Christians Vs. Religious(other) - Evidence & Proof

02/08/2015 04:31:07 PM · #151

And Jews don't believe you go to hell for eating delicious bacon wrapped shrimp.

Minor details - and non-critical to the point.

But I am impressed by being caught out on both. Well done.

rooum

02/08/2015 05:08:50 PM · #152

Oh, I'm just being pedantic. Like I say, minor point and it of course doesn't impact on your question at all. The thread has been an interesting read.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/10/2015 05:16:57 PM · #153

Coming in a bit late. I only check here every-so-often.

Interesting that you call yourself an atheist. Calling yourself such would mean you have proof that God doesn't exist. Can you produce that proof?

If you truly held to your scientific convictions, you would title yourself as agnostic.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/10/2015 05:35:41 PM · #154

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you truly held to your scientific convictions, you would title yourself as agnostic.

An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

02/10/2015 05:45:26 PM · #155

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

I'm not certain where you're getting your definitions from. Atheism rejections the existence of deities (hence a-theist or against theism -- the belief in deities).

Agnosticism is not knowing.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/10/2015 05:46:57 PM · #156

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

I'm not certain where you're getting your definitions from. Atheism rejections the existence of deities (hence a-theist or against theism -- the belief in deities).

Agnosticism is not knowing.

There are different kinds of atheists. There are positive and negative atheists.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/10/2015 06:30:55 PM · #157

Originally posted by Nullix:

...Interesting that you call yourself an atheist. Calling yourself such would mean you have proof that God doesn't exist. Can you produce that proof?

If you truly held to your scientific convictions, you would title yourself as agnostic.

Nice try, but atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. The mere fact that someone does not believe something does not require any form of scientific proof as it is a personal conviction.

When one attributes no value to an entity, just how would you go about "Proving" something you don't believe in.

Ray

02/10/2015 06:39:34 PM · #158

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

There are different kinds of atheists. There are positive and negative atheists.

My bad. I figured there was only atheists and agnostics. I'd say the negative atheists are really agnostics.

Cory does seem to want a proof of God using scientific method. The problem is, the scientific method requires measurable evidence. There are things (like God) that aren't measurable.

What you'll need is something other than the scientific method for proof. Something above science like meta-science (philosophy) to proof the existence of God.

Are you willing to look at the philosophical proofs of the existence of God?

02/10/2015 06:52:58 PM · #159

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:
There are different kinds of atheists. There are positive and negative atheists.

My bad. I figured there was only atheists and agnostics. I'd say the negative atheists are really agnostics.

Cory does seem to want a proof of God using scientific method. The problem is, the scientific method requires measurable evidence. There are things (like God) that aren't measurable.

What you'll need is something other than the scientific method for proof. Something above science like meta-science (philosophy) to proof the existence of God.

Are you willing to look at the philosophical proofs of the existence of God?

i'd be interested to hear the philosophical evidence. would you agree that if God can only be proven using philosophy, then he probably does not exist in the natural realm at all? and if human's invented philosophy, that would make God a human construct?

Message edited by author 2015-02-10 18:53:13.

02/10/2015 07:01:37 PM · #160

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Cory does seem to want a proof of God using scientific method. The problem is, the scientific method requires measurable evidence. There are things (like God) that aren't measurable.

What you'll need is something other than the scientific method for proof. Something above science like meta-science (philosophy) to proof the existence of God.

Are you willing to look at the philosophical proofs of the existence of God?

i'd be interested to hear the philosophical evidence. would you agree that if God can only be proven using philosophy, then he probably does not exist in the natural realm at all? and if human's invented philosophy, that would make God a human construct?

But there are things in this universe that cannot be measured by science. You cannot measure beauty or goodness of something, but those exist in our universe.

Even concepts (such as the scientific method) cannot be measured, but they exist.

02/10/2015 07:18:40 PM · #161

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Cory does seem to want a proof of God using scientific method. The problem is, the scientific method requires measurable evidence. There are things (like God) that aren't measurable.

What you'll need is something other than the scientific method for proof. Something above science like meta-science (philosophy) to proof the existence of God.

Are you willing to look at the philosophical proofs of the existence of God?

i'd be interested to hear the philosophical evidence. would you agree that if God can only be proven using philosophy, then he probably does not exist in the natural realm at all? and if human's invented philosophy, that would make God a human construct?

But there are things in this universe that cannot be measured by science. You cannot measure beauty or goodness of something, but those exist in our universe.

Even concepts (such as the scientific method) cannot be measured, but they exist.

Beauty and goodness are qualia, and they do not exist in nature outside the imagination of humans.

The scientific method does not exist in nature, it is a tool invented by humans.

02/10/2015 07:29:58 PM · #162

the interesting thing about qualia is that many things you might think are grounded in nature are really inextricable from the subjective experience of humans. for example, i would argue that the the colors of the rainbow do not exist in nature.

02/10/2015 08:01:55 PM · #163

Originally posted by Cory:

Please explain to me what Evidence or Proof you accept when you dismiss the claims of other religions as false. I have included 5 questions below, the answers to which I believe will help to illuminate this issue in a more understandable way for both sides of this argument.

1. What proof is there that Mohammad was not a prophet of God? (Islam)
2. What evidence is there that you won't go to hell for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp? (Judaism)
3. What proof is there that there aren't MANY gods? (Roman Mythology)
4. What convinced you that Amon Ra was not God? (Egyptian Mythology)
5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

ADDENDUM: What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken in your beliefs as a Christians and Muslims are correct?

In order to answer these question I'd have to prove the following:
A) The universe was created.
B) There is a creator of that universe.
C) That creator influenced and entered into history.

Those are some pretty big proofs. If you can assume A-C, you will find that:
1. Mohammad is not a prophet of that Creator since Mohammad rejects C.
2. During C, that creator removed the dietary rules he established.
3. With B, there can be only one un-created Creator. Otherwise, you'd have an infinite regress.
4. Not certain about this one since I don't know much about Amon Ra. I'd say refer to #3. Also when the Creator influenced history, he was working against Egypt and their gods. Also, I'd imagine the followers of Amon Ra would also disagree.
5. See #3.

Now it comes down to proving A, B, and C. I'm not certain that can be done here.

Message edited by author 2015-02-11 11:18:31.

02/10/2015 11:04:48 PM · #164

Originally posted by Nullix:

FWIW, I don't need the scientific method in any strict form. I'd be perfectly pleased with evidence that wasn't circular, anecdotal, or otherwise invalidated before we even start.

02/10/2015 11:07:08 PM · #165

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Cory does seem to want a proof of God using scientific method. The problem is, the scientific method requires measurable evidence. There are things (like God) that aren't measurable.

What you'll need is something other than the scientific method for proof. Something above science like meta-science (philosophy) to proof the existence of God.

Are you willing to look at the philosophical proofs of the existence of God?

i'd be interested to hear the philosophical evidence. would you agree that if God can only be proven using philosophy, then he probably does not exist in the natural realm at all? and if human's invented philosophy, that would make God a human construct?

But there are things in this universe that cannot be measured by science. You cannot measure beauty or goodness of something, but those exist in our universe.

Even concepts (such as the scientific method) cannot be measured, but they exist.

Beauty and goodness are qualia, and they do not exist in nature outside the imagination of humans.

The scientific method does not exist in nature, it is a tool invented by humans.

And with that post I add you to my favorites. Well said.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/10/2015 11:09:29 PM · #166

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Cory:

Please explain to me what Evidence or Proof you accept when you dismiss the claims of other religions as false. I have included 5 questions below, the answers to which I believe will help to illuminate this issue in a more understandable way for both sides of this argument.

1. What proof is there that Mohammad was not a prophet of God? (Islam)
2. What evidence is there that you won't go to hell for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp? (Judaism)
3. What proof is there that there aren't MANY gods? (Roman Mythology)
4. What convinced you that Amon Ra was not God? (Egyptian Mythology)
5. How do we know that the Mercury and Mars are not gods? (Celtic Polytheism)

ADDENDUM: What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken in your beliefs as a Christians and Muslims are correct?

In order to answer these question I'd have to prove the following:
A) The universe was created.
B) There is a creator of that universe.
C) That creator influenced and entered into history.

