• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are these Famous people in Heaven, or Hell??

Paschendale said:
Hell clearly has much better music. I think that if it existed, it would be like in Little Nicky. Sure, it'll take care of punishing the bad people, but it's also an endless party for people who don't want to be servants to a prick god.
Click to expand...

There won't be anything going on in Hell for the spiritually-constipated god-haters except suffering and screaming. If people wind up in Hell it will be their own fault for being dumb enough to reject Christ's salvation.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
The scientific method is unproven? Sure it is. That's what evidence is.
Click to expand...
That wasn't your proposition, nor what I was referring to. Your proposition was this: "all things are demonstrable through the scientific method" from your post #95.

The same thing I'll ask for regarding the second half of your post about reincarnation, synesthesia, and the ilk.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point; some things cannot be proved using materialistic methods.

We can agree (I hope), things either exist or they don't, right?
Click to expand...
Well, not according to Cephus. If they cannot be explained using the scientific method, they do not exist, according to him.
 
Andalublue said:
That wasn't your proposition, nor what I was referring to. Your proposition was this: "all things are demonstrable through the scientific method" from your post #95.

That's the whole point; some things cannot be proved using materialistic methods.

Well, not according to Cephus. If they cannot be explained using the scientific method, they do not exist, according to him.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're using circular logic. For instance, how do you know they exist?
 
Logicman said:
There won't be anything going on in Hell for the spiritually-constipated god-haters except suffering and screaming. If people wind up in Hell it will be their own fault for being dumb enough to reject Christ's salvation.
Click to expand...

Are you a "blind faith" kinda guy, or did something tragic/miraculous happen in your life to influence your belief?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
What?



You mean like a deity?



Sounds like an argument from ignorance. The proposition (all things are demonstrable through the scientific method) has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and, therefore should be considered false. Of course, this is a fallacy.

For example, what metaphysical phenomenon are you referring to?



Meaning? Cite some examples, please.
Click to expand...

The belief that all truth can be proven scientifically is false, because it is self-refuting, since it can't be proven scientifically.
 
Dragonfly said:
Are you a "blind faith" kinda guy, or did something tragic/miraculous happen in your life to influence your belief?
Click to expand...

The truth of the faith is provable.
 
Paleocon said:
The belief that all truth can be proven scientifically is false, because it is self-refuting, since it can't be proven scientifically.
Click to expand...

That's called a tautological assumption, Paleocon. Might also know it as an axiom.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
That's called a tautological assumption, Paleocon. Might also know it as an axiom.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's tautological that a principle which is not true by its own reckoning is self-refuting.
 
Dragonfly said:
Then why use the word "faith"????

So by definition....you're wrong.

And why are you answering a question I asked of someone else?
Click to expand...

Because the proof entails a historical argument, and is thus to some degree dependent on finding other humans credible.

No I'm not.

Because your post assumed that the faith could not be proven objectively.
 
Paleocon said:
Exactly. It's tautological that a principle which is not true by its own reckoning is self-refuting.
Click to expand...

Axioms cannot be used to axioms. Then, it's either circular reasoning or a contradiction. This does not, however, explicitly falsify the axiom.

Paleocon said:
Because the proof entails a historical argument, and is thus to some degree dependent on finding other humans credible.

No I'm not.

Because your post assumed that the faith could not be proven objectively.
Click to expand...

If it's proven objectively (rather evidence, not proven), then it's not faith. Really simple stuff, here.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Axioms cannot be used to axioms. Then, it's either circular reasoning or a contradiction. This does not, however, explicitly falsify the axiom.
Click to expand...

If a statement is self-refuting then it's false. Sort of like saying "this statement is false".
 
Paleocon said:
Because your post assumed that the faith could not be proven objectively.
Click to expand...

Why the hell would you try to (wrongly) interpret my post?

You are dead friggin wrong.

I simply asked the guy an honest question.
 
Paleocon said:
If a statement is self-refuting then it's false. Sort of like saying "this statement is false".
Click to expand...

Again, it's not self refuting because axioms are not tested on axioms.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm afraid you're using circular logic. For instance, how do you know they exist?
Click to expand...

You seem to be avoiding the issue. Do you concede that your proposition, "all things are demonstrable through the scientific methods" is unprovable?

As to metaphysical phenomena, I do not know they exist, any more than I know that dark matter exists. I believe that some do and some do not exist. What makes mine different from your and Cephus's position is that I am willing to conceive that they may exist without an assumption that if they do, they will be provable using materialistic science.
 
Dragonfly said:
Based on your beliefs and understandings of "the rules"....where do you think the "souls" of these famous people were sent?

Jimi Hendrix
John Bonham
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Janis Joplin
Kurt Cobain
Marilyn Monroe
Elvis Presley
George Carlin
Freddie Mercury


(to anyone who wishes, feel free to ask about other famous people and where their "souls" may have been sent - I know the list could get quite long)

If you had to guess - where are their "souls"?
Click to expand...

Nowhere. There are no such things as 'souls', and the persons named are dead. Bye-bye ex-persons!
 
Dragonfly said:
Are you a "blind faith" kinda guy, or did something tragic/miraculous happen in your life to influence your belief?
Click to expand...

I'm an evidence kind of guy, and I did my due diligence in depth.
 
Andalublue said:
You seem to be avoiding the issue. Do you concede that your proposition, "all things are demonstrable through the scientific methods" is unprovable?

As to metaphysical phenomena, I do not know they exist, any more than I know that dark matter exists. I believe that some do and some do not exist. What makes mine different from your and Cephus's position is that I am willing to conceive that they may exist without an assumption that if they do, they will be provable using materialistic science.
Click to expand...

Is it unprovable? Eh. Things are shown through science. I feel like the question should be "is the scientific method the only way to obtain knowledge?" To which, I would reply, "objectively."

And you don't know dark matter exists? There's at least some observational evidence for dark matter. (Nature (2012))

Paleocon said:
I'm saying it's self-refuting.
Click to expand...

I know you're saying it...
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Is it unprovable? Eh. Things are shown through science. I feel like the question should be "is the scientific method the only way to obtain knowledge?" To which, I would reply, "objectively."

And you don't know dark matter exists? There's at least some observational evidence for dark matter. (Nature (2012))



I know you're saying it...
Click to expand...

And I demonstrated how.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom