Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Evidence of non-existence IS A Contradiction

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:40:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since it is the habit of many theists to demand evidence (or as they wrongfully call it "proof"), that God doesn't exist, let's talk about what evidence is, how it works, and what it can and can't support.

What makes one thing evidence for another? The key is a link between the two things. Without a link, neither is evidence for the other. There must be a link, and the link must be demonstrable. Otherwise, no evidence is present.

Can you demonstrate a link to anything which has never existed? (Think; fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, unicorns, gremlins, etc.)
For those uncertain, the answer is "no". That which has never existed cannot be demonstrably linked to anything which exists. To be demonstrably linked, the thing in question must have existed.

This explains why you cannot have evidence for the non-existence of ...
- Leprechauns
- Fairies
- Unicorns
- Mermaids
- The Toothfairy
- The giant squid in your toilet
- The pride of lions in your bedroom
- Anything else which has never existed

This also explains why it is impossible to present evidence for the non-existence of God. Because evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it serves as evidence, and a demonstrable link requires that the objects exist (or have existed), evidence can only exist for that which has existed. That being true (feel free to challenge that premise), evidence ALWAYS supports existence and can never support non-existence. "Evidence of non-existence" is an oxy-moron!

Non-existence is always, and ONLY supported by a complete lack of evidence for existence, which is what we have for fairies, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc. And upon that lack of evidence for existence, we correctly conclude non-existence. God is no different. The traits bestowed upon God by those who believe he exists, insist that evidence for God must exist. You can't alter the physical, without leaving physical evidence of alteration. Simple enough, right? And yet people insist that God does interact/alter the physical, despite the fact that in tens of thousands of years of seeking objective evidence for God, none has ever been found. (Please feel free to challenge that as well.)

When you ask for "proof that God doesn't exist", or (more accurately), "evidence that God doesn't exist", you're asking for that which can only support existence, to support the claim of non-existence. It's like asking for a filled vacuum, dry water, or a flat sphere.

Any questions? Any challenges?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:40:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
...And yet people insist that God does interact/alter the physical, despite the fact that in tens of thousands of years of seeking objective evidence for God, none has ever been found. (Please feel free to challenge that as well.)

I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:25:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:40:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
...And yet people insist that God does interact/alter the physical, despite the fact that in tens of thousands of years of seeking objective evidence for God, none has ever been found. (Please feel free to challenge that as well.)

I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.

I think that god wouldn't exist without man.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 7:18:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM, 12_13 wrote:
I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.

And I think carrots are evidence for Bugs Bunny. I think carrots would not exist without Bugs Bunny.

Are you starting to understand the difference between a circular argument (where you rest two unsupportable assertions against each other) and evidence, where the evidence demonstrates support beyond the simple assertions?

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS
- Fairies created field mice, therefore field mice are evidence of fairies.

- Poseidon created Pluto, therefore Pluto is evidence of Poseidon.

- Zeus creates lightning, therefore lightning is evidence for Zeus

- God created the Bible (even though every account shows men wrote it), therefore the Bible is evidence for God.

I applaud your attempts but I hope you will learn from your failure. Only by learning what the word "evidence" means (remember the need for a DEMONSTRABLE link?) can you learn to present an argument which doesn't fail right out of the chute.

And feel free to ask me for help in learning about the origin of the Bible. I'll provide you with proper historical references and you'll be appropriately shocked at the level of fraud employed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 7:52:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 7:18:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM, 12_13 wrote:
I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.

And I think carrots are evidence for Bugs Bunny. I think carrots would not exist without Bugs Bunny.

Are you starting to understand the difference between a circular argument (where you rest two unsupportable assertions against each other) and evidence, where the evidence demonstrates support beyond the simple assertions?

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS
- Fairies created field mice, therefore field mice are evidence of fairies.

- Poseidon created Pluto, therefore Pluto is evidence of Poseidon.

- Zeus creates lightning, therefore lightning is evidence for Zeus

- God created the Bible (even though every account shows men wrote it), therefore the Bible is evidence for God.

I applaud your attempts but I hope you will learn from your failure. Only by learning what the word "evidence" means (remember the need for a DEMONSTRABLE link?) can you learn to present an argument which doesn't fail right out of the chute.

And feel free to ask me for help in learning about the origin of the Bible. I'll provide you with proper historical references and you'll be appropriately shocked at the level of fraud employed.

Is there some reason you are carrying on the SAME argument if three different thread while systemically ignoring the answers?

here ya go:

Beastt:

Is there some reason that you keep claiming that you cannot prove nonexistence?

http://plato.stanford.edu......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

As you can clearly see, Philosophically your claim holds no water whatsoever. Scientifically, it hold even less.

Your problem is that you have, once again, abandoned the rules of logic, and have gone into the record and cherry picked data points while ignoring the larger and full argument.

You can for example prove:

A. We know the FSM was created specifically to mock religion by Bobby Henderson.
B. All things with a known fictitious source are not real. (i.e. if we know its a made up idea, then we know its not real - that contrasts with a fantastical claim with no evidence - we KNOW Bobby Henderson made up the FSM, it is a fact and he openly admits it).
C. The FSM is not real.

I just proved non-existence. Deductively so. It is 100% certain that the FSM is not real.

The problem you are struggling with is induction and what you really mean is that you cannot, using induction, prove something to be 100% not real. Well, that is the nature of inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, inductive reasoning SHOULD allow us to ferret out claims with STRONG probability from claims with WEAK probability. In fact, some things, using inductive argumentation, are so improbable that they reach a point of being so improbable that they are statistically impossible.

http://www.relationshipwithreason.com......

"Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will con- clusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone arguesthat we"ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot"s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can"t prove he"s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn"t that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We"d better not dismiss induction because we"re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can"t observe the future!), but because that"s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you"ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that"s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences " induction " from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can"t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it."

http://departments.bloomu.edu......

Sorry beastt, but it looks like you are simply cherry picking points and ignoring the larger picture of logic. I literally just did what you claimed could not be done, and its now up to you to accept that really, the FSM is not real.

It should not be the religious guys capable of demonstrating how to falsify things. Particularly when the rebuttalists in this forum are dambed certain that there is no God (at least until you press them to evidence or even a logic reasoning to reach that conclusion).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:14:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh yes I see everything so clearly now.

A caveman made an arrowhead, the arrowhead is evidence a caveman exists.

Is not evidence at all. Thank you Beastt for the illustration.

EVERY CLAIM needs justification. Justification would be in the way of a reasonable and logical argument or evidence.

Okay so you don't have evidence of non-existence. I get it, it is an oxymoron. But you still have to present a justification for the statement or it will just be meaningless chatter.

Take for instance you claim "An Ice sculpture does not exist in the Desert". This claim is similar to "God does not exist in this Universe"

It is not justification to say, someone else must prove there is a ice sculpture.

Sure that would be a good counter argument. But it is fallacious because instead of defending your claim, you are just attacking a different argument.

You can defend your claim because something can not "exist" and "not-exist" at the same time.

So you make a case of evidence, of justifications, of which could be.

1. Ice Sculptures CAN not exist in a desert.
2. Deserts CAN not have Ice Sculptures.
3. The stuff for an Ice Sculpture are not in the desert.
4. The stuff to form an Ice Sculpture are not in the desert.
5. For there to be Ice Sculpture in the desert there must be water. There is no water in the desert. therefore no ice sculpture.

Atheist say they have justified belief well just present those justifications. Because they would be the burden of proof for your claims.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:21:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 5:25:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:40:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
...And yet people insist that God does interact/alter the physical, despite the fact that in tens of thousands of years of seeking objective evidence for God, none has ever been found. (Please feel free to challenge that as well.)

I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.

I think that god wouldn't exist without man.

I think that books on Japanese puzzle boxes were made by men.

I have never seen a Japanese puzzle box.

Therefore, Japanese puzzle boxes must have been made up, because this is what the Prophet Christopher Hitchens tells us must be the case, and because he was so rich and could give his ideas so much pubicity, I will simply accept them as 100% true.

I am a free-thinker.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:37:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Is it just me?
Why are these people trying to prove that their god actually exists when their entire belief system denies any evidence?

Christianity (especially newts Catholicism) is reliant on belief without proof. It is belief based only on FAITH.

This is the basis of their beliefs.

Hebrews 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What is it that causes the doubt that causes them to try to prove the existence of a god that they are obliged to take on faith?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.
P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.
P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:47:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 7:52:31 AM, neutral wrote:
Is there some reason that you keep claiming that you cannot prove nonexistence?
Is there some reason you are carrying on the SAME argument if three different thread while systemically ignoring the answers?
Because you and other theists keep failing to even attempt to provide evidence for non-existence (up until this thread and you still failed as I'll show), and this needs to be settled. You can't provide evidence of non-existence, and you haven't.

As you can clearly see, Philosophically your claim holds no water whatsoever. Scientifically, it hold even less.
You can stow both your philosophy and your demonstration of your lack of understanding of science. This is VERY VERY SIMPLE! Either demonstrate evidence for the non-existence of something, or admit that it can't be done. Now watch what happens to your FSM argument....

A. We know the FSM was created specifically to mock religion by Bobby Henderson.
B. All things with a known fictitious source are not real. (i.e. if we know its a made up idea, then we know its not real - that contrasts with a fantastical claim with no evidence - we KNOW Bobby Henderson made up the FSM, it is a fact and he openly admits it).
C. The FSM is not real.

I just proved non-existence. Deductively so. It is 100% certain that the FSM is not real.

We know that the gospels were not written by the authors assigned, nor were they written by eye-witnesses to the accounts. The gospel assigned to Mark is the oldest and it wasn't even written in Hebrew (as would be expected), it was written in Greek. It misquotes the 10-commandments, attributes statements to Moses which Jews were careful to attribute to God. The last 12-verses containing the claim of an appearances after finding the empty tomb were added years later, presumably by scribes. So it can be said that all of the authors knew they were writing stories for which they had no personal knowledge, no supporting evidence, and intentionally added embellishments.

Not only that, but they openly disagreed. How many women went to the tomb, who were they, what did they find, whom did they speak to, how did they react to what they were told? Did Jesus carry his own cross, was he offered anything to drink, what was he offered to drink, did he partake of any offering of drink? What was the inscription on the cross? Did a centurion speak? If so, what did the centurion say? The gospels disagree on these points and many, many others. Certainly, the people writing the claims were aware that they were not writing the truth.

The "Gospel of Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in "Mark", and includes verses borrowed from the "Q". The "Gospel of Luke" presents parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", contains a fingerprint showing that the author was using a damaged copy of "Mark", and borrows about 100 verses from the "Q" as well as information obtained from "Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War", both written by Flavius Josephus and completed in 93 CE.

The "Gospel of John" is the only non-synoptic gospel yet still exhibits blatant copying from "The Gospel of Mark", also includes the same information taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus, and is the only gospel in which Jesus claims to be God.

Much of the dialog for Jesus presented in the gospels is found to be nothing more than paraphrasing of Old Testament verses (i.e. Mark 15:34 is taken word-for-word from Psalms 22:1, Matthew 11:5 is a paraphrasing of Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 26:19 and Isaiah 61:1, and Matthew 21:2 is not only a paraphrasing of Zechariah 9:9 but is taken from the erroneous Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew (resulting in Jesus asking for two donkeys instead of one).

So we can see that the authors of all four gospels were aware that they were producing fiction. One cannot decisively concoct what is proclaimed as genuine dialog for Jesus by paraphrasing Old Testament verse without the knowledge that one is presenting fiction. Therefore, if we are to accept your claim that because the FSM was written as fiction, as evidence for the non-existence of the FSM, we should equally take the knowledge of the fictional nature of writings in the gospels to be evidence for the non-existence of Jesus.

But in both cases, you are suggesting that it isn't possible to write a story about a giant squid (such as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), without demonstrating the lack of existence for giant squid - which have since been confirmed to exist.

