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.
Well those silly Muslims worship a false god, don't ya know? Or course those countries are bad. We need to put evangelical Christians in charge of America, and the TRUE God will bless us.
Well those silly Muslims worship a false god, don't ya know? Or course those countries are bad. We need to put evangelical Christians in charge of America, and the TRUE God will bless us.
Like, with hurricanes and stuff.
After all, the christian right is all hardcore tRump followers.
What a huge surprise. Yeah plants need CO2. Below 150 PPM most of them die especially C3 plants. Ironically it may be a boon for plants since humanity arrived since otherwise carbon is trapped in the earth crust over time. However if CO2 will not kill us all, politician and monopolists can't save us.
[SIZE=4][SIZE=2]Lootens and Heursel (1998) reported that two Phalaenopsishybrids grown at an atmospheric CO[SIZE=1]2[/SIZE] concentration of 950 ppm exhibited net photosynthetic rates that were over 80% greater than those displayed by control plants grown at 350 ppm CO[SIZE=1]2[/SIZE]. Similarly, pineapple plants grown at 700 ppm CO[SIZE=1]2[/SIZE] exhibited photosynthetic rates that were more than 80% [/SIZE][/SIZE]
I'm kinda old, but back when I was in about the 6-7-or 8th grade , around 1947 or so, we did an experiment in class involving flooding a plant in a jar with CO2 and guess what, that sucker really outgrew the reference plant. There ain't nothing new.
Burden of proof fallacy. The onus is on the one who made a claim first to back it up.
And it is self-evident by the thread title who that was.
Honestly there are other problems with it as well. Authority (of this that or the other God) is often invoked to support some argument or other - but that only works if the people you are trying to convince accept that authority as valid. For an argument like "God says X so we should do X" to be valid the authority of the source must be recognized by the people that the person making the argument is trying to convince.
Forget recognizing the authority though, existence of the entity itself cannot even be evidenced. With no way to prove the entity exists at all, and no willingness on the part of the people attempting to use the entity in fallacious arguments to define any kind of constraints that would allow for meaningful testing or evidence to be produced, the points are just dead in the water.
Yet the same flawed authoritarian arguments will be made ad nauseum because it is really all they can do.
First define what God you are talking about and some basic attributes of that God and then I can take a shot at giving you some more detailed proof requirements.
We talking about the God of the Christian Bible? Literally interpreted or open to allegory?
Generally speaking, literal interpretations are already invalidated by many overlapping fields of science, and allegorical interpretations are most often left super nebulous and amorphous so that they can simply adapt to any changes by "changing their interpretation".
In order to define proper proof criteria we must be able to define what it is exactly we are trying to prove.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 09-14-2017 at 01:20 PM..
I just asked the question to see what requirements you needed, to believe that God exists.
I probably should not have brought it up to not derail the thread.
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.