding axioms that they do actually close the system.

Faith does not lower anything.

I am not arguing for or against any god or gods.

They are not my definitions.

It is YOU playing semantics here. Inversion fallacy.

And I gave you the evidence you requested.

Actually, you are. You are even now making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

WRONG. Evidence is any factor that may be used as a predicate to an argument or a counter-argument.

I am not arguing for or against any fairy tale either.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence. All you have done is create a conclusion that god exists and then seek a premises that could back it. There is no evidence that god created life . There is only people like you who pretend that a god created it.

You have not given evidence. You have just tried to justify the existence of a god by pretending it can create life.
 
gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy. This is your problem, not mine.


Evidence means neither of those things... I noticed that ITN has already offered you a good definition of what evidence is. Evidence concerns what can be used as a predicate to a(n) (counter)argument. It has NOTHING to do with "making something clear", nor does it have anything to do with "proof"...


No "word tricks" are being played... the words are very clearly defined...
Click to expand...

Please stop with the fallacies they only make your even more ridiculous. Attacking me because you have not the wit to deal with the argument.

Yes, you clearly define words to suite yourself rather than use them as they should be. With you it really is a case of make **** up and hope someone is dumb enough to believe it.
 
soylentgreen said:
No that true. Your argument is so poor that it does more damage to christianity than to argue for it.

Again, i need repeat what evidence is there is what i asked for not your feeble excuse of pretending i am asking for proof.
Click to expand...

He's already answered your question multiple times... You keep believing that evidence is synonymous with proof, but it is not.

Life itself is evidence for Christianity. It is also evidence against Christianity. The Bible is evidence for Christianity. Prayers not being answered is evidence against Christianity. The list goes on and on... There's plenty of evidence out there, both for and against...

However, there is no proof for or against Christianity. Religion is an open functional system. There are no proofs in open functional systems.

So, you've been provided with plenty of evidence... What you are ACTUALLY seeking (whether you admit it or not) are proofs, but you won't find any proofs in an open functional system, no matter how hard you look...
 
soylentgreen said:
You have no evidence.
Click to expand...
He listed plenty of evidence for you... so have I...

soylentgreen said:
All you have done is create a conclusion that god exists
Click to expand...
Yes, Christianity concludes that Jesus exists and is who he says he is. That is also the main predicate of Christianity. It is a circular argument. That is what religion is (an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it).

soylentgreen said:
and then seek a premises that could back it.
Click to expand...
There already is one.

soylentgreen said:
There is no evidence that god created life.
Click to expand...
Life itself is evidence that God created life.

soylentgreen said:
There is only people like you who pretend that a god created it.
Click to expand...
People like him put their faith in God. You seemingly put your faith elsewhere.

soylentgreen said:
You have not given evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, he has. I have too.

soylentgreen said:
You have just tried to justify the existence of a god by pretending it can create life.
Click to expand...
He's not trying to justify anything... He has faith in God. I have faith in God. You apparently don't have faith in God. Your faith is placed elsewhere. --- That's how faith works (it can't be proven either way, or else it isn't faith).
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
Please stop with the fallacies they only make your even more ridiculous. Attacking me because you have not the wit to deal with the argument.

Yes, you clearly define words to suite yourself rather than use them as they should be. With you it really is a case of make **** up and hope someone is dumb enough to believe it.
Click to expand...

I will stop with calling out your fallacies once you stop making those fallacies. -- Don't make them and I won't call them out.

I've dealt with your assertions head on, like usual, and you've had nothing intelligent to say in response.

I haven't defined any of these words; these words have been defined by philosophy...
 
soylentgreen said:
No that true.
Click to expand...
It is completely true. Evidence is not a proof.
soylentgreen said:
Your argument is so poor that it does more damage to christianity than to argue for it.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing for or against Christianity. BTW, 'Christianity' is a proper noun. It is capitalized.
soylentgreen said:
Again, i need repeat what evidence is there is what i asked for
Click to expand...
I provided it.
soylentgreen said:
not your feeble excuse of pretending i am asking for proof.
Click to expand...
You are demanding a proof as well. There isn't any.
 
soylentgreen said:
You have no evidence.
Click to expand...
I just gave it to you.
soylentgreen said:
All you have done is create a conclusion that god exists and then seek a premises that could back it.
Click to expand...
The evidence I gave was supporting atheism, as you requested. Pay attention.
soylentgreen said:
There is no evidence that god created life
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Life itself. That is also evidence for the Theory of Abiogenesis as well as the Theory of Creation.
soylentgreen said:
There is only people like you who pretend that a god created it.
Click to expand...
The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science. Neither is the Theory of Abiogenesis. The Theory of Creation does not require a god or gods.
soylentgreen said:
You have not given evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes I have.
soylentgreen said:
You have just tried to justify the existence of a god by pretending it can create life.
Click to expand...
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Neither the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories of science. They both remain circular arguments. They both have become religions.
 
