• 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!

Proof of God

RAMOSS said:
And, what doews that have to do with the subject matter? It is a total non sequituir, and does not support your claim at all
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon?

I wrote:

Sherlock said:
In Physics the premises are chosen to enable a theory to be defined that fits with observation, choosing premises to support a conclusion does not means the premises are false.
Click to expand...

you then responded:

Ramoss said:
Let's see you support this claim , from an actual scientific source.
Click to expand...

which I did by replying:

Sherlock said:
The premises that used to underpin Newtonian mechanics were replaced by those that underpin special relativity, at around 1905.

The premise that time is universal and the same at all places as well as the premise that information can travel at infinite speed were both replaced because the new premises enabled the special theory to be formulated.
Click to expand...

then in a Kafkaesqe outburst you finally replied:

Ramoss said:
And, what does that have to do with the subject matter? It is a total non sequituir, and does not support your claim at all
Click to expand...

You are like Trump, fiction is fact and fact is fiction, such is the world today.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I beg your pardon?

I wrote:



you then responded:



which I did by replying:



then in a Kafkaesqe outburst you finally replied:



You are like Trump, fiction is fact and fact is fiction, such is the world today.
Click to expand...

Who is Trump?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Yet there are umpteen posts that contain or link to proofs of God so why are you willing to lie about this?

Here's one more for you the Cosmological Argument.

That article clearly exists does it not? the words that comprise it are written in English are they not? The page is summarized as "A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects." i.e. it is a proof of the existence of God.

It exists, you can read it - you may not accept the argument it makes but you cannot claim there is no argument, no proof - it's there so why are you lying?
Click to expand...

What article?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Fine, so don't tell me which premises you take issue with, there's not much I can do with an unqualified assertion.
Click to expand...

Ditto as you havent present any actual argument to debate
 
devildavid said:
No, I made no assumptions at all.
Click to expand...

So how did you establish that Donald Trump had not died of a heart attack five seconds before you submitted your post?

He could have and you and the rest of us would not know for some length of time, very likely more than five seconds, so you must have assumed he was alive at the time you submitted the post unless you are Donald Trump which would explain rather a lot given the vacuities you post.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I asked "Tell me, if I make an extraordinary claim and then show you extraordinary evidence (whatever that is) would the claim still be extraordinary?" and your reply was "Yes, if it remains anomalous."

So there's more to this than evidence for you, you are now introducing another criteria the evidence can't be "anomalous".
Click to expand...

No, the event in question has to be anomalous for the event to be extraordinary.

Yet you've been saying (until this point) that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when what you seem to have meant to say was extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that isn't anomalous.
Click to expand...

No, see above.


But I've tried asking you what exactly is an "extraordinary" claim? can you define that for us?
Click to expand...

I've already done that to death.

I posited that any claim for which we currently have no evidence might be that definition but you didn't confirm or deny.

My own position is that propositions require evidence and this is true whatever the claim may be, artificially labeling propositions that you prejudge as impossible as "extraordinary" and singling them out is not going to help us.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I did not say 'impossible'. Please desist with these straw man arguments.

I also asked "again what should the witnesses have done after witnessing these extraordinary events? what would you have done?" and you replied "Assuming the authors were witnesses, which is debatable, then they simply wrote down stories they heard."

So leaving aside the details of witnesses and initial authors do you agree that we cannot expect any more than we find? do you agree that if Christ had been resurrected, this act witnessed by many and communicated to someone who wrote it down, then this is all we can expect to find?
Click to expand...

'If' being the main point here. See probability and plausibility.


Obviously it is, the options 2,000 years ago were simply that, to write it down and make an effort to transmit it which is precisely what has happened.
Click to expand...

So you assert.

You must reject the claims, you can't remain open minded because you have taken the position that all "extraordinary" claims are false unless you see "extraordinary evidence" but in this case you cannot because the evidence was temporal and so you're forced (by self imposed rules) to regard a possibly true claim as being false.
Click to expand...

Another straw man. You're as bad as the OP for this crap.

With historic truth we must weigh the evidence, we have no choice, we do that for all persons who lived in antiquity, we weigh the evidence just as a jury would.

There is no magic "extraordinariness" test, we weigh the evidence.
Click to expand...

And in the cases I supplied I find the evidence wanting in light of the extraordinary claims as I keep stating.

This is how I reach a position that the remarkable events recorded likely did happen, initially staggering as it might appear, by my initial incredulence reflects my experiences, my prejudices.

If I am satisfied that "miracles" have occurred and can occur then I have no problem in regarding the events surrounding Christ as possibly true, in my world such things can happen - not that they necessarily did but they can, I have an open mind and you it seems do not.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I see your position as nothing more than confirmation bias.
 
NWO_Spook said:
No, the event in question has to be anomalous for the event to be extraordinary.



No, see above.




I've already done that to death.



Oh dear. I did not say 'impossible'. Please desist with these straw man arguments.



'If' being the main point here. See probability and plausibility.




So you assert.



Another straw man. You're as bad as the OP for this crap.



And in the cases I supplied I find the evidence wanting in light of the extraordinary claims as I keep stating.



Good for you. I see your position as nothing more than confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

What is an anomalous event? No answer, what is an extraordinary event? No answer, Is an event that has no evidence extraordinary? No answer, If Christ was resurrected and so on what would we reasonably expect to find? No answer, If you showed me an extraordinary claim and I showed you "extraordinary" evidence would the claim still be extraordinary? No answer.

So be it, I'll continue to ask you questions, your unwillingness to answer will be evident to the open minded reader who visits this site.

Now here's another - one would think easy - question, what is the difference between an "anomalous" event and an "extraordinary" event? (or claim of such an event), is this also a bothersome question?

If your position had any strength you'd have answers to them, you wouldn't waffle and say "I've don this to death" and so on, you'd simply answer it, hint begin like this "The difference between an anomalous and an extraordinary event, is ..."
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
What is an anomalous event? No answer, what is an extraordinary event? No answer, Is an event that has no evidence extraordinary? No answer, If Christ was resurrected and so on what would we reasonably expect to find? No answer, If you showed me an extraordinary claim and I showed you "extraordinary" evidence would the claim still be extraordinary? No answer.

So be it.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I've stated my points repeatedly. If you do not understand, I do not know how to relate them to you so you can.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I beg your pardon?

I wrote:



you then responded:



which I did by replying:



then in a Kafkaesqe outburst you finally replied:



You are like Trump, fiction is fact and fact is fiction, such is the world today.
Click to expand...

Yes,and what of it. You made an invalid claim, and are doubling down on it.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Seriously? I've stated my points repeatedly. If you do not understand, I do not know how to relate them to you so you can.
Click to expand...

Well apologies if that's the case but will it hurt to indulge me? simply answer each question, one sentence answers are fine I imagine.

Then we'll have a concise post that has my questions and your answers all in one place together which will surely help any other interested parties who might be following our discussion

Do note however that you did not answer this question "do you agree that if Christ had been resurrected, this act witnessed by many and communicated to someone who wrote it down, then this is all we can expect to find?" you instead flippantly replied "'If' being the main point here. See probability and plausibility."

That's really not an answer its an evasion because you feel answering honestly might strengthen my case, so that's a shame because you seem intelligent just a little reluctant to be honest with me.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well apologies if that's the case but will it hurt to indulge me? simply answer each question, one sentence answers are fine I imagine.

Then we'll have a concise post that has my questions and your answers all in one place together which will surely help any other interested parties who might be following our discussion

Do note however that you did not answer this question "do you agree that if Christ had been resurrected, this act witnessed by many and communicated to someone who wrote it down, then this is all we can expect to find?" you instead flippantly replied "'If' being the main point here. See probability and plausibility."

That's really not an answer its an evasion because you feel answering honestly might strengthen my case, so that's a shame because you seem intelligent just a little reluctant to be honest with me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't care enough about this conversation anymore. I've repeated myself to the point of redundancy and I'm ever so bored with defending myself from your straw man arguments. Do not dare to imply that I'm dishonest or any other bull****, for the truth of the matter is nothing more than the fact that I'm simply tired of your sophistry.

Again, if you do not understand my points, I do not know how to relate them so you can. Furthermore, I suggest you learn to distinguish between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' for the very reasons I've stated over and over again.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Sorry, I just don't care enough about this conversation anymore. I've repeated myself to the point of redundancy and I'm ever so bored with defending myself from your straw man arguments. Do not dare to imply that I'm dishonest or any other bull****, for the truth of the matter is nothing more than the fact that I'm simply tired of your sophistry.

Again, if you do not understand my points, I do not know how to relate them so you can. Furthermore, I suggest you learn to distinguish between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' for the very reasons I've stated over and over again.
Click to expand...

This thread was claimed to be about God without religious beliefs of God, but I find it hard to use the word "God" without involving religion/religious beliefs.
But, as for the "resurrection of Jesus", I don't know that anyone ever claimed to have seen it occur, only that he was no longer where he was laid to rest.

I once listened to a fisherman tell about the large bass he caught and released, and each time he told the story to another person his hands showed the length of the fish had grown from the previous telling. No one ever actually saw the fish but him.

I don't understand why the obsession to claim a God being the creator of everything. I have no problem at all believing that there is a cause for everything that exists, but I simply believe it to be a natural cause. A causeless God being/entity possessing unlimited powers of creation is a little hard to believe in a reasonable, rational way. When/if we every find the "something" that caused the universe, as we know it, to begin only then we should name the cause.
 
