Author Topic: AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence (Read 85430 times)

SwordOfTheSpirit · « **Reply #125 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:28:34 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on October 31, 2016, 07:19:36 PM

Not really. You need to define what numerals are. Thus, using Peano axioms, 2 = S(S(0)), and so on. Now we are getting closer, since S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))), and not S(S(S(S(S(0))))).

So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?

2+2≠5

6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.

SwordOfTheSpirit · « **Reply #126 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:30:00 PM »

Quote from: SusanDoris on October 31, 2016, 07:26:49 PM

There is one thing that all the children I ever taught were not and that is smug.

When you asked a child a question, did they always avoid giving you a straight answer?

You seem to look for any excuse to avoid answering the question. Why is that?

jeremyp · « **Reply #127 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:35:00 PM »

Quote from: Gonnagle on October 31, 2016, 01:17:06 PM

I am being perfectly serious ( it's God that is having a laugh ) do you see the trillions of atoms that go to make you, no! Do you see the billions of neurons firing away between your lugoles!! No! Do you see that wonderful thing you/we call the imagination, no!! Do you see that wonderful uniqueness, no!!

You can't see the atoms because they are too small. You can't see the neurones because they are both too small and on the inside of your skull. However these, and your imagination are all part of the natural world and there's no reason to suppose that the intervention of a god was necessary to make them exist.

Quote

We are all unique!

I'm not.

Quote

All the evidence you will ever need.

Evidence of what?

Quote

Of course, if you are a complete skeptic and the above does not convince you that we are more than just the sum of our parts then go and listen to our greatest composers or our greatest poets or even gaze upon a beautiful work of art, all evidence for God.

All of our greatest poets and artists were humans doing the best they could with a human brain. Why do you think a god was necessary for Beethoven to create his Ninth Symphony. You are doing a disservice to the power of the human mind (or some human minds, at any rate - I'm pretty sure that nobody posting on this board has created anything half as good as the Mona Lisa).

wigginhall · « **Reply #128 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:35:22 PM »

Quote from: SwordOfTheSpirit on October 31, 2016, 07:28:34 PM

So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?

2+2≠5

6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.

I suspect that they think you are derailing the thread.

bluehillside Retd. · « **Reply #129 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:39:07 PM »

Sword,

Quote

So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?

2+2≠5

6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.

We can do it. We also know though that if we do you'll attempt some entirely specious response along the lines of, "but in this circumstance that proof can be shown to be wrong, therefore - ooh what's that flying past the window everyone? - God! Ta-daaaa!"

Your problem of course is that there's no logic of any kind to support your conclusion.

Incidentally, having corrected you earlier on your straw man version of atheism (ie, 'there's no way to distinguish between your faith claim and one that's just made up" vs "it's just made up") it wouldn't hurt for you to acknowledge the point so as to avoid making the mistake again in future.

jeremyp · « **Reply #130 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:43:55 PM »

Quote from: SwordOfTheSpirit on October 31, 2016, 06:40:00 PM

2+2≠5. Can you prove that?

I can. Do you want a mathematical proof or an experiment that merely produces overwhelming evidence?

jeremyp · « **Reply #131 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:46:00 PM »

Quote from: wigginhall on October 31, 2016, 06:50:26 PM

I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I think it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages,

I think that was commutativity i.e. for all a and b a+ b = b + a.

Quote

but then they began with very sparse axioms. Or, for 2 + 2 = 4:

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))

The looks very much like TNT, are you a Hofstadter fan?

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #132 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:50:12 PM »

Quote from: bluehillside on October 31, 2016, 07:39:07 PM

(ie, 'there's no way to distinguish between your faith claim and one that's just made up" vs "it's just made up")

Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #133 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:56:15 PM »

Quote from: Walter on October 31, 2016, 07:31:15 PM

Alex Jones is looking particularly gorgeous on the One Show tonight

A veritable latter day Gladys Pugh.

bluehillside Retd. · « **Reply #134 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:00:17 PM »

Quote

Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.

In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.

Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.

Ah well.

Owlswing · « **Reply #135 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:00:41 PM »

Quote from: I can't believe it's not Vlad. on October 31, 2016, 07:50:12 PM

Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.

Why should he/we "pack it in"? That would be like calling a ceasefire and allowing the opposition to keep firing! When your lot pack it in - see SOTS - so will we!

Until then - keep your head below the parapet Vlad!

bluehillside Retd. · « **Reply #136 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:07:38 PM »

Owls,

Quote

How in the name of all that is holy do you expect anything to sink into rock hard ferro-concrete?

Dunno. Osmosis? Rust? Thinking sure as hell ain't gonna do it though...

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #137 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Owlswing on October 31, 2016, 08:00:41 PM

Why should he/we "pack it in"? That would be like calling a ceasefire and allowing the opposition to keep firing! When your lot pack it in - see SOTS - so will we!

Until then - keep your head below the parapet Vlad!

who are these 'opposition' and 'we' you are talking about?

Walt Zingmatilder · « **Reply #138 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:09:56 PM »

Quote from: bluehillside on October 31, 2016, 08:00:17 PM

In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.

Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.

Ah well.

Be honest Hillside it only hits home if it's all arguments not just one argument.
You could easily substitute PN for God and where would that leave philosophical naturalism? Even your brand of PN Hillside which is the philosophical equivalent of a spiv.....a little bit wahay, a little bit woho.

bluehillside Retd. · « **Reply #139 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:18:58 PM »

Vlad,

Quote

Be honest Hillside it only hits home if it's all arguments not just one argument.

In which Vlad fails to grasp that it applies to any argument that works equally for "God" and for leprechauns. That there may or may not be different arguments that work only for god (or only for leprechauns) is a separate matter.

Thus you could throw, say, Hope's beloved NPF into the hopper, see that bluehillside's fourth maxim applies and so discard it immediately in favour of something else. Simples eh?

Quote

You could easily substitute PN for God and where would that leave philosophical naturalism?

In which Vlad tries to slip in his personal redefinition of a term he's had explained countless times in the hope that no-one notices the sleight of hand.

Quote

Even your brand of PN Hillside which is the philosophical equivalent of a spiv.....a little bit wahay, a little bit woho.

And then does it again, hoping that "my brand" carves out a different meaning from the standard definition even though they're one and the same.

Owlswing · « **Reply #140 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:21:06 PM »

Quote from: bluehillside on October 31, 2016, 08:07:38 PM

Owls,

Dunno. Osmosis? Rust? Thinking sure as hell ain't gonna do it though...

LMAO!

Owlswing · « **Reply #141 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:23:19 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 31, 2016, 08:07:58 PM

who are these 'opposition' and 'we' you are talking about?

Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc

We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.

You do not have to join the 'we' if you do not wish to,

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #142 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:25:52 PM »

Quote from: Owlswing on October 31, 2016, 08:23:19 PM

Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc

We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.

You do not have to join the 'we' if you do not wish to,

So no Christians talk sense?

Owlswing · « **Reply #143 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 31, 2016, 08:25:52 PM

So no Christians talk sense?

Not on this forum (when 'discussing' Christianity), no.

bluehillside Retd. · « **Reply #144 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:29:29 PM »

NS,

Quote

So no Christians talk sense?

Well, if "sense" is a naturalistic concept used to demonstrate a supernatural conjecture, can it still be sense?

I'll get me coat...

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #145 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:01:42 PM »

Quote from: Owlswing on October 31, 2016, 08:27:33 PM

Not on this forum (when 'discussing' Christianity), no.

Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting

Owlswing · « **Reply #146 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 31, 2016, 10:01:42 PM

Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting

Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's

Nearly Sane · « **Reply #147 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Owlswing on October 31, 2016, 10:51:33 PM

Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's

is this like the Sharks and the Jets? Will there be singing and dancing?

Owlswing · « **Reply #148 on:** November 01, 2016, 03:48:39 AM »

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 31, 2016, 10:53:32 PM

is this like the Sharks and the Jets? Will there be singing and dancing?

Goddess! I hope not!

trippymonkey · « **Reply #149 on:** November 01, 2016, 06:39:15 AM »

Quote from: Owlswing on October 31, 2016, 10:51:33 PM

Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's

By the Ultra's what?

News:

Author Topic: AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence (Read 85430 times)