Total Posts:310|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science Is Not Evidence

Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a reoccurring fallacy made by atheists and agnostics, which is used throughout the forum. Some theists may do so as well, depending on the topic. Whenever they want to prove evolution, homosexuality, and several other claims, they will quote a scientific article or present a link and say there claim is true. Thereby saying that science proves it to be true.

This is a fallacy. To say something is true for all things because you have an example that was observed scientifically is not proof. It is only supportive evidence. There is a difference. That is because we only have a limit set of observations. No one can see everything. So scientists use induction, and induction is an argument or claim concluded on logic. Not science. Science is only supportive evidence for the claim. In induction, you make a claim that something is true for all things of a specific related group, not because you observed ALL things in the group, but because you observed and tested a large number within the group and logically concluded that it applies to all.

So to claim something is true for all things of a specific group because science says so is a fallacy. Science does not say so because no one observed all of it and science is based on observation. It is induction that says so and science is used to support it.

So if a claim by a scientist or anyone is concluded by induction, which is an argument based on logic, then it can be refuted based on logic, regardless of what science says. Hence, one does not need to quote a scientist saying their claim is true or refute a scientist in order for it to be valid. All that is necessary is a logical argument with supportive evidence in science.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 10:59:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And for this reason we can use deductive reasoning to prove whether a religious scripture is true or if God exist, or evolution is false, etc. as valid evidence without quoting a scientists or regardless of what scientists say.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are absolutely correct science is not evidence, science is a strict systematic process.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:53:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 11:19:13 PM, Accipiter wrote:
You are absolutely correct science is not evidence, science is a strict systematic process.

Response: I agree. It is evidence when referring to what is directly observed, but it is supportive evidence in inductive reasoning when making a general claim. Such as evolution and dinosaurs, human biology and psychology, etc..
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:00:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 11:53:31 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/10/2015 11:19:13 PM, Accipiter wrote:
You are absolutely correct science is not evidence, science is a strict systematic process.

Response: I agree. It is evidence when referring to what is directly observed, but it is supportive evidence in inductive reasoning when making a general claim. Such as evolution and dinosaurs, human biology and psychology, etc..

Yes evidence is a part of science, but it is not science, it's evidence.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:01:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think most scientists understand the absurdity of trying to prove or disprove God.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:15:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One big problem with evidence is that it's never completely trustworthy. You never know how a certain conclusion was reached.
In studies, the research may have been done in a certain biased (and dishonest) manner, though they would never admit to such Or, somebody may have downright fabricated evidence, even if the people directly doing the study are sincere. Often the objecting minority is silenced through emotional appeals, personal attacks on their character and intellectual merit, etc. The majority will uncover whatever evidence the majority desires supporting whatever conclusion the majority desires, almost 100% of the time. The antebellum South probably had studies showing that black people love picking cotton all day long in the summer.
As another example, we have found no evidence of aliens. Perhaps that is because the aliens are masking evidence of their existence. Same may go with God (though I think that it's atheists denying existing evidence more than anything).

Basically any evidence can be illusionary. There's no way to trust it for sure. Heck, even if I were to go to Heaven, I'd have no way of knowing whether or not I wasn't simply a brain inside a vat revived billions of years after death and then put into a simulation of Heaven.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:19:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:15:03 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
One big problem with evidence is that it's never completely trustworthy. You never know how a certain conclusion was reached.
In studies, the research may have been done in a certain biased (and dishonest) manner, though they would never admit to such Or, somebody may have downright fabricated evidence, even if the people directly doing the study are sincere. Often the objecting minority is silenced through emotional appeals, personal attacks on their character and intellectual merit, etc. The majority will uncover whatever evidence the majority desires supporting whatever conclusion the majority desires, almost 100% of the time. The antebellum South probably had studies showing that black people love picking cotton all day long in the summer.
As another example, we have found no evidence of aliens. Perhaps that is because the aliens are masking evidence of their existence. Same may go with God (though I think that it's atheists denying existing evidence more than anything).

Basically any evidence can be illusionary. There's no way to trust it for sure. Heck, even if I were to go to Heaven, I'd have no way of knowing whether or not I wasn't simply a brain inside a vat revived billions of years after death and then put into a simulation of Heaven.

Response: Research can be bias and controlled by a bias authority, while appealing to emotions and personal attacks to discredit any opposition to their research in order to make it appeal to others. This is why the way we should come to learn the truth is to scrutinize even the research done by alleged authorities and accept from amongst them which evidence is the most logical. As long as we take what is more logical than anything else, it is still more closer to the truth or the more rational choice even if it is wrong.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:21:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:01:27 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
I think most scientists understand the absurdity of trying to prove or disprove God.

Which is why scientists rarely bother with those myths and superstitions, they have better things to do than deal with childish fantasies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:29:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 10:28:34 PM, Fatihah wrote:
There is a reoccurring fallacy made by atheists and agnostics, which is used throughout the forum. Some theists may do so as well, depending on the topic. Whenever they want to prove evolution, homosexuality, and several other claims, they will quote a scientific article or present a link and say there claim is true. Thereby saying that science proves it to be true.

This is a fallacy. To say something is true for all things because you have an example that was observed scientifically is not proof. It is only supportive evidence. There is a difference. That is because we only have a limit set of observations. No one can see everything. So scientists use induction, and induction is an argument or claim concluded on logic. Not science. Science is only supportive evidence for the claim. In induction, you make a claim that something is true for all things of a specific related group, not because you observed ALL things in the group, but because you observed and tested a large number within the group and logically concluded that it applies to all.

So to claim something is true for all things of a specific group because science says so is a fallacy. Science does not say so because no one observed all of it and science is based on observation. It is induction that says so and science is used to support it.

So if a claim by a scientist or anyone is concluded by induction, which is an argument based on logic, then it can be refuted based on logic, regardless of what science says. Hence, one does not need to quote a scientist saying their claim is true or refute a scientist in order for it to be valid. All that is necessary is a logical argument with supportive evidence in science.

I wonder why the hypocritical morons who trash science have yet to throw away their computers, disconnect their wifi and go live in caves?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:33:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In addition to being a hateful bigot, you also don't understand science, evidence, logic and induction. Got it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:35:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 10:28:34 PM, Fatihah wrote:
There is a reoccurring fallacy made by atheists and agnostics, which is used throughout the forum. Some theists may do so as well, depending on the topic. Whenever they want to prove evolution, homosexuality, and several other claims, they will quote a scientific article or present a link and say there claim is true. Thereby saying that science proves it to be true.

This is a fallacy. To say something is true for all things because you have an example that was observed scientifically is not proof. It is only supportive evidence. There is a difference. That is because we only have a limit set of observations. No one can see everything. So scientists use induction, and induction is an argument or claim concluded on logic. Not science. Science is only supportive evidence for the claim. In induction, you make a claim that something is true for all things of a specific related group, not because you observed ALL things in the group, but because you observed and tested a large number within the group and logically concluded that it applies to all.

So to claim something is true for all things of a specific group because science says so is a fallacy. Science does not say so because no one observed all of it and science is based on observation. It is induction that says so and science is used to support it.

So if a claim by a scientist or anyone is concluded by induction, which is an argument based on logic, then it can be refuted based on logic, regardless of what science says. Hence, one does not need to quote a scientist saying their claim is true or refute a scientist in order for it to be valid. All that is necessary is a logical argument with supportive evidence in science.

Of course science is not in itself evidence, it is method used to produce evidence.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:38:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 9:35:18 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:

Of course science is not in itself evidence, it is method used to produce evidence.

Response: Exactly. Yet there are people who use it as an authority or as official evidence, which is a fallacy.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 9:41:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 9:38:41 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 9:35:18 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:

Of course science is not in itself evidence, it is method used to produce evidence.

Response: Exactly. Yet there are people who use it as an authority or as official evidence, which is a fallacy.

