Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
Thanks Tree14Thanks

Thread: Eric the Magic Pengruin

  1. #31
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,880
    Thanks
    26615

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Actually, my argument was that if Eric could be proven not to exist, that same method of poof could be applied to God. You simply chose to argue that Eric can simply be asserted to not exist, because Eric's existence is an assertion without evidence, and that assertion does not affect the question of God. My response is that the same assertion, without evidence, can be made to God, being asserted without evidence.

    If Eric could not be proven to exist, then there was "no method of proof", so nothing to apply to God.

    Your semantics led you into a logical fallacy.

    I did not argue that Eric can be asserted not to exist -- I broke the situation down into two cases -- one where Eric does exist and one where he doesn't exist, and then followed the matter logically along those two branches.

    Well, I did note that Eric can be asserted not to exist, but I also noted that such an assertion has no bearing on whether he actually does exist.


    I totally agree that you can assert that God exists or not, without evidence. But that says nothing about whether or not God actually does exist.

    Your OP claimed to hold a proof that God did not exist.

    I showed that no such proof was made.




    All the while without making any assertions about the existence of either Eric or God.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    If Eric could not be proven to exist, then there was "no method of proof", so nothing to apply to God.
    Nope. Nope. Nope. You're missing the whole point of the thought experiment. Eric the Penguin is not a response to the challenge to "prove God Exists". The point is that theists, in an attempt to turn the question on its ear like to respond to atheists with the challenge "Prove God doesn't exist," as if that's somehow, a valid argument. Eric the Penguin is the response to the latter.

  3. #33
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,880
    Thanks
    26615

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Nope. Nope. Nope. You're missing the whole point of the thought experiment. Eric the Penguin is not a response to the challenge to "prove God Exists". The point is that theists, in an attempt to turn the question on its ear like to respond to atheists with the challenge "Prove God doesn't exist," as if that's somehow, a valid argument. Eric the Penguin is the response to the latter.

    Well, I am a theist and I don't make that challenge.

    Because I know better.


    I watch the fallacious arguments on both sides. I watch you start thread after thread about theism and atheism and you seem to be very frustrated that you can't prove theists wrong any more than someone else can prove atheists wrong.

    So if you in fact realized that the argument in the OP was false, then good for you. I needn't have bothered showing it was false.
    Thanks from pragmatic

  4. #34
    Begin with a happy Ending Engine-Ear's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    14,715
    Thanks
    10716

    From
    The last place I lost my keys.
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm not certain that anyone has ever seen a single atom. However, we do have objective, verifiable evidence of the effect of a single atom on the universe around it. Can the same be said of God?
    I would reply Yes. As much of molecular science is based on accepted theory that neatly fits a mathematical model. And mathematics is a construct of humans built to fit a base ten counting system, developed by humans. While the effect of God on the surrounding universe may not be a easily quantifiable or measurable, the effect of God does exist, profoundly. The difference is that God's effect on mankind exist whether or not God exists. So, with respect to science, is it possible for something that does not exist to have such a profound effect on the universe?

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Well, I am a theist and I don't make that challenge.

    Because I know better.


    I watch the fallacious arguments on both sides. I watch you start thread after thread about theism and atheism and you seem to be very frustrated that you can't prove theists wrong any more than someone else can prove atheists wrong.

    So if you in fact realized that the argument in the OP was false, then good for you. I needn't have bothered showing it was false.
    See? There you just did it, while insisting that you don't do it: " I am a theist and I don't make that challenge," followed by "...you seem to be very frustrated that you can't prove theists wrong,"

    The point is I don't need to "prove you wrong". Theists insist that they have "faith based on evidence". The problem is that evidence, by definition, is an outward sign that proves the existence of a thing. So to talk about something being "evidence to me" is a corruption of the very concept of evidence. This is the source of my "frustration". It isn't that I can't "prove theists wrong". It's that theists choose to believe in something for which the is no objective evidence, while simultaneously insisting that their belief is rational, logical, and based on evidence.

    If you want to believe in something for which there is no objective evidence, that's fine. Just quit trying to pretend that your belief is one bourne of reason.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    I would reply Yes. As much of molecular science is based on accepted theory that neatly fits a mathematical model. And mathematics is a construct of humans built to fit a base ten counting system, developed by humans. While the effect of God on the surrounding universe may not be a easily quantifiable or measurable, the effect of God does exist, profoundly. The difference is that God's effect on mankind exist whether or not God exists. So, with respect to science, is it possible for something that does not exist to have such a profound effect on the universe?
    By all means, demonstrate, objectively, that effect on mankind. Note, I am looking for evidence of the effect of God, not the effect of religion. Those are two different things.

  7. #37
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,880
    Thanks
    26615

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    See? There you just did it, while insisting that you don't do it: " I am a theist and I don't make that challenge," followed by "...you seem to be very frustrated that you can't prove theists wrong,"

    The point is I don't need to "prove you wrong". Theists insist that they have "faith based on evidence". The problem is that evidence, by definition, is an outward sign that proves the existence of a thing. So to talk about something being "evidence to me" is a corruption of the very concept of evidence. This is the source of my "frustration". It isn't that I can't "prove theists wrong". It's that theists choose to believe in something for which the is no objective evidence, while simultaneously insisting that their belief is rational, logical, and based on evidence.

    If you want to believe in something for which there is no objective evidence, that's fine. Just quit trying to pretend that your belief is one bourne of reason.
    As I said, you _seem_ very frustrated because theists don't accept YOUR premise that they are unreasonable.

    Not everything which exists can be explained or tested by science. The lack of scientific metrics for something does not mean there is no evidence for the thing's existence. Maybe one day science and faith in God will reconcile. Maybe they won't. There is not enough "objective, verifiable" evidence yet on either side to say whether either of theism or atheism is more reasonable.

    Bye for now.

    I entered the thread to address your fallacious OP. I dispatched that. My work here is done.

  8. #38
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,462
    Thanks
    9400

    From
    Home
    Is there objective verifiable evidence that love exists, or do we just have to trust people's opinions and their subjective feelings about it?

  9. #39
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Is there objective verifiable evidence that love exists, or do we just have to trust people's opinions and their subjective feelings about it?
    You do know that we have extensive scientific evidence of what occurs in the brain when a person "falls in love", right? We can also trace the bio-chemical reactions involved in familial, and erotic love. So, yes, there is objective verifiable evidence of what one is experiencing when one claims to have such emotions. There is also behaviour cues, and indices.

    Interestingly enough, we can similarly track the biochemistry of religious ecstasy. However, there has yet to be any evidence of anything external such as God.

  10. #40
    Member Idiocracat's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,873
    Thanks
    2690

    From
    U.S.A.
    I wonder what Eric marinates god in to make god palatable.
    Thanks from StanStill

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 5th August 2017, 06:27 PM
  2. Replies: 182
    Last Post: 16th June 2016, 02:33 PM
  3. Magic paper!
    By Sassy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17th November 2015, 04:05 PM
  4. magic number
    By yuri zhivago in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd October 2013, 08:13 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed