Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arequipa re post #89
I do not know how you can make it clearer than that and how it can possibly be refuted in any reasonable manner.
Thank you! I need to be reassured in the face of the supreme confidence of an erudite bod such as Mystic that I am not missing something incredibly obvious, even though the logical structure seems sound to me.
You know AREQUIPA, I have addressed this many times. And your contention is true...all things being equal. But when debating an issue that already has 85-90% in favor of one premise...and only 10-15% in favor of a competing premise...the logical position would be that the small minority has the burden of proving the premise that is so uncommonly held.
Let me explain this as best I know. Your post asks for the illogical.
Why? Because there are fallacies of logic and you want to use one of them. You ask, which one?
The fallacy of disproving a negative.
Why?
Because proving a positive (There IS a God!) requires one example. God. If it's true then it can be done.
Disproving the negative of that (Show me there ISN'T a God!) requires an infinite number of examples. That's an impossibility.
Hence, the burden of proof is upon the one making the positive assertion. It has nothing to do with belief. Nothing to do with how many people say it. It has nothing to do with anything other than pure, mathematical Logic.
Let me put it to you this way. I say there are Unicorns. Go out into the world, and prove to me there isn't a Unicorn. (In other words, I'm asking you to disprove the negative of my assertion.)
To do that, you have to show me every single item in the Universe and demonstrate that it is not a Unicorn.
Hence, the burden of proof is upon me to show that there IS a Unicorn. I just have to show one.
Get the point now?
Last edited by Astron1000; 08-08-2010 at 10:14 AM..
I saw no mention of the bible in boogieman's post....The fact remains that in days gone by most people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth...That was ignorance then, but much ignorance remains today, some of it willful, like the denial of evolution, the origin of species, including humans, and the age of the earth and universe.
Medieval Christianity believed the earth was flat. Where did they get that belief?
Logical posting...part of that problem was people believing....for some reason, which we all know...that the Earth and our species are supreme in the scheme of things and hence the center of everything....including our Universe and now Multiverse. .
The facts/theories you mention are at the heart of my thread...these are scientific facts; like the internal combustion engine. We improve our theories and refine/adjust them accordingly....like improved effeciency; however the basic tenents/theories remain essentially correct..
LOL........No..... but this satellite, which can determine temperature variations to many decimal places "was"; by taking a picture of the BIG BANG from 379,000 years after the initial explosion....PLEASE read links and my prior science posts, before commenting/posting.. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
PITTSTON2SARASOTA, your arguement is only valid if evolution was true. Since it is not then your assumptions are invalid.
Science is good, but evolution is not good science. In fact evolution itself is just a story to explain few unrelated scientific facts to prove the existance of a new religion (a belief is some far fetch story). Evolution is not a theory, but rather a poorly supported hypothesis full of conjecture. Full of the waving of hands and don't look behind the curtain at the man pushing buttons. Claims of mutations that never happened, but we believed they did (and yes some mutations did happen to God's created kinds of animals). Only if we could have more data we could prove evolution true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you cannot. And it is not!
LOL...they are scientific fact....regardless if YOU accept the theories or not...I see no links to back up ANY of your assertions.
Last evening I watched this documentary, one of the best explanations of evolution I have seen...Worth watching if you have the time. Note...This video is not available in Canada due to copyright restrictions.
Let me explain this as best I know. Your post asks for the illogical.
Why? Because there are fallacies of logic and you want to use one of them. You ask, which one?
The fallacy of disproving a negative.
Why?
Because proving a positive (There IS a God!) requires one example. God. If it's true then it can be done.
Disproving the negative of that (Show me there ISN'T a God!) requires an infinite number of examples. That's an impossibility.
Hence, the burden of proof is upon the one making the positive assertion. It has nothing to do with belief. Nothing to do with how many people say it. It has nothing to do with anything other than pure, mathematical Logic.
Let me put it to you this way. I say there are Unicorns. Go out into the world, and prove to me there isn't a Unicorn. (In other words, I'm asking you to disprove the negative of my assertion.)
To do that, you have to show me every single item in the Universe and demonstrate that it is not a Unicorn.
Hence, the burden of proof is upon me to show that there IS a Unicorn. I just have to show one.
Get the point now?
I always figured that every creation has to have a creator, otherwise it can't be a creation. And I think all would agree that everything, including ourselves, are a creation. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Have you ever taken an upper level college Physical/Biological Anthropology course? And not through Liberty U or Bob Jones...but a legitimate University?
SORRY JET......I thought/misinterpreted you wanted me to list my academic credentials.....but what the heck...it's out there now....LOL... ;-))) I see you wanted Nikk's....well maybe he/she will respond!
No I was not there, but God was there for creation, since he created everything. And each other event that you have mentioned were witnessed and written down. These individual eye-witness accounts were compiled in what we now call the bible.
Faith is evidence, evidence of what you cannot see. And the evidence we find like bones and rocks are interpreted and interpretations are directed by our presupositions. And presupositions are just that pre-supposed beliefs. My belief just happens to be that God created everything like he said in the bible and you believe that you are just a variation of a chimpanzee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
.