soylentgreen said:
Please stop with the fallacies they only make your even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...
He didn't list any fallacies in his post. You're imagining things. He should've though. You were making an argument of the stone.
soylentgreen said:
Attacking me because you have not the wit to deal with the argument.
Click to expand...
He is attacking your argument, not you, because your argument is invalid. A fallacy is an invalid argument. It is an error in logic, just as an arithmetical error is an error in mathematics. Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
soylentgreen said:
Yes, you clearly define words to suite yourself rather than use them as they should be.
Click to expand...
He is not defining words. He is describing what words mean. He didn't define them.
soylentgreen said:
With you it really is a case of make **** up and hope someone is dumb enough to believe it.
Click to expand...
He is not making anything up.
 
soylentgreen said:
Please stop with the fallacies they only make your even more ridiculous. Attacking me because you have not the wit to deal with the argument.
Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:
I will stop with calling out your fallacies once you stop making those fallacies. -- Don't make them and I won't call them out
Click to expand...

Into the Night said:
He didn't list any fallacies in his post. You're imagining things. He should've though. You were making an argument of the stone.
Click to expand...
Very good point, ITN... See, Soylent! I was being QUITE generous towards you by letting a fallacy of yours slide by unmentioned... ;) ;)
 
Oy! "Discussing" matters of science, religion and philosophy with the closed mind is really like "talking to a wall." This is discursive torture!

What, any reasonable soul must wonder, is the point of such "discussion"?

I admire the assiduity of our free-thinkers.
 
Angel said:
Oy! "Discussing" matters of science, religion and philosophy with the closed mind is really like "talking to a wall." This is discursive torture!

What, any reasonable soul must wonder, is the point of such "discussion"?

I admire the assiduity of our free-thinkers.
Click to expand...

Obviously there is no convincing a religious fundamentalist of anything; they are trapped inside their own fundamentalism... But for any open minded non-fundamentalist freethinker who may be perusing, our assiduity is hopefully beneficial.
 
gfm7175 said:
I will stop with calling out your fallacies once you stop making those fallacies. -- Don't make them and I won't call them out.

I've dealt with your assertions head on, like usual, and you've had nothing intelligent to say in response.

I haven't defined any of these words; these words have been defined by philosophy...
Click to expand...

The thing is, he's not doing those fallacy's. You are building straw men, and making false claims upon with to base your determination.
 
RAMOSS said:
The thing is, he's not doing those fallacy's. You are building straw men, and making false claims upon with to base your determination.
Click to expand...

This dog is getting old, RAMOSS... if I was "building strawmen", then you'd be able to point them out and explain why they are strawmen... you know, kinda like what I do whenever someone commits a logical fallacy...

Oh, and this response of yours is also a logical fallacy... this one is known as Argument of the Stone.
 
Angel said:
Oy! "Discussing" matters of science, religion and philosophy with the closed mind is really like "talking to a wall." This is discursive torture!

What, any reasonable soul must wonder, is the point of such "discussion"?

I admire the assiduity of our free-thinkers.
Click to expand...

It is absurd to assert that philosophy gets to define words for other disciplines. Language doesn't work that way. There's no central authority to define terms. Words mean what they mean based on how they are typically used.

Scientists do not use the word "evidence" in the way that some of these wannabe philosophy authorities do. Scientists use the word differently, and since they're the ones doing the science they get to decide what the word means.
 
Deuce said:
It is absurd to assert that philosophy gets to define words for other disciplines.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Philosophy not only defines these words, it provides the reasoning for the definition.
Deuce said:
Language doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
Deuce said:
There's no central authority to define terms.
Click to expand...
Compositional error fallacy. No one ever said that philosophy defines all terms.
Deuce said:
Words mean what they mean based on how they are typically used.
Click to expand...
You can't change the meaning of a word by intentionally misusing it.
Deuce said:
Scientists do not use the word "evidence" in the way that some of these wannabe philosophy authorities do.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. The meaning of 'evidence' doesn't change.
Deuce said:
Scientists use the word differently,
Click to expand...
No, they don't.
Deuce said:
and since they're the ones doing the science they get to decide what the word means.
Click to expand...
No, they don't.
 
Deuce said:
It is absurd to assert that philosophy gets to define words for other disciplines. Language doesn't work that way. There's no central authority to define terms. Words mean what they mean based on how they are typically used.

