Justin wrote:
I've gotten rather lost in this nonconfrontational dialogue, but it seemed to me that somewhere back, there was some assertion that "hope" and "faith" are the same thing in Judeo-Christian writing.

Just to note that Paul makes a distinction between them in setting out the three theological virtues in the Corinthian epistles. Something on the order of, "faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love."

*******

Existence of God is not science, of course. It may well be a fact, but science is applied to the physical world with hypothesis, experimentation, and proof, which includes predictability.

Whoops. Sorry. Yes, I'm trolling Tim, and he's trolling me back, and we're having fun with concepts that are, for all intents and purposes, a matter of personal interpretation.

Science does require hypothesis, experimentation, and proof. These are man-made concepts, and their veracity and reliability is based solely on the reliability of the only tools that we as humans have: our senses. Just like with faith, we can only expect that the proof we experience is reliable based on what we sense. We then rely on concensus (i.e., running our experience by others to verify that we are not the only ones experiencing what we sense)... and faith does the exact same thing.

I am not arguing that faith can be proved scientifically. I am stating that the same factors that allow us to agree on the validity of science, also allow us to potentially agree on the validity of faith.

Tim Baker wrote:
No, it's called a critical component of research and critical thinking.  That is the reason we have books (and other collections of electronic and printed material that add to our collective database of human knowledge).  Shermer's book is a very well written work on the fallacies of thinking - or how thinking goes wrong. One of many, many books I've read front to cover.  Another book I've read cover to cover is the Bible.  /t

As with the Bible, if your reason is clouded by the content, then you have lost the context.

Tim Baker wrote:
Opinion is not proof.  Prove it.  /t

It's not an opinion. Prove that it is an opinion.

Justin wrote:
For an offer of proof of the existence of God, consult the writings of Thomas Aquinas, in which he talks about primary cause, the presence of order in the universe, and such things. However, that is a proof based on logic, not scientific process.

My "nonconfrontational" comment was meant to be wry - I wasn't sure. No harm, no foul. Carry on, pleae.  :-)

Actually, I'd agree with your statement, but I'd amend your last sentence to say ... "it's a philosophy based on Aquinas' beliefs, not on scientific processes."  The only true proofs we have are in the discipline of mathematics, which is the underlying foundation of all science.  /t

kickfight wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
It's a question. Not a statement. That's why there's a question mark at the end of the question. /t

Ah. I see. So, because it's a question, then you think that allows you to weasel out of the corner you're in. Interesting! Transparent and laughable, but interesting!


Let's review: did we ever specify that your attempt at disproving God's existence needed to be a statement? Look! No, we didn't! Great! Then we have established that you DID try to disprove God's existence!

Again, good dodge at not answering the question.  Now, perhaps you should review the concept of an ad hominem logical flaw in your debate tactics.  /t

kickfight wrote:

It's not an opinion. Prove that it is an opinion.

Not my job. You made the statement, not I.  And if you can't tell an opinion from a well researched piece of knowlege, then it would be a huge waste of time on my part.  What part of opinion do you not understand?

Synonyms: opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion
These nouns signify something a person believes or accepts as being sound or true.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion

Tim Baker wrote:
The only true proofs we have are in the discipline of mathematics, which is the underlying foundation of all science.

Hm. I don't think I can subscribe to that, which shouldn't bother you. But the dictionary doesn't, either, with its first definition being: "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

We have legal proof in the courts. We have logical proofs in philosophy and everyday conversation. We have scientific proofs, where experimentation is verified.

Tim Baker wrote:
Again, good dodge at not answering the question.  Now, perhaps you should review the concept of an ad hominem logical flaw in your debate tactics.  /t

An ad hominem logical flaw attacks the individual rather than the argument itself. I have not attacked you, Tim. I have simply blown huge honkin' holes in your arguments. You really need to stop throwing out stuff you learned in Logic 101 in lieu of a reasonable defense.

You haven't actually responded to the issue, which is that you stated that you did not try to disprove the existence of God, and I provided proof that you DID try to disprove the existence of God by presenting a situation in which someone asks "Where's God?". This implies the absence of God. Therefore, we once again establish that you DID in fact attempt to disprove the existence of God during this thread, and in doing so, continue to make God real.

Tim Baker wrote:
Not my job. You made the statement, not I.  And if you can't tell an opinion from a well researched piece of knowlege, then it would be a huge waste of time on my part.  What part of opinion do you not understand?

Synonyms: opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion
These nouns signify something a person believes or accepts as being sound or true.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion

So, again, you've avoided addressing what you yourself brought up. You said my statement was an opinion. I asked you to show me where my statement was an opinion. You failed to do so, but rather posted a definition of opinion which does not apply to my statement. My statement is still NOT an opinion.

Justin wrote:

Hm. I don't think I can subscribe to that, which shouldn't bother you. But the dictionary doesn't, either, with its first definition being: "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

We have legal proof in the courts. We have logical proofs in philosophy and everyday conversation. We have scientific proofs, where experimentation is verified.

