|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 2:36pm
MageGrayWolf
9,132 posts
|
@vesperbot
I will transcribe the video for you, but I would rather not.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 5:14pm
Kasic
5,160 posts
|
LOL. Especially about prayer. Atheists just dismiss personal evidence of people who claim their prayers have been answered, and then you form such a statement.
Study on the effects of prayer... Needless to say, the results turned out, it didn't make a difference if the people were prayed for or not. (Hope the link works...)
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 6:27pm
dair5
2,421 posts
|
Well it's not like all christians belive that you get whatever you pray for. that's just rediculous. But if you don't try you can't win.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 6:30pm
Kasic
5,160 posts
|
Well it's not like all christians belive that you get whatever you pray for. that's just rediculous
I can agree with that, although receiving what you pray for often doesn't happen (Not something like praying for a good day the next day...something unlikely to happen anyways)
Whenever I hear of someone who says they got what they prayed for, all I have to do is look around and see all those who didn't.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 7:29pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
Therefore God is not included in a set of "all things" which is the universe, which can indeed be described by binary logic.
But I'm sure that you would place God in the set "that which exists", which is a set that logic DOES apply to.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 7:35pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
You can't prove a negative.
Here's a video better explaining.
James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative
Umm...yes you CAN prove a negative. You're just not forced to if the opponent has the burden of proof.
Haven't you heard of reductio ad absurdum? Or the principle of non-contradiction?
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph … gative.pdf
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 8:08pm
driejen
427 posts
|
Umm...yes you CAN prove a negative.
The link you gave just gave says itself that inductive arguments for negatives can produce conclusions that are probable but not definite. I think the problem is that a lot of christian apologetics aren't satisfied with inductive arguments for the negative because they will cling to whatever unlikely loophole they can find. We cannot prove a negative to the extent that they will be satisfied, but that is not to say that it is not to satisfy ME, afterall I can walk out my door without fear of walking into an invisible saw even though there is theoretically a miniscule chance that there is an invisible saw there.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 9:00pm
Kasic
5,160 posts
|
Let's try to keep this PG-13 E1337...
Unfortunately for me, it seems Vesper is active when i'm asleep, so this thread keeps jumping 3-4 pages every night for me.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 11:52pm
Einfach
1,426 posts
|
We cannot prove a negative to the extent that they will be satisfied, but that is not to say that it is not to satisfy ME, afterall I can walk out my door without fear of walking into an invisible saw even though there is theoretically a miniscule chance that there is an invisible saw there.
Well, there are conditions for God, nonetheless, such as evolution. But this doesn't disprove proving a negative (HAHA!!!) - you still can do it using reductio ad absurdum and others.
|
| |
|
Posted Apr 5, '11 at 11:58pm
driejen
427 posts
|
Well, there are conditions for God, nonetheless, such as evolution. But this doesn't disprove proving a negative (HAHA!!!) - you still can do it using reductio ad absurdum and others.
I wish, I really wish that reductio as absurdum works for everyone, but some of them are really difficult to handle. Like I said, they will cling to whatever unlikely, baseless loophole they can imagine. Some peoples beliefs is just one big ad-hoc hypothesis, for each time you try to prove them wrong, their belief system just gets more complicated. Fossils? They were planted by the devil. That part of the bible was metaphorical. God is above logic! The like...
|
| |