Those are some pretty big proofs. If you can assume 1-3, you will find that:
1. Mohammad is not a prophet of that Creator since Mohammad rejects C.
2. During C, that creator removed the dietary rules he established.
3. With B, there can be only one un-created Creator. Otherwise, you'd have an infinite regress.
4. Not certain about this one since I don't know much about Amon Ra. I'd say refer to #3. Also when the Creator influenced history, he was working against Egypt and their gods. Also, I'd imagine the followers of Amon Ra would also disagree.
5. See #3.

Now it comes down to proving A, B, and C. I'm not certain that can be done here.

Wow, what a great day. Another favorite for you, for the best damned answer yet. Well done

Nullix!

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/10/2015 11:40:17 PM · #167

On the other hand, leaving *God* out of it for a second:

Originally posted by Robinson Jeffers, The Inhumanist:

VIII

...the stars, the winds and the people: one energy,
The beauty of things �
Is in the beholder's brain � the human mind's translation of their transhuman
Intrinsic value. It is their color in our eyes: as we say blood is red and blood is the life:
It is the life. Which is like beauty. It is like nobility. It has no name � and that's lucky, for names
Foul in the mouthing. The human race is bound to defile, I've often noticed it.
Whatever they can reach or name. They'd shit on the morning star
If they could reach.

IX

Or as mathematics, a human invention
That parallels but never touches reality, gives the astronomer
Metaphors through which he may comprehend
The powers and the flow of things: so the human sense
Of beauty is our metaphor of their excellence, their divine nature: � like dust in a whirlwind, making
The wild wind visible.

Message edited by author 2015-02-10 23:43:02.

02/11/2015 12:30:48 AM · #168

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

On the other hand, leaving *God* out of it for a second:

Originally posted by Robinson Jeffers, The Inhumanist:
VIII

...the stars, the winds and the people: one energy,
The beauty of things �
Is in the beholder's brain � the human mind's translation of their transhuman
Intrinsic value. It is their color in our eyes: as we say blood is red and blood is the life:
It is the life. Which is like beauty. It is like nobility. It has no name � and that's lucky, for names
Foul in the mouthing. The human race is bound to defile, I've often noticed it.
Whatever they can reach or name. They'd shit on the morning star
If they could reach.

IX

Or as mathematics, a human invention
That parallels but never touches reality, gives the astronomer
Metaphors through which he may comprehend
The powers and the flow of things: so the human sense
Of beauty is our metaphor of their excellence, their divine nature: � like dust in a whirlwind, making
The wild wind visible.

Delicious. I'd fave you too, but.. well. yeah, it won't let me. :)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/11/2015 11:29:23 AM · #169

Originally posted by CoryADDENDUM:

What evidence would convince you that you were mistaken in your beliefs as a Christians and Muslims are correct?

Oh, that's a hard one. I'd have to answer that with a question.

What evidence would convince you that 1 + 1 = 1? I don't think there's any evidence that would convince anyone that false is true.

Message edited by author 2015-02-11 13:56:06.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/11/2015 01:37:37 PM · #170

Originally posted by Nullix:

What evidence would convince you that 1 + 1 = 1? I don't think there's any evidence that would convince anyone that false is true.

"Proof" that 1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Of course using Peano's Postulates creates issues if you are counting your change. It comes down to a divide by zero problem. The same issue comes into expanding any null set; an un-measurable amount can not be expanded or divided and get anythng but a null set. The same issue occurs when you try to expand something that can only be taken by faith ( that is a belief based on an absence of evidence ) when it is expanded into laws and coercive behavior by the faithfull.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/11/2015 01:43:41 PM · #171

Message edited by author 2015-02-11 13:45:08.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/11/2015 02:22:06 PM · #172

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Nullix:
What evidence would convince you that 1 + 1 = 1? I don't think there's any evidence that would convince anyone that false is true.

"Proof" that 1 + 1 = 1
a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Of course using Peano's Postulates creates issues if you are counting your change. It comes down to a divide by zero problem. The same issue comes into expanding any null set; an un-measurable amount can not be expanded or divided and get anythng but a null set. The same issue occurs when you try to expand something that can only be taken by faith ( that is a belief based on an absence of evidence ) when it is expanded into laws and coercive behavior by the faithfull.

making a constant equal two distinct variables, nice touch.

02/11/2015 07:25:24 PM · #173

Okay, a slow time at work so I have time to read the 7 pages of this thread. There are just too many faulty assumptions I'm reading here about Christianity.

Wasn't there a thread on this called ?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask?