Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
The "I'm right until you prove me wrong" rule Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Orophin Frost

Romantic Millionaire

7,900 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Tycoon 200
  • Millionaire 200
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:05 am
Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them.  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:38 pm
They're not right per se, although they do have the logical high ground. Since it's impossible to prove a universal negative like "God doesn't exist", their contention is that their position is correct until a positive proof for God's existence is offered. Basically, they discount the idea of God for they same reason that they discount the idea of Big Foot: no positive empirical proof.

It should be noted, though, that this is a very narrow avenue of inquiry. While it's true that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence, there are other (deductive) arguments for the existence of God that operate independently of the idea of burden of proof.  

Tarrou


The Noble Protoman.exe

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:58 pm
It's called stubborn'dness. With Gaians especially I see this, if they're looking for an argument, you know you cannot win. Don't attempt to prove yourself right, it's just adding fuel to their fire.  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:07 pm
Tangled Up In Blue
They're not right per se, although they do have the logical high ground.
By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's.

Take, for example, our discussion in the other thread. I find your views to be extremely logical. I find my views to be logical as well, though the systems behind our logic are a bit different.

At the same point, who is on the high ground in my logical system and who has the high ground in your logical system will most likely be different.

P.s. I snipped you because there's nothing else in there that's remotely contestable. You're pretty much right on the dot. I just thought I'd have some fun with this logic thing. =)  

Berezi


ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:47 pm
Berezi
By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's.

Well, wikipedia does at least. I could probably find you other places that have a comprehensive list of logical fallacies.  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:41 pm
Berezi
By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's.

Given that logic is, at its core, a concern with correctness of argument, there are objective logical standards that can be applied to any argument (i.e. 'Does B follow from A?'). It would be hard to argue that theists, lacking positive proof of God, have a logical advantage when contending that God exists, given that their opponents a.) don't need positive proof and b.) have a weaker but still valid negative proof.
As I've said, there are logical, deductive arguments that can be made for the existence of God, meaning that the question of whether there is empirical proof of God is not of critical importance.

Quote:
Take, for example, our discussion in the other thread. I find your views to be extremely logical. I find my views to be logical as well, though the systems behind our logic are a bit different.

Yes, but the difference isn't accounted for by different systems of logic. Our views are different because we start with different assumptions about the world. As such, we of course wind up drawing different conclusions. If both our views are logical, then that is because they both utilize logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. If they are different, it's because we didn't start from the same point.  

Tarrou


Berezi

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:08 pm
Tangled Up In Blue
Berezi
By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's.

Given that logic is, at its core, a concern with correctness of argument, there are objective logical standards that can be applied to any argument (i.e. 'Does B follow from A?'). It would be hard to argue that theists, lacking positive proof of God, have a logical advantage when contending that God exists, given that their opponents a.) don't need positive proof and b.) have a weaker but still valid negative proof.
As I've said, there are logical, deductive arguments that can be made for the existence of God, meaning that the question of whether there is empirical proof of God is not of critical importance.

Quote:
Take, for example, our discussion in the other thread. I find your views to be extremely logical. I find my views to be logical as well, though the systems behind our logic are a bit different.

Yes, but the difference isn't accounted for by different systems of logic. Our views are different because we start with different assumptions about the world. As such, we of course wind up drawing different conclusions. If both our views are logical, then that is because they both utilize logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. If they are different, it's because we didn't start from the same point.

Which is what I meant to say, just not quite in those words...

There is some universal objectiveness in logic, yes, but I also feel it isn't all it's cracked up to be simply because of how it can be used differently.

Although that doesn't exaclty mean that I still don't use logic...I use it a lot...

=)  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:09 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor
Berezi
By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's.

Well, wikipedia does at least. I could probably find you other places that have a comprehensive list of logical fallacies.
Cometh, you make me happy.

I think what Tangled said is more like how I view logic.

I'm crappy at articulating things.  

Berezi


ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:31 pm
Berezi
Cometh, you make me happy.

I think what Tangled said is more like how I view logic.

I'm crappy at articulating things.

I try my best. smile  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:09 am
Cometh The Inquisitor

I try my best. smile
Pssh. You just eminate good times. biggrin  

Berezi


zz1000zz

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:39 pm
Dark_Orophin
Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them.


I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof.  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:19 pm
zz1000zz
Dark_Orophin
Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them.


I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof.
So do you want to see the dragon in my garage?  

The Noble Protoman.exe


Seority

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:30 pm

There arn't entirly right as most have already said. It immpossible, by science, to prove that there is a God and that there is no God. As for logic, it just goes by what people think is more logical while I'd rather believe in some kind of answers to the un-answerable questions rather then believing in absolutly nothing.
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:09 pm
zz1000zz
Dark_Orophin
Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them.


I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof.

I would like for anyone, especially an aethiest to prove scientifically, and mathematically that anyone has thoughts and emotions! Oh, by the way, you can't! Oh by the way prove math exists using only the laws of science. Or prove science by the laws of math. You can't fully prove any of it. It is impossible!
So proof isn't always available the way most people say they have to have it!
Prove to me that this (1) is the number one. Prove it using the laws of science or mathematically. Because I can prove to you with the same laws that it isn't.
Just because you can't prove something just by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact what you don't hear from most non-Christian scientists are the things that they can't prove with science, but only by faith. For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science.
Science is a theory. It is a theory of tests and measurements. Science is all about theories and then using tests and measures to prove or disprove.
Just because their isn't scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Scientists today cannot prove that George Washington existed by just using science. It is immpossible. Is George Washington a lie? No one questions his existance. So don't question the existance of my God.
Prove to me that he doesn't! Please give all sources! Thanks!  

jamesthelittle


zz1000zz

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:30 pm
jamesthelittle
zz1000zz
Dark_Orophin
Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them.


I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof.

I would like for anyone, especially an aethiest to prove scientifically, and mathematically that anyone has thoughts and emotions! Oh, by the way, you can't! Oh by the way prove math exists using only the laws of science. Or prove science by the laws of math. You can't fully prove any of it. It is impossible!
So proof isn't always available the way most people say they have to have it!
Prove to me that this (1) is the number one. Prove it using the laws of science or mathematically. Because I can prove to you with the same laws that it isn't.
Just because you can't prove something just by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact what you don't hear from most non-Christian scientists are the things that they can't prove with science, but only by faith. For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science.
Science is a theory. It is a theory of tests and measurements. Science is all about theories and then using tests and measures to prove or disprove.
Just because their isn't scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Scientists today cannot prove that George Washington existed by just using science. It is immpossible. Is George Washington a lie? No one questions his existance. So don't question the existance of my God.
Prove to me that he doesn't! Please give all sources! Thanks!


This is simply a poor translation of solipsism. The response is simple. There is no absolute truth, nor any means of proving anything *exists* in the most literal sense. Accepting this, science chooses to assume an objective universe exists, and this objective universe is the one perceived by everyone in the world. This assumption can be rejected, or it can be accepted. Science exists to allow communication of ideas amongst individuals, but it does not demand anyone accept it. If you reject it, science does not care as it is only a system of thought and reasoning.

The only reasons it is viewed as more reliable than religion is that more people accept these common perceptions than accept any particular religion, and that it is free of logical flaws.

Quote:
For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science.


I would appreciate it if you would cease misrepresenting those with whom you disagree. There is no law of science which would be contradicted by the existence of nothingness, though so far nothingness has not been found.  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum