Switching Religions, like switching toothpastes

AvB and AvNotA:

In AvB, there can be evidence of either A or B. Evidence that A is false does not necessarily make B true. Example:

A: The shirt is red
B: The shirt is blue

Evidence that the shirt is not red does not mean the shirt is blue.

In AvNotA, there can only be evidence on the TRUE statement (note: not the correct statement, but the true, or positive, statement). Evidence that the "TRUE" statement is false IS evidence that the "NOT TRUE" statement is true. Example:

A: There is a duck on my roof
NotA: There is not a duck on my roof

Evidence that A is false is also evidence that NotA is true. And, in fact, there is no actual evidence of "NotA"...there is only evidence for or against A. Perhaps you see this as semantics, but it is a pretty big distinction, especially in the context of God.

Please note that in neither case am I discussing a lack of evidence. I agree, sawbonz, that the lack of evidence for a true statement should not lead to a logical deduction that it is in fact false. However, one must ask that if evidence is never given for a positive, at what point can we conclude that "NotA" is in fact the correct position?

The disconnect happens when those who believe in "A: There is a God" will not, and cannot propose of ANY evidence that would show that they are, in fact, incorrect. Thus, nothing is "evidence" to them that A is not true. This is an extremely convenient position to hold.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Netslave I have a question....
If god created us, and he made humans extra "special."

Then what is the point of the rest of the universe? Why is the universe so immense, why are there 13 dimensions (that we can scientifically prove exist) and many more we are working to uncover.

Why is there such thing as string theory?

Why is the universe so complex if it was built solely for us?

Doesn't it seem like an enormous waste of energy by an otherwise perfect creator?

Is your god to take credit for the thousands of exploding stars, and imploding universes we see in our universe?
 
netslave....i realize there is a logic problem with only a true/false assertion. re-read my posts.

here's my problem. this is the last time i'll spell this out because it's friday and i'm going to Disneyland.

The existence of God is a AvNotA problem. There is either a god or there is not. We agree on that.

In such a problem, there is either evidence of god or not. There is no "evidence" of the negative, or "no god". It's impossible to "prove" the "NotA" position of this or any other similar problem.

You have said more than once that those who believe in the "NotA" should provide evidence of their position. You have said that in an "A vs B" problem, one should be able to provide evidence of A or B. While true, such is not the case in this instance because this is not an "AvB" problem.

Again, you cannot prove a negative. You can only prove, or disprove, positives.

Does that make any sense? I hope so.

Also, this whole logic game makes little difference if those who believe in "A" are unwilling to see anything as proof that "A" is incorrect.
 
Netslave,
I think in an earlier post you asked me to clarify my statement that Christian's belief's fundamentally attack science.

I will give you a couple of examples,
1) The idea that Jesus was born of a virgin
2) The idea (believed by 59% of American (Gallup) that Jesus will return to earth to judge us.
This is a claim on physics and Biology because it makes scientific claims about the birth / death of a human and the flight of a human without the aid of technology.

These beliefs, if you hold them, would classify you as a cook in my eyes.
 
I think your use of the word "random" is a loaded term because it implies uselessness and insignificance. I think I'm significant while simultaneously believing I am an amalgamation of atoms, molecules, compounds, and so forth. That's what biochemistry is.
 
Re: Johnny & Netslave:

We need to understand the relationships between:

1. Collecting stamps is your hobby.
2. Collecting stamps is not your hobby.
3. Not collecting stamps is your hobby.
4. Not collecting stamps is not your hobby.

1 and 2 are exclusively true. That is, one of them must be true and the other must be false.

It is possible to prove 1 true.
It is not possible to prove 2 true.
It is not possible to prove 1 false.
It is possible to prove 2 false.
1 true does imply 2 false.
1 false does not imply 2 true.
2 false does imply 1 true.
 
Dude, we get it. You don't believe in God. Your numerous threads/posts over this topic got old a long time ago. You don't believe in God, this doesn't make you unique or special. I don't know why you feel the need to tell everyone who will listen about your views. It screams immaturity.
 
Rather than comb through numerous religion threads/posts and have us debate your meaning or intentions of said threads/posts, I'd like to just point out what Rex said in an earlier post. I tend to agree with his impressions and the reasons for those impressions.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I'm not going to come to Ryan's defense. But I enjoy reading the questions he asks, and I enjoy the replies to his questions. Half of the replies are highly entertaining. Maybe that's what some of you are pissed about.

I would read a thread like this one even if it reached the length of Mira Sorvino eating an ice cream cone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top