It is fallacious to use science itself as evidence, but it is not fallacious to use the evidence it provides.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 10:07:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:15:03 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
One big problem with evidence is that it's never completely trustworthy. You never know how a certain conclusion was reached.
In studies, the research may have been done in a certain biased (and dishonest) manner, though they would never admit to such Or, somebody may have downright fabricated evidence, even if the people directly doing the study are sincere. Often the objecting minority is silenced through emotional appeals, personal attacks on their character and intellectual merit, etc. The majority will uncover whatever evidence the majority desires supporting whatever conclusion the majority desires, almost 100% of the time. The antebellum South probably had studies showing that black people love picking cotton all day long in the summer.
As another example, we have found no evidence of aliens. Perhaps that is because the aliens are masking evidence of their existence. Same may go with God (though I think that it's atheists denying existing evidence more than anything).

Basically any evidence can be illusionary. There's no way to trust it for sure. Heck, even if I were to go to Heaven, I'd have no way of knowing whether or not I wasn't simply a brain inside a vat revived billions of years after death and then put into a simulation of Heaven.

How would this bias make its way into, for example, a standard clinical trial?
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 10:23:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 10:59:51 PM, Fatihah wrote:
And for this reason we can use deductive reasoning to prove whether a religious scripture is true or if God exist, or evolution is false, etc. as valid evidence without quoting a scientists or regardless of what scientists say.

If you could, can you walk me through the deductive reasoning of why evolution is false? This one I really want to here.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 10:34:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 10:23:04 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 7/10/2015 10:59:51 PM, Fatihah wrote:
And for this reason we can use deductive reasoning to prove whether a religious scripture is true or if God exist, or evolution is false, etc. as valid evidence without quoting a scientists or regardless of what scientists say.

If you could, can you walk me through the deductive reasoning of why evolution is false? This one I really want to here.

Response: Sure.

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:

Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:06:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 10:07:05 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/11/2015 12:15:03 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
One big problem with evidence is that it's never completely trustworthy. You never know how a certain conclusion was reached.
In studies, the research may have been done in a certain biased (and dishonest) manner, though they would never admit to such Or, somebody may have downright fabricated evidence, even if the people directly doing the study are sincere. Often the objecting minority is silenced through emotional appeals, personal attacks on their character and intellectual merit, etc. The majority will uncover whatever evidence the majority desires supporting whatever conclusion the majority desires, almost 100% of the time. The antebellum South probably had studies showing that black people love picking cotton all day long in the summer.
As another example, we have found no evidence of aliens. Perhaps that is because the aliens are masking evidence of their existence. Same may go with God (though I think that it's atheists denying existing evidence more than anything).

Basically any evidence can be illusionary. There's no way to trust it for sure. Heck, even if I were to go to Heaven, I'd have no way of knowing whether or not I wasn't simply a brain inside a vat revived billions of years after death and then put into a simulation of Heaven.

How would this bias make its way into, for example, a standard clinical trial?

Your own bias is revealed in this (I'm not trying to insult you). You tend to assume that because something is "official" or done by a "reliable source" that there's no bias, unnoticed mistakes made, or corruption. The fact is, they're people who we have nothing to do with and they regularly come out with studies that we can only take their word on. Any system has corruption in it (I think the Roman Catholic Church proves that).

I mean, if I were to have a master's degree in a certain field, I could do my own "research" (that is, pull findings out of my butt) and, if it agreed with what the majority believed, it'd probably be accepted with little scrutiny applied to it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:15:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm baffled, Fatihah. What or who chose to create god? You seem adamant that your argument concludes gods existence, but it does not suffice the answer to the question; who or what chose to create god?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:27:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 10:28:34 PM, Fatihah wrote:
There is a reoccurring fallacy made by atheists and agnostics, which is used throughout the forum. Some theists may do so as well, depending on the topic. Whenever they want to prove evolution, homosexuality, and several other claims, they will quote a scientific article or present a link and say there claim is true. Thereby saying that science proves it to be true.
Science may not prove a claim, but science does investigate it according to the available evidence to determine how robust, or compelling it is.
This is a fallacy. To say something is true for all things because you have an example that was observed scientifically is not proof. It is only supportive evidence. There is a difference. That is because we only have a limit set of observations. No one can see everything. So scientists use induction, and induction is an argument or claim concluded on logic. Not science. Science is only supportive evidence for the claim. In induction, you make a claim that something is true for all things of a specific related group, not because you observed ALL things in the group, but because you observed and tested a large number within the group and logically concluded that it applies to all.
Science is not evidence, per se. Scientists ascertain information from available evidence to form a convincing conclusion.
So to claim something is true for all things of a specific group because science says so is a fallacy. Science does not say so because no one observed all of it and science is based on observation. It is induction that says so and science is used to support it.
Thats why conclusions are compelling, to determine how viable it is and if utility can be derived and predictions made.
So if a claim by a scientist or anyone is concluded by induction, which is an argument based on logic, then it can be refuted based on logic, regardless of what science says. Hence, one does not need to quote a scientist saying their claim is true or refute a scientist in order for it to be valid. All that is necessary is a logical argument with supportive evidence in science.
It appears your confidence in scientific endeavors is abysmal, yet you utilize machines and equipment daily that are a direct consequence of science and scientists. If your alluding to science being unreliable or there is a superior model of discovering information AND using the information for utility, then by all means share it with us.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:32:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:15:17 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I'm baffled, Fatihah. What or who chose to create god? You seem adamant that your argument concludes gods existence, but it does not suffice the answer to the question; who or what chose to create god?

Response: The question itself is illogical, for God is uncreated. So no one created God.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:40:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:27:04 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/10/2015 10:28:34 PM, Fatihah wrote:
There is a reoccurring fallacy made by atheists and agnostics, which is used throughout the forum. Some theists may do so as well, depending on the topic. Whenever they want to prove evolution, homosexuality, and several other claims, they will quote a scientific article or present a link and say there claim is true. Thereby saying that science proves it to be true.
Science may not prove a claim, but science does investigate it according to the available evidence to determine how robust, or compelling it is.
This is a fallacy. To say something is true for all things because you have an example that was observed scientifically is not proof. It is only supportive evidence. There is a difference. That is because we only have a limit set of observations. No one can see everything. So scientists use induction, and induction is an argument or claim concluded on logic. Not science. Science is only supportive evidence for the claim. In induction, you make a claim that something is true for all things of a specific related group, not because you observed ALL things in the group, but because you observed and tested a large number within the group and logically concluded that it applies to all.
Science is not evidence, per se. Scientists ascertain information from available evidence to form a convincing conclusion.
So to claim something is true for all things of a specific group because science says so is a fallacy. Science does not say so because no one observed all of it and science is based on observation. It is induction that says so and science is used to support it.
Thats why conclusions are compelling, to determine how viable it is and if utility can be derived and predictions made.
So if a claim by a scientist or anyone is concluded by induction, which is an argument based on logic, then it can be refuted based on logic, regardless of what science says. Hence, one does not need to quote a scientist saying their claim is true or refute a scientist in order for it to be valid. All that is necessary is a logical argument with supportive evidence in science.
It appears your confidence in scientific endeavors is abysmal, yet you utilize machines and equipment daily that are a direct consequence of science and scientists. If your alluding to science being unreliable or there is a superior model of discovering information AND using the information for utility, then by all means share it with us.

Response: Rather, my contention is that science is supportive evidence to reason. Not evidence by itself for general claims. So science is reliable. yet that does not mean you can apply it as proof to all general claims, regardless of reason. Hence, it is true in science that a pigeon can fly. That does not mean it is evidence that an Ostrich can fly. As you can see, the science is true and reliable, but what you induced from it is not valid. The same applies for evolution and other claims in which people refer to science.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:43:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:32:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:15:17 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I'm baffled, Fatihah. What or who chose to create god? You seem adamant that your argument concludes gods existence, but it does not suffice the answer to the question; who or what chose to create god?

Response: The question itself is illogical, for God is uncreated. So no one created God.

Hod did god come about from non-choice?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:51:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:43:37 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:32:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:15:17 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I'm baffled, Fatihah. What or who chose to create god? You seem adamant that your argument concludes gods existence, but it does not suffice the answer to the question; who or what chose to create god?

Response: The question itself is illogical, for God is uncreated. So no one created God.

Hod did god come about from non-choice?

Response: Once again, God is uncreated.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:53:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:51:59 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:43:37 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:32:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:15:17 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
I'm baffled, Fatihah. What or who chose to create god? You seem adamant that your argument concludes gods existence, but it does not suffice the answer to the question; who or what chose to create god?

Response: The question itself is illogical, for God is uncreated. So no one created God.

Hod did god come about from non-choice?

Response: Once again, God is uncreated.

How did you ascertain that? According to your logic, life in this universe only originated from choice, so how was god not created from choice?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:03:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:53:01 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

How did you ascertain that? According to your logic, life in this universe only originated from choice, so how was god not created from choice?

Response: My logic is that creation originated from Choice. God is not a creation. So God was not created by choice.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 10:34:08 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 10:23:04 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 7/10/2015 10:59:51 PM, Fatihah wrote:
And for this reason we can use deductive reasoning to prove whether a religious scripture is true or if God exist, or evolution is false, etc. as valid evidence without quoting a scientists or regardless of what scientists say.

If you could, can you walk me through the deductive reasoning of why evolution is false? This one I really want to here.

Response: Sure.

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:

Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

You argument necessarily follows that of the teleological argument. If one were to come upon a watch on a beech, they would assume that there is a watchmaker. Thus, since the earth came into existence by "fine tuning", it is okay to assume that there is a creator.

But, is is likely that things came into being by pure chance. Let me take you checker "experiment" as an example. There are many probabilities that could occur from such an experiment. One probability is that I could draw a checkerboard without wanting to. I could be sleeping, than I get up and sleep walk, walk to my desk, pick up a sharpie, and while still sleeping, draw a checkerboard.

Now, in my defense of science, it is the best way we have of understanding the universe. Logic can't get us everywhere, as the human mind is very limited. Now, science (or the scientific method) takes us to wondrous places, places in which our minds could not possibly fathom. Tell me, using logic, how can one show that the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon? You see, you can't. It takes observation, experimentation, and conclusions to make that theory.

Now, evolution is practically a fact. There is so much evidence behind it to back it up. And evolution works on chance. Natural selection, to be precise. I recommend you study up on it.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:03:26 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:53:01 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

How did you ascertain that? According to your logic, life in this universe only originated from choice, so how was god not created from choice?

Response: My logic is that creation originated from Choice. God is not a creation. So God was not created by choice.

HOW have you ascertained that god is not a creation? What method did you employ?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 1:33:36 PM, Pase66 wrote:

You argument necessarily follows that of the teleological argument. If one were to come upon a watch on a beech, they would assume that there is a watchmaker. Thus, since the earth came into existence by "fine tuning", it is okay to assume that there is a creator.

But, is is likely that things came into being by pure chance. Let me take you checker "experiment" as an example. There are many probabilities that could occur from such an experiment. One probability is that I could draw a checkerboard without wanting to. I could be sleeping, than I get up and sleep walk, walk to my desk, pick up a sharpie, and while still sleeping, draw a checkerboard.

Now, in my defense of science, it is the best way we have of understanding the universe. Logic can't get us everywhere, as the human mind is very limited. Now, science (or the scientific method) takes us to wondrous places, places in which our minds could not possibly fathom. Tell me, using logic, how can one show that the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon? You see, you can't. It takes observation, experimentation, and conclusions to make that theory.

Now, evolution is practically a fact. There is so much evidence behind it to back it up. And evolution works on chance. Natural selection, to be precise. I recommend you study up on it.

Response: Yet claiming a repeating pattern originates from non-choice is invalid, supported by your own failure to show a repeating pattern from non-choice, without contradiction.

Provide one. One example in real life, where we can see and observe a repeating pattern from non-choice without using contradicting logic. You cannot. That alone shows that evolution is false.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 2:04:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 1:48:11 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

HOW have you ascertained that god is not a creation? What method did you employ?

Response: The method is deductive logic. Either the originator of creation was created or uncreated. If we say all that exist was created, then that leads to an infinite regression and if you regress infinitely, then there would never be an origin. Thus there would never be a creation. Therefore the originator has to be uncreated.

A prime example is as follows. If I ask who created you and you name someone and I ask who created that someone and you name someone else, then I continue this to infinite, you would never get an answer. Thus you would not have an origin and not exist. Yet you do exist, which means you have an origin who is uncreated.