I'll knock out the rest of your argument later. Gotta get done before the heat of the day hits.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:48:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.
How do you know?
P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
How do you know?
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.
P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.
Prove that god said anything.................................deist !
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:48:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:37:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Is it just me?

Probably

Why are these people trying to prove that their god actually exists when their entire belief system denies any evidence?


Other than my last sarcastic post to debateuser, which is not meant as a real argument. I don't think any one has made an argument for God. It is not the topic of this OP.

Christianity (especially newts Catholicism) is reliant on belief without proof. It is belief based only on FAITH.


This is just One group of Theist, and Deist accept God's existence. So not everyone who accept "God is Real" are obliged by Catholic text to accept it on Faith alone (alone being implied)

This is the basis of their beliefs.

Hebrews 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


You should read this carefully. It is a definition of Faith. It defines Faith as: evidence of things unseen. The most you can draw from this is Christians and Catholics see Faith as another kind of evidence.

I do not see where in this verse they are commanded to only accept faith, and reject other evidences. Which seems to be the sentiment you are implying.

What is it that causes the doubt that causes them to try to prove the existence of a god that they are obliged to take on faith?

I have expressed no doubt in God's existence. I have made an argument to illustrate the Logic Beastt is presenting in this OP. I am offering an Example of his own reasoning.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:57:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:48:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
You should read this carefully. It is a definition of Faith. It defines Faith as: evidence of things unseen.

Why did you ignore this:?
faith is the substance of things hoped for

Are you being disingenuous?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:01:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:47:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/1/2014 7:52:31 AM, neutral wrote:
Is there some reason that you keep claiming that you cannot prove nonexistence?
Is there some reason you are carrying on the SAME argument if three different thread while systemically ignoring the answers?
Because you and other theists keep failing to even attempt to provide evidence for non-existence (up until this thread and you still failed as I'll show), and this needs to be settled. You can't provide evidence of non-existence, and you haven't.

As you can clearly see, Philosophically your claim holds no water whatsoever. Scientifically, it hold even less.
You can stow both your philosophy and your demonstration of your lack of understanding of science. This is VERY VERY SIMPLE! Either demonstrate evidence for the non-existence of something, or admit that it can't be done. Now watch what happens to your FSM argument....

A. We know the FSM was created specifically to mock religion by Bobby Henderson.
B. All things with a known fictitious source are not real. (i.e. if we know its a made up idea, then we know its not real - that contrasts with a fantastical claim with no evidence - we KNOW Bobby Henderson made up the FSM, it is a fact and he openly admits it).
C. The FSM is not real.

I just proved non-existence. Deductively so. It is 100% certain that the FSM is not real.


Yep that is a deductive argument proving something does not exist. Well done Neutral. Beastt merely asked if an argument can be constructed to support a claim of nonexistence. So attacking the premises is irrelevant. Let's see how he admits you succeeded at the task...


We know that the gospels were not written by the authors assigned, nor were they written by eye-witnesses to the accounts. The gospel assigned to Mark is the oldest and it wasn't even written in Hebrew (as would be expected), it was written in Greek. It misquotes the 10-commandments, attributes statements to Moses which Jews were careful to attribute to God. The last 12-verses containing the claim of an appearances after finding the empty tomb were added years later, presumably by scribes. So it can be said that all of the authors knew they were writing stories for which they had no personal knowledge, no supporting evidence, and intentionally added embellishments.

Not only that, but they openly disagreed. How many women went to the tomb, who were they, what did they find, whom did they speak to, how did they react to what they were told? Did Jesus carry his own cross, was he offered anything to drink, what was he offered to drink, did he partake of any offering of drink? What was the inscription on the cross? Did a centurion speak? If so, what did the centurion say? The gospels disagree on these points and many, many others. Certainly, the people writing the claims were aware that they were not writing the truth.

The "Gospel of Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in "Mark", and includes verses borrowed from the "Q". The "Gospel of Luke" presents parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", contains a fingerprint showing that the author was using a damaged copy of "Mark", and borrows about 100 verses from the "Q" as well as information obtained from "Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War", both written by Flavius Josephus and completed in 93 CE.