In order to proof that something does not exist, it must first exist ! A minus is the opposite of plus. A minus , cannot exist without a plus .
 
Individual said:
This thread was claimed to be about God without religious beliefs of God, but I find it hard to use the word "God" without involving religion/religious beliefs.
But, as for the "resurrection of Jesus", I don't know that anyone ever claimed to have seen it occur, only that he was no longer where he was laid to rest.

I once listened to a fisherman tell about the large bass he caught and released, and each time he told the story to another person his hands showed the length of the fish had grown from the previous telling. No one ever actually saw the fish but him.

I don't understand why the obsession to claim a God being the creator of everything. I have no problem at all believing that there is a cause for everything that exists, but I simply believe it to be a natural cause. A causeless God being/entity possessing unlimited powers of creation is a little hard to believe in a reasonable, rational way. When/if we every find the "something" that caused the universe, as we know it, to begin only then we should name the cause.
Click to expand...

It may not be the classic god we were made to believe in, but simple logics tells me that there is or was something, above human intelligence which started it all, and managing it all!
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
So how did you establish that Donald Trump had not died of a heart attack five seconds before you submitted your post?

He could have and you and the rest of us would not know for some length of time, very likely more than five seconds, so you must have assumed he was alive at the time you submitted the post unless you are Donald Trump which would explain rather a lot given the vacuities you post.
Click to expand...

Who is Donald Trump?
 
Individual said:
This thread was claimed to be about God without religious beliefs of God, but I find it hard to use the word "God" without involving religion/religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

'God' is a religious concept and one cannot avoid that.

But, as for the "resurrection of Jesus", I don't know that anyone ever claimed to have seen it occur, only that he was no longer where he was laid to rest.
Click to expand...

Of course, and as you are aware, there are more plausible answers to the missing body than just assuming resurrection.

I once listened to a fisherman tell about the large bass he caught and released, and each time he told the story to another person his hands showed the length of the fish had grown from the previous telling. No one ever actually saw the fish but him.
Click to expand...

Indeed, for as you are aware, legends 'grow'.

I don't understand why the obsession to claim a God being the creator of everything. I have no problem at all believing that there is a cause for everything that exists, but I simply believe it to be a natural cause. A causeless God being/entity possessing unlimited powers of creation is a little hard to believe in a reasonable, rational way. When/if we every find the "something" that caused the universe, as we know it, to begin only then we should name the cause.
Click to expand...

Well, Hawking used the term 'god' to describe an as yet unknown natural process, but he used it metaphorically. The problem is, when one follows the apologist down this road, they cannot maintain the distinction for very long as their arguments rely on supernatural intervention, and then we revert to a religious discussion.
 
Observer said:
It may not be the classic god we were made to believe in, but simple logics tells me that there is or was something, above human intelligence which started it all, and managing it all!
Click to expand...

Simple logic only tells me there was something happening eternally prior to T0, and perhaps even still now, but nothing more.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Sorry, I just don't care enough about this conversation anymore. I've repeated myself to the point of redundancy and I'm ever so bored with defending myself from your straw man arguments. Do not dare to imply that I'm dishonest or any other bull****, for the truth of the matter is nothing more than the fact that I'm simply tired of your sophistry.

Again, if you do not understand my points, I do not know how to relate them so you can. Furthermore, I suggest you learn to distinguish between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' for the very reasons I've stated over and over again.
Click to expand...

Your lying plain and simple sir, you were politely asked "do you agree that if Christ had been resurrected, this act witnessed by many and communicated to someone who wrote it down, then this is all we can expect to find?" and you merrily ignored it and instead blurted the response "If' being the main point here. See probability and plausibility." - this is not an answer to the question yet you insist it is, a fair and polite hypothetical question, a normal question given the subject we were discussing.

So please don't cry victim with stuff like "I'm ever so bored with defending myself from your straw man arguments" - yes you are repeating yourself every time you write "I'm repeating myself".

Your insincerity has been noted.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Well, Hawking used the term 'god' to describe an as yet unknown natural process, but he used it metaphorically. The problem is, when one follows the apologist down this road, they cannot maintain the distinction for very long as their arguments rely on supernatural intervention, and then we revert to a religious discussion.
Click to expand...

Hawking was also rightfully dragged over the coals too by numerous noted academics for example Prof. John Lennox among others.

The fact is you cannot invoke "natural processes" as the reason we have "natural processes", you cannot invoke the "laws of nature" as the reason we have "laws of nature" you cannot invoke matter, energy and fields as the reason for there being matter, energy and fields.

Hawking and like him Krauss were/are devotees of scientism and that is the reason for their erroneous reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom