"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

And to the other 'you can not prove a negative atheists' here; No one should have to prove a negative because it’s an dishonest position to hold to begin with! If you are an presumptive Atheist watch this tube vid. (& see notes at bottom of page) ; "The Presumption of Atheism" - YouTube
► 39:17► 39:17

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGG5uuNW8q0"]The Presumption of Atheism - YouTube[/ame]

Dr. William Lane Craig shows some of the flaws behind what's known as the " presumption of atheism ... you don’t have to expa I have provided links and an explanation to validate my claim in the Craig link for example.



And for those anti christian anti religion here that say the bible is not a valid source of information and is worthless as an historical document here is a link to a article published by Standford U, a university with impeccable credentials among top colleges ; http://ai.stanford.edu/~csewell/essays/ch8.htm

Keep the faith and kick the malicious haters to the metaphysical curb or throw them off the astral plane ha ha..yes that was a funny~

~rv~

 

Good post,,, and BTW.... love that new signature line.

 

Thank you my friend and spiritual brother via the blood of our savior Jesus Christ! The spirit has been with me strong today IC, I feel something I haven't in quite a while. Thank you as well for defending the faith in these long drawn out sorties as a warrior in spiritual arms. I am impressed with your debate skill IC. I can tell you that I sure wouldn't want to go up against you in debate! Ha ha ~ I would rather have a pit bull dog clamp on one of my soft spots, the relief would be greater, and wouldn't last as long, ha ha I am sure of it!

~rv~

ps~ I just noticed something about my avatar. I have my Clergy shirt on but my hand is covering the clerical collar ie the white part...

 

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS

~ I have only had a couple of min a day for the last few days for PF and the net. If there are any questions that were addressed to me that are important to you or that any that you want to strangle me over, please direct me to the number of the post and I will reply before I make other posts etc. Thanks and sorry~

~rv~

 

au contraire;
notion of creator (designer) is entirely relevant to
"observation and experimentation".

in fact there is no other way.
you arrive, you observe, you experiment, you know, you leave.

logic and sensation must be concordant to have a clear view.
logic providing the checksum,
sensation providing what logic can not comprehend.

i am not referring to lab experiments; but i might as well...
since some scientists see those experiments as a proof to
their belief to a designer, creator, Allah (God).

i agree.
not everyone is in pursuit of the purpose of life.
or some might have given up along the way.
and run after whatever is served or "felt" right...

whatever you are in pursuit of, Allah (God) will provide.
may Allah (God) be your pursuit.

the paths are not limited.
in islam, logic plays an essential role in one's belief.
heart too. but physical aspects and perception too.
since man is the merge of material and incorporeal.

i see your points, there isn't a big gap.
but my english is not adequate to elaborate.

good pursuits to you.

 

Not really. Just a preference which I understand is rather menaingless in the long run. I have a good life, I'd like to have more of it.

 

Still waiting Incorporeal.

 

Yeah, you do. In fact, its the ONE thing that defines an otherwise doctrineless (another silly claim) atheism.

In fact, the more militant ones are so tterly convinced that there is no God that the lot of the them routinely grace this forum with a tirade of insults and accusations that very clearly indicate that you are utterly convinced that there is no God - and that everyone else is a delusional idiot.

Oh, so God is imaginary?

And, irony of irony on this one:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/176370-contemporary-athiests-rudest-most.html#post3588523

So, not only are YOU very clearly utterly convinced that God is imaginary, you are displaying a level of hypocrisy that is nothing short of astounding. Not only are we running around accusing people of not having to prove anything, when called on what is clearly your thesis statement - that God is imaginary - well, stupid thesists must have misunderstood you!?!

How is that not blatant trolling?

And apparently, this is far from common in atheists?

Agh, imaginary fears are they? And of course, we suppoprt the halocaust?

Guess how much evidence he has produced?

Guess how much evidence he presents?

In fact, the list goes on and on and on ...

There are literally thousands, hundreds from Panzer alone, in which atheists very clearly state that God is imaginary, not real, and then proceed to utterly bugger the crap out of anyone with faith.

Yet when called? Well, they are not so utterly convinced? Then go RIGHT BACK to the same behavior? Is that trolling, hypocrisy, or both?

No thesis statment, no evidence, no conclusion - but atheism is supposedly rational?

It is both the utter convinction that religion is wrong, imaginary, but simultaneously not really the claim that there is no God?

Would you care to make the usual rebuttals now? I am lying? I am deliberately misquoting you? I am too stupid to understand atheism?

I understand very clearly that what atheism is shifts on a dime as nihilistic atheists do anything and everything to avoid being wrong.

 

Response: Yet by that same definition, it would be a fact that isn't true, but believed as so. Thus it wouldn't be proof.

 

Response: I'm referring to atheists that I have encountered, such as those who accept the theory of evolution and natural selection as true.

 

Because some scientists bring religious bias into science, creators and designers are relevant to observation and experimentation? Is that your argument?

Mehmet, notions of creators have no use in this as they are completely void of any explanatory value. Personal value, sure, knock yourself out with whatever sensation you're in pursuit of and however insufficient logic may feel to you in that pursuit. But as far as observation and experimentation goes, the very purpose of which is to arrive at explanatory descriptions of natural phenomena, I am sorry, such notions are utterly useless and, hence, irrelevant.

I have more respect for my fellow human beings than to dismantle their achievements so easily for the sake of my own petty needs.

 

no it isn't that simple.
let me try to elaborate, -again- with the
limited english that i have...

through life.
through knowledge.
we apprehend notions and keep them with us.
or leave them (hide them in the depths of our
subconscious) as it's necessary.

knowledge is not just science.
scientific facts are just a concrete samples of knowledge.

for us, the source of all knowledge is one.
it's Allah (God).

try to understand now...

knowledge has phases.
you need to go through the phases.
and through those phases, you observe and experiment.
thus you acknowledge.

that's my argument.

how else do you understand something without
observing and experimenting? i fail to see it.

the biggest experiment is our daily lives.
not a marvelous fusion in a high-tech lab.

both are abstract and concrete at the same time...
but at the end directed towards the same truth.

if i leave you in a room all your life,
what will you say to me when you go out?
what will be your views about life?
what language will you be speaking?
what beliefs will you have?

answer is:
what there was in that room would become you.
whatever you experimented in that room.
whatever you observed.

enlarge the room. => world

what Allah (God) has given you,
and what you seeked.

the pursuit is relevant to the "personal" experiences yes...
but to experiments and to observations (traditions, family,
society, science, religion) too.

those are all experiments within life.
some compulsory, some willingly.

if you go after your "needs" and "desires" resolutely,
then this is not a pursuit.

this is being towed by a truck.
not driving on your own.

you must overcome what the society dictates you.
and "observe and experiement" to seek the truth.

for instance;
you call it natural phenomena
i call it phenomena of a beautiful system created by Allah (God).

you say "this table just happens to be here. and it's crooked."
whereas i look for the carpenter.

where do we meet?
what's the common language here?
science and religion meets where?

i have the answer.

that's very noble.
i have no objection.

my arguments might seem abstract to you.

 

I can tell you my beliefs as a Christian. First we should understand the differences between mythology and religion. Mythology is not the same as religion, at least in the modern era. I am sure I do not have to delineate the difference? Personally I do believe considering the selections of old religious that Christianity is the most accurate, and libel to be true religion dating from roughly 5000 BCE until today. I do not arbitrarily make that claim! There is sufficient archeological and other evidences to readily support the beginnings of modern Christianity including the ministry of Jesus Christ (sometimes bastardized as Christus by early pagan writers** SEE NOTES AT BOTTOM OF THIS REPLY), including early roman secular documents of events surrounding early Christians in their daily lives and habits. A casual search engine query will provide enough positive material to convince anyone of the validity of my claims*.

* http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Historical evidence on the exhistance of Jesus.htm

** This is a excerpt of an abstract written about ten years after the death of Jesus by the secular historian named Tallus. Tallus wrote about Eastern Mediterranean events from the Trojan War to his own time. The document no longer exists but it was quoted by other writers like the Christian, Julius Africanus, who wrote around AD221. He quotes Tallus' comments about the darkness that enveloped the land during the late afaternoon hours when Jesus died on the cross. Julius wrote: Tallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun'unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1 The importance of Tallus' comments is that the reference shows that the Gospel account of the darkness that fell across the earth during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.

Note 2a ; (The misspelling of Christ as "Christus" was a common error made by pagan writers). It is interesting that Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has survived. It is an irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan document mentions him because of the sentence of death he passed on Jesus the Messiah.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Historical evidence on the exhistance of Jesus.htm


Rev A

 

NOTE TO MOD, PLEASE REPLACE THE POST ABOVE WITH THIS ONE, I POSTED THE UNEDITED ONE BY MISTAKE.

I can tell you my beliefs as a Christian. First we should understand the differences between mythology and religion. Mythology is not the same as religion, at least in the modern era. By that I mean in Rome or Greece's or Rome's heyday what we now call their mythology was their religion. Today of course not many subscribe to roman mythology, or the Gods of Greece as reality. I hope I do not have to explain the difference? BTW Christianity and/or Judaism were religions during those times. Personally I do believe that Christianity is the most accurate, and most libel to be true amongst all the worlds religions dating from roughly 5000 BCE until today. I do not arbitrarily make that claim! There is sufficient archeological and other evidences to readily support the beginnings of modern Christianity including the ministry of Jesus Christ (sometimes bastardized as Christus by early pagan writers** SEE NOTES AT BOTTOM OF THIS REPLY), including early roman secular documents of events surrounding early Christians in their daily lives and habits. A casual search engine query will provide enough positive material to convince anyone of the validity of my claims*.

* http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Historical evidence on the exhistance of Jesus.htm

** This is a excerpt of an abstract written about ten years after the death of Jesus by the secular historian named Tallus. Tallus wrote about Eastern Mediterranean events from the Trojan War to his own time. The document no longer exists but it was quoted by other writers like the Christian, Julius Africanus, who wrote around AD221. He quotes Tallus' comments about the darkness that enveloped the land during the late afaternoon hours when Jesus died on the cross. Julius wrote: Tallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun'unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1 The importance of Tallus' comments is that the reference shows that the Gospel account of the darkness that fell across the earth during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.

Note 2a ; (The misspelling of Christ as "Christus" was a common error made by pagan writers). It is interesting that Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has survived. It is an irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan document mentions him because of the sentence of death he passed on Jesus the Messiah.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Historical evidence on the exhistance of Jesus.htm


Rev A

 

I have read much of Senecas work. It was required reading, in addition I study their material so as to be able to replace the lies of the malicious atheists and other unbelievers with truth. but it was a joke. I challenge you to show any factual inaccuracy evident in my writings by my own hand. You can not and will not be able to. (of course I am human and do make the occasional mistake or typo* as we all do).

I will admit that I make more than my share of typos! However to make a proper rebuttal I must produce much more font than the 'usual suspects' ne line wonders they challenge me. ie those that bash Christianity with nothing save for hate in thier M/T heads. No, at this time I am not referencing you Cass.

Rev A

 

oops... both are theories, and both are the best explanation we have considering the evidence.

 

This...

Atheism is not science class, scientists may become atheist from exposure to scientific theory but atheism and science are not the same. Atheism is the lack of belief in God and it can exist within a person who has no idea about science whatsoever. One can arrive at the conclusion that there's no evidence for God completely independently of science.

 

Do unicorns exist in the center of the earth? Well I'd say no they do not, however I can never be certain. Hopefully this gives you some insight.

 

i understand your point.
perhabs i wasn't explicit enough.

what we call gravitation is a phenomenon, that we experience everyday.
in fact we depend on it.
the theory of how and why there is a gravity is another matter.
there are different theories.

the evolution on the other hand, is not experienced today.
apes don't evolve to humans every decade or so.

-----

but i might be wrong.
i am not a sci-expert.

 

Not on a dabate forum.

Wel, at least not without acknowledging that atheism is just a faith anway.

 

Of course not.

How can any LIVING thing live in the of the earth's molten core?

So, yes you can be certain - the idea that you cannot be certain is at best an acknowledgement of the limitation of of an inductive arguement, but it is usually just an arguement from absurdity.

Which is why most logical people understand something called context and acknowledge it as such.

However, one is left wondering why one atheist after another defends their beliefs not with science, which they claim is the natural extension of atheism, but with absurdity?

Atheism is a faith choice, and an apparently fallacious one at that.

Here is the relevant portions of an article that addreses this and which three previous atheists have been left stuttering and angry about.

"Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Someone might object that that was a bit too fast  after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative."

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Just remember, your reasoning applies to YOUR position as well, and your position is utterly unable to deal with truth or even the close approximation of it through evidence and logic.

Hence, YOU - and a great many other atheists - are unable to discern that there is no horse living in a motel core. Totally stumped.

Everyone else has moved on and is quite capable if discerning the obvious incorrect. And yet atheists wish to be treated like rational adults?

 

Is God living? Are you saying God could not live in the center of the Earth?

Even given whatever your answer why can't the unicorns use magic? Are you saying magic doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence?

BTW how would unicorns show up on the fossil record if they are immortal and trapped at the center of this planet?

 

And here we are, back in the same circular argument that you use endlessly.

Yes it is possible on a debate forum. No, atheism is not a faith.

 

Does God make this claim?

Because there is only one recorded event in which God apparently came down and lived, as we know it, on Earth.

Given that Jesus died just like we all would if exposed to such treatment, it is a safe bet that Jesus could not indeed survive in the center of the Earth.

Who is making the claim that God is living as we know it? Confined to biological limitations as we are?

You apparently.

Agh, but when confronted, we must have a generalityt that is totally devoid of context or actual claims. Its just an arguement from your imagination, and shifts on a dime to meet your notions.

Which is why no one can ever meet the standard of evidence that atheists pitch, because their is no standard to meet. Atheism is unbound by logical constraints and rests upon sheer absurdity.

Well, if we use logic, just like the article, then if unicorns existed, there should be fossil evidence of them, indeed historical records of them.

So whether of not unicorns can use magic that you have suddenly ascribed to them unbound and unclaimed by even the mythological records of unicorns, there are no records of unicorns. God in sharp contrast has historical records of his Prophets, interactions, and stated claims about the limitations he uses through the rules - all of these can be tested and verified.


Yours is an arguement from absurdity in which claims are introduced one after the other ad infinitum and to the point of absurdity.

No one can meet a claim that is never actually made because the standard shifts into the point of contradictions.

Its not our fault that atheists are utterly convinced in something without evidence and think that everyone else is stupid because they beleive in something without the benefit of arguements from absurdity.

Is that what unicorns claim? Or is that what you are introducing unbound and unclaimed?

There is indeed a mythological claim from unicorns and their abilities. All you are doing is introducing some concept that is impossible to test and then refusing to acknowledge that God has indeed made claims that are easily verifiable - and they are.

You are left with supporting you rediculous faith choice ... with unicorns in the center of the universe in a known arguement from absurdity unbound by anything other than your imagination.

You atheists claim that it is we who do this? Yet, time and again, it is actually, clearly, demonstrateably, atheists who use this illogical, irrational form of arguementation to support their claims.

Funny, you all say science and logic supports you position .... but we ar eleft with the reality that unicorns are at the center of the earth living in molten lava, which nothing claims to 'live in' and yet interact with humanity from.

Its why you also have magic floating tea pots, magic plates of spaghetti, and your more militant peers demonstrate their logic by wearing spaghetti strainers on their heads.

That is what supports atheism. Your own arguements from absurdity and teh total and untter inability to use logic and common sense to be bound by the constraints of what is reasonably testable and verifiable with the logical utility of inferrence and inductive reasoning.

Enjoy the spaghettu strainer, you can add a nice little unicorn horn to it if you wish?

I tell you what though, God apparently created this universe. How exactly would you describe a being that did that? What term would you derive at for his existence that would be testable and verifiable? And if the question is indeed whether or not to determine his existence .... well, why are you not looking at the reality of what he is claiming and just making stuff up unbound but what he has indeed revealed?

Oh well, atheism has unicorns.

 

And here we are indeed back to the appeal from authority.

If atheism is not a faith, then it requires proof. It MUST BE verifiable.

You have no proof.

Ergo, what you have is faith.

But atheists don't want to acknowledge that they have faith, so we must just accept it ... because they say so.

Anything goes in atheism apparently. And of course, when atheists get mad when errors in their logic are pointed out ... well, they have every right to be angry, how dare anyone challenge their claims! In a debate forum.

Who says atheism is logical again?

Oh, that's right, logic requires that a conclusion be supported ...

And atheists cannot support that conclusion using science ....

And so they go on and on and on ...

All because militant atheists are too emotional and egotisical to acknoweldge that atheism is not supportable by science. Agnosticism is.