The "Gospel of John" is the only non-synoptic gospel yet still exhibits blatant copying from "The Gospel of Mark", also includes the same information taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus, and is the only gospel in which Jesus claims to be God.

Much of the dialog for Jesus presented in the gospels is found to be nothing more than paraphrasing of Old Testament verses (i.e. Mark 15:34 is taken word-for-word from Psalms 22:1, Matthew 11:5 is a paraphrasing of Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 26:19 and Isaiah 61:1, and Matthew 21:2 is not only a paraphrasing of Zechariah 9:9 but is taken from the erroneous Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew (resulting in Jesus asking for two donkeys instead of one).

So we can see that the authors of all four gospels were aware that they were producing fiction. One cannot decisively concoct what is proclaimed as genuine dialog for Jesus by paraphrasing Old Testament verse without the knowledge that one is presenting fiction. Therefore, if we are to accept your claim that because the FSM was written as fiction, as evidence for the non-existence of the FSM, we should equally take the knowledge of the fictional nature of writings in the gospels to be evidence for the non-existence of Jesus.


Oh he um... rants for 5 paragraphs about the (in)authenticity of scripture. And says because you proved FSM false then scripture is False as well. _o.0_

So Beastt, Neutral did make an argument that presented evidence of something being nonexistent.

But in both cases, you are suggesting that it isn't possible to write a story about a giant squid (such as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), without demonstrating the lack of existence for giant squid - which have since been confirmed to exist.

I'll knock out the rest of your argument later. Gotta get done before the heat of the day hits.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:10:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What do you say Mhyk?
At 6/1/2014 8:48:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.
How do you know?
P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
How do you know?
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.
P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.
Prove that god said anything.................................deist !
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:57:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:48:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
You should read this carefully. It is a definition of Faith. It defines Faith as: evidence of things unseen.

Why did you ignore this:?
faith is the substance of things hoped for

Are you being disingenuous?

No I did not add that in but it is interesting to talk about. See Faith is being defined.

1. substance of things hoped for.
2. evidence of thing not seen.

What's great is it equates evidence with substance. That most everyone agrees on. The second half equates "things hoped for" with "not seen".

This verse is saying Faith is evidence for things hoped for. Faith is the anticipation for things "not seen" yet. Faith is the present day thing you have till the things you hope for are seen (or realized).

It's kind of like runner dreaming of winning a medal. Until that medal is won, all the runner has is the dream, or desire.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:19:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:11:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:57:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:48:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
You should read this carefully. It is a definition of Faith. It defines Faith as: evidence of things unseen.

Why did you ignore this:?
faith is the substance of things hoped for

Are you being disingenuous?

No I did not add that in but it is interesting to talk about. See Faith is being defined.

1. substance of things hoped for.
2. evidence of thing not seen.

What's great is it equates evidence with substance. That most everyone agrees on. The second half equates "things hoped for" with "not seen".

This verse is saying Faith is evidence for things hoped for. Faith is the anticipation for things "not seen" yet. Faith is the present day thing you have till the things you hope for are seen (or realized).

It's kind of like runner dreaming of winning a medal. Until that medal is won, all the runner has is the dream, or desire.

No it doesn't mean those things at all, especially for a deist. Are you sure you know what you are?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:20:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:21:37 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:25:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:49:51 AM, 12_13 wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:40:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
...And yet people insist that God does interact/alter the physical, despite the fact that in tens of thousands of years of seeking objective evidence for God, none has ever been found. (Please feel free to challenge that as well.)

I think this world and the Bible are evidence for God. I think they would not exist without God.

I think that god wouldn't exist without man.

I think that books on Japanese puzzle boxes were made by men.

I have never seen a Japanese puzzle box.

Therefore, Japanese puzzle boxes must have been made up, because this is what the Prophet Christopher Hitchens tells us must be the case, and because he was so rich and could give his ideas so much pubicity, I will simply accept them as 100% true.

I am a free-thinker.

Yep...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:28:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:47:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/1/2014 7:52:31 AM, neutral wrote:
Is there some reason that you keep claiming that you cannot prove nonexistence?
Is there some reason you are carrying on the SAME argument if three different thread while systemically ignoring the answers?
Because you and other theists keep failing to even attempt to provide evidence for non-existence (up until this thread and you still failed as I'll show), and this needs to be settled. You can't provide evidence of non-existence, and you haven't.

As you can clearly see, Philosophically your claim holds no water whatsoever. Scientifically, it hold even less.
You can stow both your philosophy and your demonstration of your lack of understanding of science. This is VERY VERY SIMPLE! Either demonstrate evidence for the non-existence of something, or admit that it can't be done. Now watch what happens to your FSM argument....

A. We know the FSM was created specifically to mock religion by Bobby Henderson.
B. All things with a known fictitious source are not real. (i.e. if we know its a made up idea, then we know its not real - that contrasts with a fantastical claim with no evidence - we KNOW Bobby Henderson made up the FSM, it is a fact and he openly admits it).
C. The FSM is not real.

I just proved non-existence. Deductively so. It is 100% certain that the FSM is not real.


We know that the gospels were not written by the authors assigned, nor were they written by eye-witnesses to the accounts. The gospel assigned to Mark is the oldest and it wasn't even written in Hebrew (as would be expected), it was written in Greek. It misquotes the 10-commandments, attributes statements to Moses which Jews were careful to attribute to God. The last 12-verses containing the claim of an appearances after finding the empty tomb were added years later, presumably by scribes. So it can be said that all of the authors knew they were writing stories for which they had no personal knowledge, no supporting evidence, and intentionally added embellishments.

Not only that, but they openly disagreed. How many women went to the tomb, who were they, what did they find, whom did they speak to, how did they react to what they were told? Did Jesus carry his own cross, was he offered anything to drink, what was he offered to drink, did he partake of any offering of drink? What was the inscription on the cross? Did a centurion speak? If so, what did the centurion say? The gospels disagree on these points and many, many others. Certainly, the people writing the claims were aware that they were not writing the truth.

The "Gospel of Matthew" presents parallel verses for some 600 of the 678 verses in "Mark", and includes verses borrowed from the "Q". The "Gospel of Luke" presents parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "Mark", contains a fingerprint showing that the author was using a damaged copy of "Mark", and borrows about 100 verses from the "Q" as well as information obtained from "Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War", both written by Flavius Josephus and completed in 93 CE.

The "Gospel of John" is the only non-synoptic gospel yet still exhibits blatant copying from "The Gospel of Mark", also includes the same information taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus, and is the only gospel in which Jesus claims to be God.

Much of the dialog for Jesus presented in the gospels is found to be nothing more than paraphrasing of Old Testament verses (i.e. Mark 15:34 is taken word-for-word from Psalms 22:1, Matthew 11:5 is a paraphrasing of Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 26:19 and Isaiah 61:1, and Matthew 21:2 is not only a paraphrasing of Zechariah 9:9 but is taken from the erroneous Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew (resulting in Jesus asking for two donkeys instead of one).

So we can see that the authors of all four gospels were aware that they were producing fiction. One cannot decisively concoct what is proclaimed as genuine dialog for Jesus by paraphrasing Old Testament verse without the knowledge that one is presenting fiction. Therefore, if we are to accept your claim that because the FSM was written as fiction, as evidence for the non-existence of the FSM, we should equally take the knowledge of the fictional nature of writings in the gospels to be evidence for the non-existence of Jesus.

But in both cases, you are suggesting that it isn't possible to write a story about a giant squid (such as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), without demonstrating the lack of existence for giant squid - which have since been confirmed to exist.

I'll knock out the rest of your argument later. Gotta get done before the heat of the day hits.

What does that have to do with the ability to prove nonexistence?

You've gone from propaganda about the inability to do something - at all - as in not in any case ...

... and now you are taking pot shots at bits of historical minutia, that are also straight off of atheist clearing houses. Are you suddenly a Ph.D in history? You claiming expert analytical ability on things gospel? And it was this 'expertise' garnered while studious studying the original documentation ... which in Greek ... that you away from God? But has curiously lead the vast majority of actual period scholars in the exact opposite direction - including atheists Michael Grant and William Durant, and self proclaimed agnostic Bart Erhman.

What you are telling the wider audience is that you are taking anything sites like Rationalwiki or Secularweb have to say on faith.

Yet what you should be doing is something logical.

Thesis: I believe that God is unlikely - classic inductive statement.

Because: You can't prove nonexistence - only you can, and in cases with no definitive proof, you still have induction to prove nonexistence highly unlikely.

Because: Your expert mastery of the gospel lead you to question the authorship of documents whose historical claims are nevertheless verified and accurate - a quibble - a highly esoteric quibble over a historical document lead you to believe that God was so improbable that he should be dismissed from consideration.

That makes no sense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:30:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:19:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:11:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:57:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:48:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
You should read this carefully. It is a definition of Faith. It defines Faith as: evidence of things unseen.

Why did you ignore this:?
faith is the substance of things hoped for

Are you being disingenuous?

No I did not add that in but it is interesting to talk about. See Faith is being defined.

1. substance of things hoped for.
2. evidence of thing not seen.

What's great is it equates evidence with substance. That most everyone agrees on. The second half equates "things hoped for" with "not seen".

This verse is saying Faith is evidence for things hoped for. Faith is the anticipation for things "not seen" yet. Faith is the present day thing you have till the things you hope for are seen (or realized).

It's kind of like runner dreaming of winning a medal. Until that medal is won, all the runner has is the dream, or desire.

No it doesn't mean those things at all, especially for a deist. Are you sure you know what you are?

It says: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

1. Clearly it is describing what faith is. "Faith is"
2. 1st description, "substance of things hoped for"
3. 2nd description, "evidence for things not seen"
4. the description describe the same thing so they are equal Transitive Property of equality A (faith) = B (1st descr.) = C (2nd descr.)

5. "things hoped for" means what to people. Things they desired, wanted, wished for.
6. "things not seen" means what? Things not present at the moment or things concealed.
7. "Substance" means that of which a thing consists of.
8. "evidence" means what indications.

SO. Faith is that of which a thing consists of wished for or The indication of things not present or concealed from view.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:39:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.

Prove that God said that. I did not hear him say that. It is like saying that since I am scared of the dark, so ghosts must be real.

P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.

Your mind is the thorn in your side, stopping you from realizing that there is no claim of a God. The only thing you are believing in are empires which use religion for control. In other words uncle Sam is your God.

P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.

Wow. Such a specific conclusion but not in the real world , only in philosophy.

You even believe in alleged prophecies in religion. You are not a deist. Deists don't believe in scripture. A deist only believes in a non personal god.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:39:10 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.

Prove that God said that. I did not hear him say that. It is like saying that since I am scared of the dark, so ghosts must be real.

P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.

Your mind is the thorn in your side, stopping you from realizing that there is no claim of a God. The only thing you are believing in are empires which use religion for control. In other words uncle Sam is your God.

P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.

Wow. Such a specific conclusion but not in the real world , only in philosophy.

You even believe in alleged prophecies in religion. You are not a deist. Deists don't believe in scripture. A deist only believes in a non personal god.

I never said I believed in any scripture Bible, Quron, Vedas, just because they are claimed to be Holy. There are some parts of each I think are correct, but accepted on reasoning. To do otherwise would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have presented scripture when some one said scripture of a particular matter is not present.

I have presented scripture when the discussion was in or on religious text.

I have defended scripture when I thought they being grossly misused or wrongly interpreted.

But I challenge you to find one prophesy I have accepted as being true just because it is written in a religious book?
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:49:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:45:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:39:10 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.

Prove that God said that. I did not hear him say that. It is like saying that since I am scared of the dark, so ghosts must be real.

P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.

Your mind is the thorn in your side, stopping you from realizing that there is no claim of a God. The only thing you are believing in are empires which use religion for control. In other words uncle Sam is your God.

P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.

Wow. Such a specific conclusion but not in the real world , only in philosophy.

You even believe in alleged prophecies in religion. You are not a deist. Deists don't believe in scripture. A deist only believes in a non personal god.

I never said I believed in any scripture Bible, Quron, Vedas, just because they are claimed to be Holy. There are some parts of each I think are correct, but accepted on reasoning. To do otherwise would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have presented scripture when some one said scripture of a particular matter is not present.

I have presented scripture when the discussion was in or on religious text.

I have defended scripture when I thought they being grossly misused or wrongly interpreted.

But I challenge you to find one prophesy I have accepted as being true just because it is written in a religious book?

Nah, sorry sweety but you claimed things that god said.
Please support that claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:45:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:39:10 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:38:37 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:34:01 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/1/2014 8:26:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
The Physical does not exist.
Cause-Effect does not exist.

I can not have evidence for a non-existence so it is on you to prove me wrong.

For any of your evidence to be convincing you will have to be in a predetermined idealistic explanation. If not I am will remain correct and you wrong.

This is how Atheist word and argue their beliefs. And in true Atheist fashion I call out Beastt to answer these claims.

Can you show any claim of a GOD right now

P1. God said there would be days like this.

Prove that God said that. I did not hear him say that. It is like saying that since I am scared of the dark, so ghosts must be real.

P2. Days in which I have a thorn in my side,
P3. Debateuser is a thorn in my side.

Your mind is the thorn in your side, stopping you from realizing that there is no claim of a God. The only thing you are believing in are empires which use religion for control. In other words uncle Sam is your God.

P4. So I am having days like this.

C1. I am having days like God predicted, therefore God is real.

Wow. Such a specific conclusion but not in the real world , only in philosophy.

You even believe in alleged prophecies in religion. You are not a deist. Deists don't believe in scripture. A deist only believes in a non personal god.

I never said I believed in any scripture Bible, Quron, Vedas, just because they are claimed to be Holy. There are some parts of each I think are correct, but accepted on reasoning. To do otherwise would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have presented scripture when some one said scripture of a particular matter is not present.

I have presented scripture when the discussion was in or on religious text.

I have defended scripture when I thought they being grossly misused or wrongly interpreted.

But I challenge you to find one prophesy I have accepted as being true just because it is written in a religious book?

You defended birth of Israel. I dont think it is part of deism.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:09:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:49:48 AM, bulproof wrote:

Nah, sorry sweety but you claimed things that god said.
Please support that claim.

Translation from bridge troll:

Please pay no attention to the fact that I am:

a. Not actually making a case.
b. Not providing any sources - because I am not actually saying anything.
c. Note that I demand sources that I will reject anyway, because there is no actual discussion happening here.

Its all about basking in the great green glory of my trolldom. Its why this forum exists! For MEEEEEE! God, I mean .. er, Eric Cartmen I love MEEEE!!!!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:20:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:49:48 AM, bulproof wrote:


Nah, sorry sweety but you claimed things that god said.
Please support that claim.

I just can't resist: The burden of proof fallacy strikes again.

If you don;t prove that God said that (to my standard), then it isn't what God said.

The reversal of troll boy?

If you don't prove it WASN'T what God said, the it IS what God said.

Gotta love how common this fallacy is in atheism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:29:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evidence is summarized by "available information indicating validity of some truth." -G

Evidence doesn't need to be concrete. It only needs to serve as an indication.

If I'm in my living room and make the claim that an air jet just crashed in my backyard, the evidence of non-existence is the lack of any crashing sound indicating this event never took place.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:52:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 10:29:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Evidence is summarized by "available information indicating validity of some truth." -G

Evidence doesn't need to be concrete. It only needs to serve as an indication.

If I'm in my living room and make the claim that an air jet just crashed in my backyard, the evidence of non-existence is the lack of any crashing sound indicating this event never took place.

I understand that a lack of evidence can warrant being unconvinced of a claim's validity.

But when challenged the Atheist makes no attempt to produce a cognitive argument comprised of demonstrating that lack of evidence. They retort they have no burden of evidence.

If they have no support, BOP, evidence, demonstration of lack of evidence, proof a mutually exclusive claim is true, etc... then they have no justified disbelief. And the Atheist claim offers nothing to consider as a premise or conclusion.

unless you are debating unfounded opinions.