A chance to show the world that you are not just racist fundamentalist nut jobs

[Dawkinsrocks]

But you can do something to discover what is in the box.

You can't do anything to demonstrate god's existence and if you have to rely on the fact that nobody can prove he doesn't exist you are truly desperate

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

In fact, if you are saying that you have to accpt that god exists because you can't disprove his existence then you have to accept that fairies, father xmas, the bogey man, GW Bush's brain and in fact everything exists.

Hoist by your own petard methinks

 

[Dr.Who]

But you can do something to discover what is in the box.

You can't do anything to demonstrate god's existence and if you have to rely on the fact that nobody can prove he doesn't exist you are truly desperate

You have made a mistake. Let me fix that for you:

"But you can do something to discover what is in the box.

You can also do something to demonstrate god's existence but you have to rely on the fact that some evidence is not empirical."

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What evidence?

 

[Dr.Who]

What evidence?[/QUOT

The bible. Same as on the other thread a moment ago.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

OK, so a book that is full of ridiculous stories that have been debunked by science is your evidence?

Hmm, welk if you are going to take what is in a book as evidence you are going to have to accept stuff like a young guy named Jack who bought some magic beans and grew a giant beanstalk he then climbed and met giants in the clouds

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, so a book that is full of ridiculous stories that have been debunked by science is your evidence?

Hmm, welk if you are going to take what is in a book as evidence you are going to have to accept stuff like a young guy named Jack who bought some magic beans and grew a giant beanstalk he then climbed and met giants in the clouds

This is your thread so I don't mind getting off topic.

The stories are only ridiculous because you say they are. Lot's of other people say they are not. There is nothing about science that says that there is no supernatural. It can say that the natural is the only thing science can address, it can say it is the only thing science has any credibility in discussing. But it cannot logically say that it does not exist - especially since it cannot even address it.

Your circular arguments that the supernatural does not exist and therefore a book that describes the supernatural is false because the supernatural does not exist - are not logical. And no, it has not been debunked by science - only by people who are both illiterate in science and the bible. There are lots of professional scientists who believe the bible.

Meanwhile there is lots of evidence that the bible is accurate, self-consistent, logical, reliable, and written by people who had real experiences to relate. Whereas Jack and the beanstalk never claims to be any thing other than a fiction.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are back to relying on the 'you can't prove a negative'

It has no value in argument.

It is a truism.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Do you think that Noah built the biggest wooden boat in history, put millions of creatures on it with enough food for 6 weeks and then managed to get the polar bears back to the pole and the kangaroos to Australia withouty either breeding en route?

 

[Dr.Who]

You are back to relying on the 'you can't prove a negative'

Which is true. So why do you keep trying to prove a negative?

It has no value in argument.

Of course it does. Everytime you try to prove a negative I can just remind you that one cannot prove a negative.

Which is not exactly true. One can prove a negative if one has access to all the data needed. If you want to prove that a box has nothing in it one only needs to see the whole interior of the box. When it comes to discussing God you have not yet collected enough data. So it would be best to stop making claims that you cannot support.


It is a truism.[/QUOTE]

A truism is something that is self evident. Which it is not.

At best it is a tautology. Some tautologies are true but not all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are right.

Your argument is tautologous.

I am not trying to prove a negative.

Only that relying on the impossibilty of it to support a belief system is feeble.

You know that you would bring your children up to believe the bogeyman doesn't exist.

Why make an exception for god?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you think that Noah built the biggest wooden boat in history, put millions of creatures on it with enough food for 6 weeks and then managed to get the polar bears back to the pole and the kangaroos to Australia withouty either breeding en route?

I am not really sure. The story could be symbolic. We could explore that to see what the author intended.

But it is not that much bigger than the biggest wooden boats we have today and while we had to build them all on our own he was given blueprints from God.

And he would not need to put millions of creatures into it. Only the non-marine animals that existed at the time. Doesn't evolution state that there was once less diversity than there is today? And since it was a local flood he would only need to put the ones that existed in that area.

So unless he was both from the arctic and polar bears had evolved by then there would be no need to worry about polar bears. Same for kangaroos.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It may be symbolic eh?

So you don't know if it is literal or symbolic?

That is highly supportive of your claim that the bible is evidence

 

[Dr.Who]

You are right.

Your argument is tautologous.

Then you have not understood a tautology.

I am not trying to prove a negative.

When you state that God does not exist you are.

Only that relying on the impossibilty of it to support a belief system is feeble.

My belief system is supported by actual evidence.

You know that you would bring your children up to believe the bogeyman doesn't exist.

You are right. The evidence for the existence of a bogeyman is far less than the evidence for the existence of God.

Why make an exception for god?

Better evidence.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What evidence?

The bible where you don't know if the stories are literal or symbolic?