E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.
You did say Gordon 'butterflies don't have a 'purpose'' so that is a positive statement which needs some supporting evidence doesn't it? If you had said there is no evidence for a purpose in response to Hope then that would be different.
Not exactly - I highlighted Hope's specific use of the word 'purpose' as being one of these god of the gaps attempts, since I think he wasn't referring to the natural activities of butterflies but was implying divine design.
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct.
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?
... until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument
... the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on. They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.
If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
... all that doesn't prove that Christianity isn't true.
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth
Unless you can prove to us that there is no such thing as a deity ...
AS for your use of the terms 'grotesque' and 'impossible', the latter is only the case if Jesus wasn't God - something that no-one has ever managed to prove to be the case.
radiological dating has no way to prove that an all-powerful God hasn't designed age into his creation such that when humanity developed the ability to date things in this and other ways they would ultimately come up with an age for the earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years.
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct. Purpose needs to be defined of course but it was a positive statement from you and theists are always being asked for evidence when they do that.
The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose.
If you were a philosopher writing a book on elementary logic for the layman, looking around for examples to illustrate the negative proof fallacy/argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, it would be Hope all the way. He either genuinely doesn't understand what it is and why it's a fallacy, can't stop himself from committing it every other post or simply doesn't care that his reasoning is defective and crashes on regardless like a particularly obtuse Sherman tank.
You said that Hope asking you for proof to support your statement that there was no 'purpose' was a negative proof fallacy and I don't see that it is.
As I acknowledge, he often does use the NPF, and should be picked up on it, as should anyone using it. To 'unpack' his argument is fine, but in the post I'm referring to he's asking you to prove your claim that there is no purpose, which seems fair enough.
Can you prove there is no non-naturalistic purpose?
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.
It's completely different to trying to define "purpose" or "non-naturalistic" and proving anything about them. There's no logical way of disproving the existence* of anything except by showing that such an entity would be inconsistent with the definitions (and/or axioms) accepted as an agreed or known starting point.* ie. proving the non-existence
Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?
I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?
You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?
Things like saying" I aint got nuffing", actually means you have got something, think about it Sass.ippy
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.Made up, you see.
Not accepting something is not the same as not having... You choose not to believe and that is the reality.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass. Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.
In what way do you regard this "evolution in general" as being separate from the evolution of humans (for which there's an embarrassment of riches, actually), and why would that be the case?
