• 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
A zillion different ways.
Starting out a conversatin with "There is no God" is one of them.

But why would an atheist claim such, if the theist hasn't claim that God exist?

That's the point -- its not.
If -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then nothing is up to you, it is all set in stone. "Everything" would include your thoughts, your actions, etc. All of it is pre-ordained and unchangeable.

You're thinking macro, I'm thinking micro.

Clearly, the laws of physics does not decide what I'm going to have for dinner tonight. It's my choice. This would be micro.

100 years from now, I'll be long dead. This is unchangeable and unavoidable. This is also macro.

Just because I cannot avoid death, does not mean I do not have free will. Similarly, just because the ultimate end cannot be avoided, does not mean I do not have free will.
 
Last edited:
Evidence of absence supports the notion of absence.

E.G., if you claim you have a cat in your trunk and I open your trunk and there is no cat then that is definitive proof that no cat is visible in your trunk. If I search in your trunk and find no cat this supports the notion further that no cat is present in your trunk. If I then get heat sensors and sound detectors and still find no evidence of what manifestations a cat would leave in your trunk then this is yet further evidence for the absence of a cat in your trunk.

If you now claim the cat is invisible, massless, heatless, and otherwise undetectable, then now all you've done is equivocate "cat" with this invisible, massless, heatless, and otherwise undetectabl being you claim is in your trunk.

That's a nice rendition, but I thought we were talking about life on other planets not where the cat is or isn't on earth.
 
But why would an atheist claim such, if the theist hasn't claim that God exist?
Beats me. But, it happens. It may be a response to a question, for isntance.

You're thinking macro, I'm thinking micro.
"Everything" encompasses both, including what you decide to do for dinner - your "chouce" for dinner was set in stone a the moment of the big bang.

The only way you have free will where "everything" is created by the laws of physics is for you to be able bend the laws of physics to your will.
 
Here's the problem with this whole "absence of proof" thing. The onus is on the theist, not the atheist.

If the theist says that god exists, proper support for this claim cannot be the lack of "proof of absence" because it shifts the onus onto the atheist. Which forces the atheist to prove that nothing is there. This makes the argument assume that God already exists, which is a circular argument.

If the theist is the one making the claim, then the theist needs to use proper support for this claim, and not just to shift the onus onto the atheist.

There is of course the other part of the tread "life on other planets", break the "absence of proof" down on that.

Of course you can forget about the theist or the atheist cause both sides some beleive there could be life on other planets myself included.
However the proof part may be a bit tricky.
 
Beats me. But, it happens. It may be a response to a question, for isntance.

It doesn't make sense. No one claims that there is no God, it's what you have to assume. You should always assume there is nothing because it is easiest to disprove. All you have to do is show that there is something and you're done.

If it was the other way around, you would have to prove that nothing is there, but you're not able to gather any evidence if the statement happens to be true. If nothing is there, how can you possibly gather evidence for such a claim? You can't gather evidence of nothing.

That is why "God does not exist" is not just a simple claim, it's a counter claim. This claim only exists because of the claim that "God exists." If no one claims that "God exists" there wouldn't be a counter claim. Hence the onus always being on the theist, and not the atheist.

"Everything" encompasses both, including what you decide to do for dinner - your "chouce" for dinner was set in stone a the moment of the big bang.

The only way you have free will where "everything" is created by the laws of physics is for you to be able bend the laws of physics to your will.

But clearly, the laws of physics does not decide what my dinner will be. I decide that. Or do you disagree?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.

Me: is there a God?
You: There is no God

You have made a claim that there is no God; it is then up to you to prove it.

But clearly, the laws of physics does not decide what my dinner will be.
They do, if --everything-- is created by the laws of physics. What you hve for dinner, tonight an every night, is set in stone.

I decide that. Or do you disagree?
I see that you, too, do not fully comprehend all of the implications of --everything-- being created by the laws of physics.

You decide nothing, as such a condition precludes free will.
 
Sure it does.

Me: is there a God?
You: There is no God

You have made a claim that there is no God; it is then up to you to prove it.

But my claim only exists as a counter claim to yours. If you haven't made such a claim, I wouldnt' have made the counter claim. If you haven't made such a claim, both you and I would be content, because then we would both be assuming nothing.

They do, if --everything-- is created by the laws of physics. What you hve for dinner, tonight an every night, is set in stone.

I see that you, too, do not fully comprehend all of the implications of --everything-- being created by the laws of physics.

You decide nothing, as such a condition precludes free will.

Okay, let's say I go along with that. So what? What's the big deal?
Would I not be content or something? Do you think that would mean that life is meaningless?
 
But my claim only exists as a counter claim to yours.
You see no claim of mine. There is only yours, and it exists on its own.

Okay, let's say I go along with that. So what? What's the big deal?
Whats the big deal on having no free will?
In that everything you do was set in stone ~14 billion years ago?
:shock:
 
You see no claim of mine. There is only yours, and it exists on its own.

Uh....your claim is right here.

Goobieman said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Me: is there a God?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You: There is no God

Whats the big deal on having no free will?
In that everything you do was set in stone ~14 billion years ago?
:shock:

So what? What's the implications of not having free will?
 
"Supports the notion of absence" is not -proof- of absence.

"Proofs" are only applicable to math, logic, and alcohol.

Unless you are claiming a proof within one of those realms then "proof of absence" is non-sensical.

You are either making a non-sensical statement (the statement's syntax is correct but is semantically invalid) or you are equivocating with the word "proof".
 
"Proofs" are only applicable to math, logic, and alcohol.

Unless you are claiming a proof within one of those realms then "proof of absence" is non-sensical.

You are either making a non-sensical statement (the statement's syntax is correct but is semantically invalid) or you are equivocating with the word "proof".

In simpler terms, you cannot gather evidence of nothing, and therefore unable to get the "proof."
 
Ok, I have rarely ventured into the polls threads. I have read two of Goobie's poll OP's and all I have to say is :doh
 
it never says any were that he didn't











Click Me Please
 
Well, OK... but how does the absennce of proof equate to proof of absence?

I am only talking about the Bible, not the existence of God. 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.
 
Hey, does life on other planets disprove the Kolbrin bible? Or, does the lack of a Planet X that will pass close to the Earth causing massive destruction disprove the Kolbrin Bible?
 
If discovering that the earth was really round didn't disprove the Bible, nor did the discovery of a vacuum disprove the Bible then I don't think that the possibility of some aliens existing is going to disprove it, either.

I don't believe in it at all, never really did - yet I don't see those who do believe in it to suddenly not believe in it because of this current issue.




:2wave:

The Bible says the world is flat?

Could you provide the verses to which you refer?

FYI: Bible believers believe what is written in the Bible based on faith that is confirmed by fulfillment of the prophesies in the Bible (see Rebirth of Israel May 14, 1948). Some things can be made up or changed over time; other things cannot.:boxer
 
Bible believers believe what is written in the Bible based on faith that is confirmed by fulfillment of the prophesies in the Bible
So are these prophecies the one's from the OT? The one's that most Jews regard as NOT being fulfilled by Jesus?

Christians have revised or reinterpreted many prophecies of the OT from what was traditionally believed by Judaism in order to apply them to Jesus.
 
Uh....your claim is right here.
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.

So what? What's the implications of not having free will?
:doh
Never mind -- as I noted before, the implications are lost on many..
 
I am only talking about the Bible, not the existence of God. 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.
So, to answer my question... it doesn't.
 
Ok, I have rarely ventured into the polls threads. I have read two of Goobie's poll OP's and all I have to say is :doh
If you didn't have the testicular fortitude to actually answer the question, you should not have wasted space with your non-response.
 
And? How does that diminish the validity of my statement?

Because you are equiovocating with the word "proof". That is why. And I said so directly but you snipped it out when you responded. So here it is again:

scourge99 said:
"Proofs" are only applicable to math, logic, and alcohol.

Unless you are claiming a proof within one of those realms then "proof of absence" is non-sensical.

You are either making a non-sensical statement (the statement's syntax is correct but is semantically invalid) or you are equivocating with the word "proof".
 
Because you are equiovocating with the word "proof". That is why. And I said so directly but you snipped it out when you responded. So here it is again:
Yes... and you said:
Unless you are claiming a proof within one of those realms then "proof of absence" is non-sensical.
How does my statement necessarily exclude these realms? Seems to me the use of the word was generic, and may be applied to whatever realm you might choose.
Except, maybe, alcohol.
 
Yes... and you said:

How does my statement necessarily exclude these realms? Seems to me the use of the word was generic, and may be applied to whatever realm you might choose.
Except, maybe, alcohol.

Let's try it:

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."
 
Let's try it:
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.
: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.

But, the fact remains that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.
 
Back
Top Bottom