Scientists do not use the word "evidence" in the way that some of these wannabe philosophy authorities do. Scientists use the word differently, and since they're the ones doing the science they get to decide what the word means.
Click to expand...
Listen, man. Almost 100 posts ago, at #505, I posted the following list for the consideration of those who don't quite grasp what philosophy is:

This from the Table of Contents of the Stanford Philosophy Site:

Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Technology
Philosophy of Biology
Philosophy of Neuroscience
Philosophy of Mathematics
Philosophy of Economics
Philosophy of Dance
Philosophy of Childhood
Philosophy of Humor
Philosophy of Statistics
Philosophy of Medicine
Philosophy of Chemistry
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Architecture
Philosophy of Cosmology
Philosophy of Music
Philosophy of Psychiatry
Philosophy of Immunology
Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics
Philosophy of Computer Science
Philosophy of Digital Art
Philosophy of the Person
Moral Philosophy
Political Philosophy
Click to expand...

Did you look it over? Did you look at it at all?
Did you ask yourself what it is, or what it might be, that makes all these diverse fields and subjects philosophical in these cases?
Did you ask yourself how it is that there can be a philosophy of humor and a philosophy of immunology? a philosophy of architecture and a philosophy of medicine?
Did you ask yourself what philosophy must be such that all of these diverse fields and subjects commonly fall under it?

Did you ask any of these questions, either of yourself or of anyone else?
I think not.

Do you have any idea what it might mean to submit a practice or discipline to philosophical analysis?
I think not.
 
Angel said:
Listen, man. Almost 100 posts ago, at #505, I posted the following list for the consideration of those who don't quite grasp what philosophy is:



Did you look it over? Did you look at it at all?
Did you ask yourself what it is, or what it might be, that makes all these diverse fields and subjects philosophical in these cases?
Did you ask yourself how it is that there can be a philosophy of humor and a philosophy of immunology? a philosophy of architecture and a philosophy of medicine?
Did you ask yourself what philosophy must be such that all of these diverse fields and subjects commonly fall under it?

Did you ask any of these questions, either of yourself or of anyone else?
I think not.

Do you have any idea what it might mean to submit a practice or discipline to philosophical analysis?
I think not.
Click to expand...

That is not what philosophy is. That is what philosophy does.

Just because we have a philosophy of science does not mean that philosophy gets to dictate the meaning of a word.

A good example would be the word "nut".

In engineering it means an object screwed onto a bolt.
In biology it means a seed.
In psychiatry it is slang for insanity.
In the history of WW2 it is a term used to say no.

In many cases it matters not at all to a practice or discipline what philosophy has to say. Philosophising on the meaning of engineering does not change the rules of physics that engineers must abide by.
 
gfm7175 said:
This dog is getting old, RAMOSS... if I was "building strawmen", then you'd be able to point them out and explain why they are strawmen... you know, kinda like what I do whenever someone commits a logical fallacy...

Oh, and this response of yours is also a logical fallacy... this one is known as Argument of the Stone.
Click to expand...

You are accusing people of paradoxes by misrepresnting what they say. If you can't understand it, then you can't see your arguments are not worthwhile.
 
soylentgreen said:
That is not what philosophy is. That is what philosophy does.
...
Click to expand...
Philosophy is what it does. And what it does, it does to anything and everything that can be thought about, examined, analyzed, questioned, deconstructed -- science, religion, dance, music, art, morality, politics, law, economics, baseball, dog-walking, tiddly-winks, and so on, right through the gamut of human practice and discipline. The assumptions, theoretical foundations, concepts, and meaning of any human praxis or logos fall within the parameters of philosophical analysis.
 
Deuce said:
It is absurd to assert that philosophy gets to define words for other disciplines. Language doesn't work that way. There's no central authority to define terms. Words mean what they mean based on how they are typically used.

Scientists do not use the word "evidence" in the way that some of these wannabe philosophy authorities do. Scientists use the word differently, and since they're the ones doing the science they get to decide what the word means.
Click to expand...

There is, however, a section of philosophy called 'the philosphy of science'. For example, Karl Popper came up with the concept of 'something being falsifieable, rather the proven. That being said, except for a few concepts , philosophers of science that themselves much more seriously that scientists do. The scientists will take the few good ideas and apply them, and the philosophers make a big deal out of nothing practical
 
RAMOSS said:
... and the philosophers make a big deal out of nothing practical
Click to expand...
The sentiment of one who knows precious little about philosophy.
Here's a holy link for you and the others who are talking through their hats about philosophy:
Philosophy is an activity of thought, a type of thinking. Philosophy is critical and comprehensive thought, the most critical and comprehensive manner of thinking which the human species has yet devised.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...T/Chapter 12Conclusion/What_is_Philosophy.htm
 
RAMOSS said:
You are accusing people of paradoxes by misrepresnting what they say. If you can't understand it, then you can't see your arguments are not worthwhile.
Click to expand...

What precisely have I misrepresented? Whenever I call out a paradox, I use the poster's own words/assertions... I don't intentionally misrepresent anything...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom