Total Posts:338|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion: Atheism Arguments

David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:00:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Theists CLAIM that gods exist.
Theists can provide no evidence in support of their CLAIM.
Atheists reject their CLAIM.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

First, what kind of atheist are we talking about? The kind that A) claims no gods exist, or the kind that B) just doesn't believe in any gods because he/she hasn't seen sufficient evidence to warrant belief? I agree that A kind is definitely arguing from ignorance if a failure to "prove" god is used to justify denial of the existence of any gods.

So with that in mind, I'll argue from the point of view of the B kind (because that's what I am). In that case, the first point to establish is that I think "prove" is used in the colloquial sense in that question to really mean, "do you have any empirical evidence for your god?" It's generally understand that definitive proof is only found in math, so asking for proof of god is nonsensical.

With that in mind, the question then is really just a reminder of where the burden of proof is in this situation: the theist. In all likelihood, you arrived at your concept of a god from the wrong direction. Odds are that someone (probably your parents) told you that a god exists, they told you what he was like, you accepted it, and then you rationalized your experiences going forward to fit with the idea of that god existing. But that's now how we normally discover the existence of and then define things (for lack of a better word). Instead, we usually directly interact with an object or entity, maybe give it a name (or learn what other people call it), and then figure out what makes it different from other objects/entities based on further interaction. That type of discovery is more reliable than the way that most people learn about their gods.

For this reason, just about any claim of god can be turned into a circular argument or simply demolished by asking a few simple questions. If an atheist (of the B type I mentioned above) asks you whether you have proof of your god, they may just be cutting straight to the point and taking your "no" as a concession.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:32:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Technically, you are whats called an Agnostic Theist.

Since you are a Catholic, I assume your parents were Catholic. Have you ever considered why you are a Catholic other than that? Normally, when someone makes an affirmative statement, the burden of providing evidence is on them. Otherwise, there is just as much reason to be a Mormon or a Scientologist.
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:37:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 6:00:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Theists CLAIM that gods exist.
Theists can provide no evidence in support of their CLAIM.
Atheists reject their CLAIM.

I'd disagree. We can provide evidence in support of our claim, but we cannot prove our claim 100%. On that note, no worldview, be it agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, Christian, etc. can be proven 100%. These are why they are called faiths.
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

Yes, it's fallacious. Whether or not you are capable of proving something has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true.

It is sufficient reason to not share in your belief, but that's pretty much it.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:40:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 6:37:24 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 6:00:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Theists CLAIM that gods exist.
Theists can provide no evidence in support of their CLAIM.
Atheists reject their CLAIM.

I'd disagree. We can provide evidence in support of our claim, but we cannot prove our claim 100%. On that note, no worldview, be it agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, Christian, etc. can be proven 100%. These are why they are called faiths.

You would be the first person in existence to provide evidence if you can.
Please do so.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:43:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 6:32:38 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Technically, you are whats called an Agnostic Theist.

Since you are a Catholic, I assume your parents were Catholic. Have you ever considered why you are a Catholic other than that? Normally, when someone makes an affirmative statement, the burden of providing evidence is on them. Otherwise, there is just as much reason to be a Mormon or a Scientologist.

I've looked up the term Agnostic Theist, and I'm not one of them. An Agnostic Theist doesn't know what God is "up there," however, I am a fervent believer in Catholicism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

I doubt you are accurately telling us what they say as I know of no one who would use that argument.

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:52:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 6:37:24 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 6:00:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Theists CLAIM that gods exist.
Theists can provide no evidence in support of their CLAIM.
Atheists reject their CLAIM.

I'd disagree. We can provide evidence in support of our claim, but we cannot prove our claim 100%. On that note, no worldview, be it agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, Christian, etc. can be proven 100%. These are why they are called faiths.

Bear in mind that the Bible is not evidence, since it is the claim and cannot be used to support itself. Second, anecdotes are not evidence unless supported by independent verification by another, verifiable source. Personal experience is in the same boat. Now, provide us with some evidence that would stand up, say, in a court of criminal law.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified; and
2) it's ethical to assert authority over the lives of others from an invalid claim.

If the answer to 1) is no, then theological claims can be dismissed outright.
If the answer to 2) is no, then anyone prescribing morality from theology can be challenged and criticised too.

What do you think, David? Are 1) and 2) both okay? If so, are they okay for every belief including atheism, or just your own?
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 10:56:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 6:52:08 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/27/2016 6:37:24 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 6:00:36 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Theists CLAIM that gods exist.
Theists can provide no evidence in support of their CLAIM.
Atheists reject their CLAIM.

I'd disagree. We can provide evidence in support of our claim, but we cannot prove our claim 100%. On that note, no worldview, be it agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, Christian, etc. can be proven 100%. These are why they are called faiths.

Bear in mind that the Bible is not evidence, since it is the claim and cannot be used to support itself. Second, anecdotes are not evidence unless supported by independent verification by another, verifiable source. Personal experience is in the same boat. Now, provide us with some evidence that would stand up, say, in a court of criminal law.

If you mean hard, measurable data (science), one can look to irreducible complexity.
http://www.ideacenter.org...

If you mean theoretical, philosophical reasoning (although I'm quite sure you aren't, but I'll add it anyway), ask yourself why we have morals if killing off weaklings would provide an advantage to our survival.
"If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgements conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."
- Francis Schaeffer

My point is that atheism leaves many questions unanswered, while Christianity explains them all. Of course, I have to make my arguments as if I were agnostic. You'd have to concede that there is a God in order for me to argue which God is true, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

2) it's ethical to assert authority over the lives of others from an invalid claim.

I'll change the phrasing on this one as well:
2) It's ethical to assert authority over the lives of others from a claim that can be proven more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science).

Does that help?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:21:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

No, please answer the question I asked. If your answer is 'yes it's valid because it's more likely true than not', then please so answer.
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:30:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 11:21:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

No, please answer the question I asked. If your answer is 'yes it's valid because it's more likely true than not', then please so answer.

This question can't be answered unless we define verified. Do you mean eyewitness testimony, the future, science? I answered your question as it pertains to science. If that's not what you meant, please specify.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:51:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 11:30:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:21:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

No, please answer the question I asked. If your answer is 'yes it's valid because it's more likely true than not', then please so answer.

This question can't be answered unless we define verified. Do you mean eyewitness testimony, the future, science? I answered your question as it pertains to science. If that's not what you meant, please specify.

David, let's define verification as the product of independent corroboration. That is, if you say it's raining outside, then we can send as many independent parties as we like to go out and observe the raindrops in as many ways as they wish: with their eyes, their ears, their skin, their tongue, with cameras, collecting raindrops in buckets. That lets gives us confidence within whatever tolerance we like that they're not all lying or mistaken, and neither are you.

In particular, when you are talking about the existence of a conjectured being, we need specific, significant, falsifiable predictions from you about what that being is doing, and where, and why that and not something else, which can thereafter be verified by whatever independent parties we wish. If you conjectured a fanciful creature called a unicorn, that's what we'd need to verify it; if you conjecture an even grander being called a god, it is unreasonable to say that we cannot demand as much.

So, can your conjecture of a god be verified in any reasonable period of time? Have you sufficient knowledge of it that you can submit a range of specific, significant, transparent and falsifiable predictions to independent corroboration?

If not, then by what right can it be called knowledge at all? And is it even a valid conjecture?

And if so, why? And are all such unverifiable conjectures claimed as knowledge also valid, or just the ones you're culturally and politically predisposed to prefer?
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 1:15:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 11:51:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:30:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:21:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

No, please answer the question I asked. If your answer is 'yes it's valid because it's more likely true than not', then please so answer.

This question can't be answered unless we define verified. Do you mean eyewitness testimony, the future, science? I answered your question as it pertains to science. If that's not what you meant, please specify.

David, let's define verification as the product of independent corroboration. That is, if you say it's raining outside, then we can send as many independent parties as we like to go out and observe the raindrops in as many ways as they wish: with their eyes, their ears, their skin, their tongue, with cameras, collecting raindrops in buckets. That lets gives us confidence within whatever tolerance we like that they're not all lying or mistaken, and neither are you.

Alright. By this definition, I'll answer the above question.
1) It's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.
No. I'll explain later. Verification, as it's defined above, is different from proof.


In particular, when you are talking about the existence of a conjectured being, we need specific, significant, falsifiable predictions from you about what that being is doing, and where, and why that and not something else, which can thereafter be verified by whatever independent parties we wish. If you conjectured a fanciful creature called a unicorn, that's what we'd need to verify it; if you conjecture an even grander being called a god, it is unreasonable to say that we cannot demand as much.

Absolutely. There must be some evidence that directly or indirectly shows existence of a God, a creator. I've given a direct form (Irreducible Complexity) of evidence that everyone can observe. I've also given an indirect form (Morality) of evidence that everyone can observe. The question then becomes how much evidence is necessary to verify the existence of this Creator? I have more evidence, but I'll wait. I'd like to hear your refutation.


So, can your conjecture of a god be verified in any reasonable period of time? Have you sufficient knowledge of it that you can submit a range of specific, significant, transparent and falsifiable predictions to independent corroboration?

Yes. See above. A Creator can be verified simply by observing the earth.


If not, then by what right can it be called knowledge at all? And is it even a valid conjecture?

See above.

Hope that answered your questions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:04:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 1:15:55 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:51:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:30:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:21:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:06:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 5/27/2016 7:50:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?
As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no.

The parts you overlooked, David, are whether:
1) it's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.

I'll change the phrasing.
1) It's valid to make a claim that is more likely true than not, but cannot be verified by measurable data (science). Sound okay?

No, please answer the question I asked. If your answer is 'yes it's valid because it's more likely true than not', then please so answer.

This question can't be answered unless we define verified. Do you mean eyewitness testimony, the future, science? I answered your question as it pertains to science. If that's not what you meant, please specify.

David, let's define verification as the product of independent corroboration. That is, if you say it's raining outside, then we can send as many independent parties as we like to go out and observe the raindrops in as many ways as they wish: with their eyes, their ears, their skin, their tongue, with cameras, collecting raindrops in buckets. That lets gives us confidence within whatever tolerance we like that they're not all lying or mistaken, and neither are you.

Alright. By this definition, I'll answer the above question.
1) It's valid to make a claim that can never be verified.
No. I'll explain later. Verification, as it's defined above, is different from proof.

In particular, when you are talking about the existence of a conjectured being, we need specific, significant, falsifiable predictions from you about what that being is doing, and where, and why that and not something else, which can thereafter be verified by whatever independent parties we wish. If you conjectured a fanciful creature called a unicorn, that's what we'd need to verify it; if you conjecture an even grander being called a god, it is unreasonable to say that we cannot demand as much.
Absolutely. There must be some evidence that directly or indirectly shows existence of a God, a creator.
So you've accepted the obligation to 'prove' (your term, as-yet undefined, with no standard explained or defended) a monotheistic god, not conjecture a metaphysical creative process you can't describe. You've lowered the bar before you started. That invalidates the rest of your argument, but let's explore it anyway.

If a conjecture is true, it should be true regardless of whomever observes. So let's remove every monotheist from consideration, and any theology any monotheist has written. Let's use as our observers only those highly literate and numerate cultures from history who had never heard of monotheism (like ancient Greeks, Chinese and Indians.) Let's also grant them all the scientific knowledge we have, so they can form best models from best practice. These will be the people whose best-practice observation, logic, reason and language will be used to validate and verify what you call 'proof'.

I shall now show that where I asked you for validation and verification, what you have sought to bargain down to 'proof' is really only empty rhetoric.

I've given a direct form (Irreducible Complexity) of evidence that everyone can observe.
Firstly, you don't know how life came into existence, so you know how life came into existence? This is a fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

Secondly, if the complexity of life weren't irreducible, how would you know? That isn't an observation; it's an unfalsifiable conjecture, which makes it pseudoscience by definition. You're appealing to an authority that doesn't apply.

Thirdly, specific claims of irreducible complexity in key organs have already been soundly and serially debunked so strongly in science that even judges have been able to understand and accept the debunking. So the evidence you're appealing to is poorly-researched, and actually false. Moreover it has been shown that the proponents were being academically dishonest in making the claims in the first place. (Poke me for some history of Intelligent Design if you're interested.)

Finally, even if life were created from some metaphysical agency , such a process need not even point to deism, much less monotheism -- because you'd still have to show that the creative agency were single, intelligent and deliberate -- as opposed to mindlessly duplicating something created elsewhere. None of the observers I chose for their independence need conjecture a deist creator. They could conjecture any metaphysical creative agencies they wanted, because you have supplied no evidence to the contrary. This demonstrates that your conjecture derives from cultural bias, not observable evidence.

I've also given an indirect form (Morality) of evidence that everyone can observe.
You don't know how morality appeared, so you know how morality appeared?

Same problem as above, same criticism, same conclusions.

Hope that answered your questions.
Well, let's see how well you've done.

A member asked to validate and verify monotheism, instead set out to 'prove' deism without explaining or defending his standard of proof, and then offered us what?

A fallacious argument was offered in lieu of evidence, with a false appeal to authority based on false evidence, and loaded with cultural bias.

Your own failure, David, has offered us data: you have demonstrated one reason why unverifiable claims should be considered invalid. You're clearly not an uneducated, inarticulate member, but these claims have lost you in your own cultural biases and circular logic, and have repeatedly damaged your reasoning, transparency and accountability. What you offered us wasn't knowledge but empty rhetoric.

Now, given how badly riddled your own argument was with evasion, special pleading, and failures of critical thought, and how this has been the character of theological apologetics for its entire history -- to the point where you do not even notice it -- can you please tell us why unfalsifiable theological conjectures should not all be considered invalid?
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:24:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Is the argument that is made by many agnomists fallacious?

As a Gnomist, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that Garden Gnomes exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven Garden Gnomes doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that they doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that Garden Gnomes exist. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in Garden Gnomes, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Gnomism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an agnomists. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many agnomists make. "Can you prove Garden Gnomes?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove Garden Knomes not exist?"

Opinions?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:35:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

So you are admitting your God's commandment is flawed!

1. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thess. 5:21) KJV Story book

2. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. {make...; or, fulfil} (2 Tim. 4:5) KJV Story book

Therein lies your conundrum!

As no one in over 2000 years has ever been able to do so unambiguously nor legitimately outside of Story book Land, we may correctly conclude e.g. -

The writers of the Story book are idiots!
Story book god(s) are idiots!
Story book god(s) don't literally exist!
Those who believe they exist are idiots!
Those who believe in their Story book entire content are idiots!
There is no such thing as a genuine believer outside of Story book land!

That's a few examples I can think of for the moment!
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
These replies are getting a little bit too wordy for the character limit, so I'll make a new post to reply to your arguments.

It is my burden to provide proof for my claim. I agree to this claim. I'm not stating that I don't have the burden, or anything like that. What I am stating is that the argument "can you prove God exists" doesn't really accomplish anything. As I've stated before, all worldviews cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, they can, and have, been proven to be more likely true than not. If you'd like evidence in science, philosophy, or any realm of existence of this universe, I am more than happy to give it to you.
Just two examples of verification, as defined previously:
1) Complexity of the Universe (position of the Earth in our solar system, water's qualities, etc.). Macro evolution cannot explain the complexity of the universe, as it doesn't adapt to surroundings to survive (the Earth doesn't realize its an inch off, and correct itself using mutation).

2) The Contradictions of Darwinism (and other explanations for life). Darwinism claims that all life began with one organism. A single cell evolved into all of life on this earth, and did so nowhere else. However, many of the arguments he used to come to his conclusion don't prove macro evolution: they prove that creatures can adapt. One of his examples were the different breeds of dogs. I'll put it in a syllogism:
A) All dogs are able to be changed slightly by man's selection.
B) Therefore, all dogs are able to be changed slightly by nature's selection over time.
However, this syllogism is missing a premise that links man's selection to nature's selection. Darwin didn't add this premise, so I will:
A) All dogs are able to be changed slightly by man's selection.
B) All of man's selection is the same as nature's selection.
C) Therefore, all dogs are able to be changed slightly by nature's selection over time.
We can see that this premise is faulty, as man's selection is completely different from nature's selection. Nature might not favor a faster dog over a dog that can smell better, so as long as both survive, nature selects both dogs. The traits do not get any more refined. However, man observes each trait that each dog exhibits and breeds dogs together based on that data. He chooses not based on survivability, but based on what he wants that dog to be good at. Running? Then a dog that can smell better than others, even though it could survive, will not be breed, and man selects only one dog.

Response?
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:28:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:
These replies are getting a little bit too wordy for the character limit, so I'll make a new post to reply to your arguments.

It is my burden to provide proof for my claim. I agree to this claim. I'm not stating that I don't have the burden, or anything like that. What I am stating is that the argument "can you prove God exists" doesn't really accomplish anything. As I've stated before, all worldviews cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, they can, and have, been proven to be more likely true than not. If you'd like evidence in science, philosophy, or any realm of existence of this universe, I am more than happy to give it to you.
Just two examples of verification, as defined previously:
1) Complexity of the Universe (position of the Earth in our solar system, water's qualities, etc.). Macro evolution cannot explain the complexity of the universe, as it doesn't adapt to surroundings to survive (the Earth doesn't realize its an inch off, and correct itself using mutation).

2) The Contradictions of Darwinism (and other explanations for life). Darwinism claims that all life began with one organism. A single cell evolved into all of life on this earth, and did so nowhere else. However, many of the arguments he used to come to his conclusion don't prove macro evolution: they prove that creatures can adapt. One of his examples were the different breeds of dogs. I'll put it in a syllogism:
A) All dogs are able to be changed slightly by man's selection.
B) Therefore, all dogs are able to be changed slightly by nature's selection over time.
However, this syllogism is missing a premise that links man's selection to nature's selection. Darwin didn't add this premise, so I will:
A) All dogs are able to be changed slightly by man's selection.
B) All of man's selection is the same as nature's selection.
C) Therefore, all dogs are able to be changed slightly by nature's selection over time.
We can see that this premise is faulty, as man's selection is completely different from nature's selection. Nature might not favor a faster dog over a dog that can smell better, so as long as both survive, nature selects both dogs. The traits do not get any more refined. However, man observes each trait that each dog exhibits and breeds dogs together based on that data. He chooses not based on survivability, but based on what he wants that dog to be good at. Running? Then a dog that can smell better than others, even though it could survive, will not be breed, and man selects only one dog.

Response?
How do you determine complexity?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
keithprosser
Posts: 1,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:59:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Nature might not favor a faster dog over a dog that can smell better, so as long as both survive, nature selects both dogs.

You're getting it!

Dogs that can run fast and dogs with a good sense of smell are going to take up different life-styles. One lot will go haring after any prey it can see, the others will potter around sniffing for stuff it can eat without too much running aound.

Both groups may well survive, but over time they will diverge more and more. The reason for the divergence between the groups to increase is "intra-specific" competition, ie competion within the group, not between the groups. (Indeed as the two groups end up going after different prey there will not be much "intER specific" competion).

If we consider the 'running' group first, there will be faster and slower individuals in it. The faster ones have more offspring than the slower ones because the faster ones have better access to food. In the running group slowcoaches don't have kids - they starve. So the next generation of runners will - on average - be just a little bit faster then the previous one. That process continues until any further increase in speed doesn't pay. That can happen because - for example - although longer legs increase speed they are also more likely to get broken. No animal can evolve to run at the speed of light - there are always practical limits and compromises between competing factors, such as strength and length and how much energy it costs to go faster.

But while the 'runners' were evolving their ever longer legs, bigger lungs and better muscles, the 'sniffers' were competing amongst themselves on the basis of the qualities required to survive and breed on prey that can be sniffed out. Maybe short legs are good for that - it gets your nose nearer the ground. So we end up with two groups, one lot going for ever longer and stronger legs, the other lot going for ever better sense of smell and short stumpy legs.

Darwinian speciation is well on its way.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 9:32:35 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:

1) Complexity of the Universe (position of the Earth in our solar system, water's qualities, etc.). Macro evolution cannot explain the complexity of the universe, as it doesn't adapt to surroundings to survive (the Earth doesn't realize its an inch off, and correct itself using mutation).

This is not verification but more assertion and argument from ignorance.

Firstly, you seem to be confusing the theory of evolution (biology, ie. life) with cosmology.

Secondly, you are committing the puddle and hole fallacy:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in --- an interesting hole I find myself in --- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!"
--- Douglas Adams

You, like the puddle, have it backwards. As it rained, the water filled the contours of the hole and so the puddle was born to the shape of the hole. Similarly, life arose and evolved on Earth to suit the conditions found on the surface of the planet. It is no coincidence that all life is made of the common elements found in the air and on the crust. It is no coincidence that all life requires an Earth-centric range of temperature and pressure. It is no coincidence that most life requires the gases that are in the atmosphere or dissolved in the water. It couldn't be any other way. Life fits the Earth. The Earth was not made or positioned to accomodate life.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 9:41:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:

These replies are getting a little bit too wordy for the character limit, so I'll make a new post to reply to your arguments.

I really think that you need to respond to Ruv's post #18. You aren't addressing the criticisms to your existing claims, only making further similar claims which achieves nothing if you don't understand the problems with the originals.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:32:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 9:32:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:

1) Complexity of the Universe (position of the Earth in our solar system, water's qualities, etc.). Macro evolution cannot explain the complexity of the universe, as it doesn't adapt to surroundings to survive (the Earth doesn't realize its an inch off, and correct itself using mutation).

This is not verification but more assertion and argument from ignorance.

Firstly, you seem to be confusing the theory of evolution (biology, ie. life) with cosmology.

Secondly, you are committing the puddle and hole fallacy:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in --- an interesting hole I find myself in --- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!"
--- Douglas Adams

You, like the puddle, have it backwards. As it rained, the water filled the contours of the hole and so the puddle was born to the shape of the hole. Similarly, life arose and evolved on Earth to suit the conditions found on the surface of the planet. It is no coincidence that all life is made of the common elements found in the air and on the crust. It is no coincidence that all life requires an Earth-centric range of temperature and pressure. It is no coincidence that most life requires the gases that are in the atmosphere or dissolved in the water. It couldn't be any other way. Life fits the Earth. The Earth was not made or positioned to accomodate life.

Oh Hoorah.
I fear it is still to complicated for the believers.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 9:41:04 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:

These replies are getting a little bit too wordy for the character limit, so I'll make a new post to reply to your arguments.

I really think that you need to respond to Ruv's post #18. You aren't addressing the criticisms to your existing claims, only making further similar claims which achieves nothing if you don't understand the problems with the originals.

I've already stated it. The character count doesn't allow me to. I would, but I can't. I'd have to start a new post, so I have.
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:19:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 4:24:22 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:55:01 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Is the argument that is made by many atheists fallacious?

As a Catholic, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that your God exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven my God doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that he doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that God exists. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in God, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Catholicism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an atheist. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many atheists make. "Can you prove your God exists?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove he doesn't exist?"

Opinions?

Is the argument that is made by many agnomists fallacious?

As a Gnomist, I hear time and time again: "Can you prove that Garden Gnomes exists?" My answer is always a resounding no. Then, they walk away, saying that they have proven Garden Gnomes doesn't exist, and that I admitted it. However, did I really admit that they doesn't exist?

No. I've stated there is no way to prove that Garden Gnomes exist. This is a big deal, and this is why many people stop believing in Garden Gnomes, because there is no way to know for sure. This is why Gnomism is called a FAITH. It's because we believe without 100% proof. This doesn't mean we believe without any proof at all, it means we cannot prove it to be conclusively true.

Knowing this, let's go back to the argument made by many an agnomists. Is this argument fallacious? The answer is yes. Now we must ask what fallacy it commits, which is simple: It commits the fallacy of ignorance.

The fallacy of ignorance is defined to be, "The argument that the lack of proof or disproof for a certain subject makes it false or true, instead of providing proof for their case." An example would be "Aliens exist. Has the government proven that there are no such things as UFOs?" In other words, when someone says, "Oh yeah? Prove it," they are committing the fallacy of ignorance. This is clearly seen in the argument many agnomists make. "Can you prove Garden Gnomes?" By the same logic, I can turn around and make just as fallacious an argument by saying, "Can you prove Garden Knomes not exist?"

Opinions?

Yes, you can fill in any religion for my argument. I must argue as if I were agnostic, because in order for me to argue that the Christian God is the true God, you would need to concede that there is a God. I've already answered someone with the exact same wording, so I would appreciate if you read the entire thread before commenting. Thank you.
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:29:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:59:32 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Nature might not favor a faster dog over a dog that can smell better, so as long as both survive, nature selects both dogs.

You're getting it!

Dogs that can run fast and dogs with a good sense of smell are going to take up different life-styles. One lot will go haring after any prey it can see, the others will potter around sniffing for stuff it can eat without too much running aound.

Both groups may well survive, but over time they will diverge more and more. The reason for the divergence between the groups to increase is "intra-specific" competition, ie competion within the group, not between the groups. (Indeed as the two groups end up going after different prey there will not be much "intER specific" competion).

If we consider the 'running' group first, there will be faster and slower individuals in it. The faster ones have more offspring than the slower ones because the faster ones have better access to food. In the running group slowcoaches don't have kids - they starve. So the next generation of runners will - on average - be just a little bit faster then the previous one. That process continues until any further increase in speed doesn't pay. That can happen because - for example - although longer legs increase speed they are also more likely to get broken. No animal can evolve to run at the speed of light - there are always practical limits and compromises between competing factors, such as strength and length and how much energy it costs to go faster.

But while the 'runners' were evolving their ever longer legs, bigger lungs and better muscles, the 'sniffers' were competing amongst themselves on the basis of the qualities required to survive and breed on prey that can be sniffed out. Maybe short legs are good for that - it gets your nose nearer the ground. So we end up with two groups, one lot going for ever longer and stronger legs, the other lot going for ever better sense of smell and short stumpy legs.

Darwinian speciation is well on its way.

This term is analogous to micro evolution. Of course micro evolution is true, we see it today. But there are limits, like the ones you mention in your own argument, to evolution as a whole. In other words, if this organism becomes to specialized, it will eventually become sterile, and it's entire line will die out. I'd recommend you read the article I'll link at the bottom.
http://www.newgeology.us...
David_Debates
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 9:32:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:12:50 AM, David_Debates wrote:

1) Complexity of the Universe (position of the Earth in our solar system, water's qualities, etc.). Macro evolution cannot explain the complexity of the universe, as it doesn't adapt to surroundings to survive (the Earth doesn't realize its an inch off, and correct itself using mutation).

This is not verification but more assertion and argument from ignorance.

Firstly, you seem to be confusing the theory of evolution (biology, ie. life) with cosmology.

Secondly, you are committing the puddle and hole fallacy:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in --- an interesting hole I find myself in --- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!"
--- Douglas Adams

You, like the puddle, have it backwards. As it rained, the water filled the contours of the hole and so the puddle was born to the shape of the hole. Similarly, life arose and evolved on Earth to suit the conditions found on the surface of the planet. It is no coincidence that all life is made of the common elements found in the air and on the crust. It is no coincidence that all life requires an Earth-centric range of temperature and pressure. It is no coincidence that most life requires the gases that are in the atmosphere or dissolved in the water. It couldn't be any other way. Life fits the Earth. The Earth was not made or positioned to accomodate life.

If so, then offer an explanation why we see no life anywhere else. If, of course, life adapts to the planet that they are on. In other words, why are we the only puddle with a hole when there are so many holes out in the universe?