What I mean by 'proofs' is that once derived, we can plug in our mathematical answer and the proof will equal a predictable number.  Logical and legal 'proofs' aren't that way - one can use philosophy to come up with what that particular person wants the answer to be, but someone else can logically argue against that answer and be correct. Same with legal 'theories' or 'proofs.'  In math, the proof is generally not debatable, assuming the 'proof' was correct.  I believe we're talking about the word being used in two different contexts.  /t

kickfight wrote:

So, again, you've avoided addressing what you yourself brought up. You said my statement was an opinion. I asked you to show me where my statement was an opinion. You failed to do so, but rather posted a definition of opinion which does not apply to my statement. My statement is still NOT an opinion.

Ok, well, if you can't tell the difference, I'm really not wasting time on this simple concept. /t

kickfight wrote:
As with the Bible, if your reason is clouded by the content, then you have lost the context.

Nope. The Bible is clouded with contraditions.  If any other book was this contraditory, we'd toss it in the garbage.  See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … troduction

http://www.quinnell.us/religion/reasons … tions.html

Tim Baker wrote:
I believe we're talking about the word being used in two different contexts.

I agree.  'Nuff said.

Tim Baker wrote:
Ok, well, if you can't tell the difference, I'm really not wasting time on this simple concept. /t

Translation: You can no longer rationally argue this point. Understood.

Tim Baker wrote:
Nope. The Bible is clouded with contraditions (sic).  If any other book was this contraditory, we'd toss it in the garbage.  See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … troduction

Interesting. Another opinion, which has as much merit as any other (and THAT is what an opinion looks like, for the record).

kickfight wrote:
An ad hominem logical flaw attacks the individual rather than the argument itself. I have not attacked you, Tim. I have simply blown huge honkin' holes in your arguments. You really need to stop throwing out stuff you learned in Logic 101 in lieu of a reasonable defense.

You haven't actually responded to the issue, which is that you stated that you did not try to disprove the existence of God, and I provided proof that you DID try to disprove the existence of God by presenting a situation in which someone asks "Where's God?". This implies the absence of God. Therefore, we once again establish that you DID in fact attempt to disprove the existence of God during this thread, and in doing so, continue to make God real.

Well, you haven't blown any holes in anything. All I see is your personal opinion being foisted as 'facts' and your faith being advocated as reality.  Which are fine; I respect your right to believe any way you wish.  But they're not 'facts.'

Regarding Logic 101, I teach a course to medical students called Research Methods.  While I generally don't get many individuals who think such as you, who can't see the logical fallacies of their thought processes, I do get one now and again.  I worry about their future patients.  /t

kickfight wrote:

Interesting. Another opinion, which has as much merit as any other (and THAT is what an opinion looks like, for the record).

An opinion is a statement made without any collaborating evidence to support it. 

The links I gave you provide supporting evidence.

Search Googel for "Bible Contradictions."  You'll be amazed at the number you find (1,440,000 of them - of course they are not all valid).  Also, check out Amazon.com and you will see several books written on the subject.  Do some basic research on the subject.  /t

Tim Baker wrote:
Well, you haven't blown any holes in anything. All I see is your personal opinion being foisted as 'facts' and your faith being advocated as reality.  Which are fine; I respect your right to believe any way you wish.  But they're not 'facts.'

All your see is my personal opinion, because doing so allows you to imagine that it is true. But they aren't, and your attempts at seeing them as such does not change that

Tim Baker wrote:
Regarding Logic 101, I teach a course to medical students called Research Methods.  While I generally don't get many individuals who think such as you, who can't see the logical fallacies of their thought processes, I do get one now and again.  I worry about their future patients.  /t

I feel sorry for those medical students. They will learn to regurgitate concepts without having a shred of understanding of them, and will go through life with the misguided notion that they have wisdom, when they in fact do not.

kickfight wrote:

Translation: You can no longer rationally argue this point. Understood.

'can' and 'will' are entirely two different concepts.  /t

Tim Baker wrote:
An opinion is a statement made without any collaborating evidence to support it.

No, an opinion is a statement made without any CORROBORATING evidence to support it. This is why my statement is not an opinion.

Justin wrote:
I must take issue with saying "Prove it" is an assertion of disproving. I may say, "Prove it," and want to hear the proof simply to buttress my own existing beliefs.

kickfight wrote:

I'm sure you can show me examples of
a) where I made an 'absolute statement', and
b) where you turned my statement(s)(?) into a condtradictory one(?).

Yes, my facts are faith-based. They are still facts. They are facts because they can be observed by repeatable experiment.

You don't have to have anyone's faith shoved down your throat, Tim. Just know that you cannot disprove their faith, either. You have failed to do so here.
It's quit easy to disprove a 'faith' - but not a specific person's will to believe in their faith (that's entirely up to them).  Here's how:

1. Prove to me God exists?


This is why I said "prove it."  So far, I've seen no proof; simply opinions.  /t

Tim Baker wrote:
'can' and 'will' are entirely two different concepts.  /t

And you have reached your limit in both cases.

Tim Baker wrote:
This is why I said "prove it."  So far, I've seen no proof; simply opinions.  /t

You were given proof, and your response to the proof was pure evasion. You response to proof was to categorize that proof as an opinion, and yet could not substantiate how you came to that conclusion.

kickfight wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
Well, you haven't blown any holes in anything. All I see is your personal opinion being foisted as 'facts' and your faith being advocated as reality.  Which are fine; I respect your right to believe any way you wish.  But they're not 'facts.'

All your see is my personal opinion, because doing so allows you to imagine that it is true. But they aren't, and your attempts at seeing them as such does not change that


I feel sorry for those medical students. They will learn to regurgitate concepts without having a shred of understanding of them, and will go through life with the misguided notion that they have wisdom, when they in fact do not.

Actually, they are taught to not inject personal values and biases (read that opinion) into the research process, and to be very cautious about any research that suggests such bias (or personal opinion).  The first step toward learning about any subject is to read the literature that currently exists on what ever topic they are researching.  I have yet to see you post any link to anything that supports your opinions.

I'm sure you can show me examples of
a) where I made an 'absolute statement', and
b) where you turned my statement(s)(?) into a condtradictory one(?).

Why would I want to? I just took issue with you saying that:

"prove it" = "i can disprove it."

I don't agree that is necessarily the case. That's all.

I don't think Tim is interested in your "proof" of the existence of God (if you have offered it - actually, I suggested a logic-based source) because he's interested in mathematical-style proof. The statements between you two are irresolvable.

kickfight wrote:

No, an opinion is a statement made without any CORROBORATING evidence to support it. This is why my statement is not an opinion.

oops, excuse my typo. 

Evidence? What evidence?

Tim Baker wrote:
Actually, they are taught to not inject personal values and biases (read that opinion) into the research process, and to be very cautious about any research that suggests such bias (or personal opinion).  The first step toward learning about any subject is to read the literature that currently exists on what ever topic they are researching.  I have yet to see you post any link to anything that supports your opinions.

But any rational person knows that the act of reading inherently involves applying a personal bias towards the subject. So the premise itself is flawed.

kickfight wrote:

And you have reached your limit in both cases.

I have a life. If you don't know the definition of an opinion, I'm really not interested in wasting my time.  /t

Tim Baker wrote:
oops, excuse my typo. 

Evidence? What evidence?

Typo. It's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WORD.

I presented the evidence, which is that by your enthusiasm to disprove God, you prove that God exists.

kickfight wrote:

You were given proof, and your response to the proof was pure evasion. You response to proof was to categorize that proof as an opinion, and yet could not substantiate how you came to that conclusion.

It is opinion. You can't 'prove' the existance of God no more than anyone can.  Admit it and mode on.  It's you personal belief based on historical documents.  You believe because you want to believe, not because there's evidence somewhere that He exists. /t

Tim Baker wrote:
I have a life. If you don't know the definition of an opinion, I'm really not interested in wasting my time.  /t

And yet, you still haven't shown that my statement is an opinion.

Tim Baker wrote:
It is opinion. You can't 'prove' the existance of God no more than anyone can.  Admit it and mode on.  It's you personal belief based on historical documents.  You believe because you want to believe, not because there's evidence somewhere that He exists. /t

Nope... like anything else that can be verified through trial and error, through rigorous research, there is proof that God exists by the knowledge of God in the experience of people. You can hand-wave that away as 'anecdotal', but that's hand-waving, and not a legitimate counter-argument.

kickfight wrote:
But any rational person knows that the act of reading inherently involves applying a personal bias towards the subject. So the premise itself is flawed.

It does? Why would it have to if you know what your biases are and read material so that you understand that your reactions to what you're reading are biases.  I can read things I don't agree with, particularly, but I'm always looking at the references and sources the author used to support his/her thesis.  Once one is aware of his/her biases and adknowledges them, they can fairly well control for them them when reading any kind of material.  It's really not that difficult. /t

Justin wrote:

Why would I want to? I just took issue with you saying that:

"prove it" = "i can disprove it."

I don't agree that is necessarily the case. That's all.

I don't think Tim is interested in your "proof" of the existence of God (if you have offered it - actually, I suggested a logic-based source) because he's interested in mathematical-style proof. The statements between you two are irresolvable.

I'd say a type of proof based on verifiable evidence - not emotion or will-to-believe dogma. /t


Proverbs 14:6 A mocker seeks wisdom and doesn't find it, but knowledge [comes] easily to the perceptive.

kickfight wrote:

Typo. It's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WORD.

I presented the evidence, which is that by your enthusiasm to disprove God, you prove that God exists.

Yep, I am using a spell checker and it didn't catch the word, as it was spelled correctly.

kickfight wrote:

And yet, you still haven't shown that my statement is an opinion.

Look, in a debate the person making the bold statements has the burdon of proof of supporting the statements.  That is you. Not I.  /t

kickfight wrote:

Nope... like anything else that can be verified through trial and error, through rigorous research, there is proof that God exists by the knowledge of God in the experience of people. You can hand-wave that away as 'anecdotal', but that's hand-waving, and not a legitimate counter-argument.

Not waving any hand. It's anecdotal evidence. The entire Bible is nothing but anecdotes.  Another term for anecdotal is/are "a story or stories" used to support your claim.  /t