AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[SusanDoris]

Walter,
I'll readily bet you though my last Rolo that after going quiet for a bit he'll return yet again with an NPF "argument". He is it seems addicted to it.

I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.

[Owlswing]

I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.

You only think? Blimey, you are hard to convince!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.

Yup, he too just ignores the rebuttals that undo him and repeats his original errors - which is why I don't bother now with the rebuttals.

[Owlswing]

Susan,

Yup, he too just ignores the rebuttals that undo him and repeats his original errors - which is why I don't bother now with the rebuttals.

Does anyone? Bother with rebuttals, I mean!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Does anyone? Bother with rebuttals, I mean!

Some at least try to engage with them, yes. Hope, Sword et al on the other hand post the equivalent of "2+2=5", have the errors corrected, then post "2+2=5" in reply - over and over again.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Hope, Sword et al on the other hand post the equivalent of "2+2=5", have the errors corrected, then post "2+2=5" in reply - over and over again.

Ok, being as you brought this up...

2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.

If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position? There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong, so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.

I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really.   It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition.

That would be regrettable indeed.....being spooked by a handful of guys who have got to think that what they do for a job, methodological naturalism, is in fact the way the world is.....philosophical naturalism.

We have to remember too that many who don't really know about science but as the old Guinness advert went, like the men who drink it and mistook science for PN.
 

[Owlswing]

Ok, being as you brought this up...

2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.

If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position? There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong, so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.

I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps? 

Really Sword - you are beginning to sound like Stanley Unwin!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Ok, being as you brought this up...

2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.

Depends what you mean by “prove”, but essentially yes.

If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position?

I don’t.

There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong…

Just to correct you here (again) – what they actually “imply” is that there’s no reason to think they’re right, a fundamentally different matter (essentially the meaning of a-theism). Any guess might be right just by dumb luck, but you have all your work ahead of you still to build a logical path from the guess (or as you’d call it, “faith”) “God” to “more probably right than wrong”, let alone to “certainly right”.

…so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.

A straw man you’ve attempted many times despite having pointed out to you may times that it is a straw man. Why then persist with it?

I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps?

No you didn’t. What you actually got was logically cogent rebuttals that you just ignored, following which you repeated your mistakes.

Why not instead finally engage with the rebuttals?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You're not worth it pall

Id rather reason with a dish cloth at least it has a use

No you wouldn't, otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my post.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Really Sword - you are beginning to sound like Stanley Unwin!

Two responses to my post. Zero proof.

You guys always avoid anything that would call your stance into question.

2+2≠5. Can you prove that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Two responses to my post. Zero proof.

You guys always avoid anything that would call your stance into question.

2+2≠5. Can you prove that?

Again, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "proof" but in its usual mathematical sense then yes. Why is this difficult for you?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Again, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "proof" but in its usual mathematical sense then yes. Why is this difficult for you?

Ok then, outline your proof (in the mathematical sense) here. I want to see your approach before proceeding.

[wigginhall]

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

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2.  I...

Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.

Why? There are plenty of books on algebra, and it's trivially easy to do. In response though I suspect you'd just dive down your usual rabbit hole of bad reasoning, and round we'd go again. Changing the starting conditions for example can produce a different answer but the "worldview" employed would still be logic, and it would say nothing whatever about conjectures on the supernatural ("God" etc) in any case.   

[Walter]

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

Wiggs don't allow this idiot to make you perform like a circus act just for his perverted amusment

[wigginhall]

Wiggs don't allow this idiot to make you perform like a circus act just for his perverted amusment

S'OK, I'm doing it for my own perverted amusement.

[wigginhall]

Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.

First, please define '2', '≠', '+',  and '5'. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

First, please define '2', '≠', '+',  and '5'.

Assume base 10.

The numerals 2 and 5.

+: The mathematical operation add

≠: Not equals to.

Does that help?

[Walter]

First, please define '2', '≠', '+',  and '5'.

ill leave you to it then,

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

ill leave you to it then,

2+2≠5. I could go to the primary school down the road and just about every child will have no problem answering this question. What skill do they possess that some on this forum don't?

[wigginhall]

Assume base 10.

The numerals 2 and 5.

+: The mathematical operation add

≠: Not equals to.

Does that help?

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))))). 

[SusanDoris]

2+2≠5. I could go to the primary school down the road and just about every child will have no problem answering this question. What skill do they possess that some on this forum don't?

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

[jeremyp]

I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.

Haaaa-llelujah hallelujah hallelujah Haaaalle-lujah [imagine the tune of the relevant chorus from Handel's Messiah].

If you had said this from the off instead of banging on about the alleged evidence in the gospel accounts etc, many a discussion on this forum would have been far shorter.