well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. So, yes, the Christian belief of how the Universe started is a theory. The sciences would be physics and theology.
The Christian belief of how the universe started is a belief, not a theory. They cannot be both.
As for scientifically acceptable, there has been zero evidence indicating the existance of a higher power, so how can it be a theory?
The Christian belief of how the universe started is a belief, not a theory. They cannot be both.
You can believe in a theory, no? -------------
As for scientifically acceptable, there has been zero evidence indicating the existance of a higher power, so how can it be a theory?
Therefore, atheism is also a belief. . .because there is no evidence for either one. Also, like what 42 said, it depends on your perspective. We're gathering evidence to disprove either one, and evidence is needed to prove something, and we are taking them seriously as theories, not beliefs. We are trying to gather up evidence to disprove each one, and it is not fallacious to try to disprove what is taken as fact.
You cannot prove there is no God because it is impossible to prove a negative.
and we are taking them seriously as theories, not beliefs.
A belief is not serious? Say that to the millions of fervent believers worldwide. Whatever you are trying to take them as, it doesn't change the fact that they are beliefs not theories.
and it is not fallacious to try to disprove what is taken as fact.
It is fallacious to attempt to disprove a belief, because to do so you need evidence and beliefs are not based on evidence.
It is fallacious to attempt to disprove a belief, because to do so you need evidence and beliefs are not based on evidence.
*facepalm* We're not trying to disprove a belief. . .we're gathering evidence against each possible way the Universe began. Is that phrased correctly enough for you? ----------
A belief is not serious? Say that to the millions of fervent believers worldwide. Whatever you are trying to take them as, it doesn't change the fact that they are beliefs not theories.
*facepalm* I never said that I didn't take them seriously as beliefs. . .this is a perfect example of the human thought process, in that just because I say something against something else, people MUST think that I believe the opposite of the thing i was speaking against. ------------
You cannot prove there is no God because it is impossible to prove a negative.
*epic facepalm* We're not, we're trying to DISprove them. Is it impossible to DISprove a negative?
The use of the word epic is only really acceptable if you are the Hulk being bluntly dismissive of Beowulf.
Is that phrased correctly enough for you?
You don't need my permission. Do whatever the hell you want. I'm just pointing out the fallacious nature of the exercise.
Let me clarify. You said this:
*facepalm* I never said that I didn't take them seriously as beliefs. . .this is a perfect example of the human thought process, in that just because I say something against something else, people MUST think that I believe the opposite of the thing i was speaking against.
Yet you also said this:
and we are taking them seriously as theories, not beliefs[quote]
This implies that theories are serious and beliefs are not. If you did not intend this then you should rephrase the sentence.
[quote]We're not, we're trying to DISprove them. Is it impossible to DISprove a negative?
Attempting to disprove the Christian 'theory' is the same as attempting to disprove the existance of God. A fruiltess exercise.
Disproving a negative is possible, because it is proving a positive. In this instance is attempting to prove the existance of a God. This is just as pointles because there has been no sceintific evidence indicating a God exists.
Disproving a negative is possible, because it is proving a positive. In this instance is attempting to prove the existance of a God. This is just as pointles because there has been no sceintific evidence indicating a God exists.
Right, yet we are not trying to prove one of them. we are trying to disprove. -----------
This implies that theories are serious and beliefs are not. If you did not intend this then you should rephrase the sentence.
*usess rephrasifier to rephrase sentence* We are taking them seriously as theories in this case. -----------
The use of the word epic is only really acceptable if you are the Hulk being bluntly dismissive of Beowulf.
I was using it in the context of before it became a transparent meme. . . . ----------
Attempting to disprove the Christian 'theory' is the same as attempting to disprove the existance of God. A fruiltess exercise
. An intellectual exercise, used as part of a debate. Not exactly a 'fruiltess exercise' as you put it. ---------------
Disproving a negative is possible, because it is proving a positive.
My reasoning exactly. Also, it would be impossible to prove a negative, because that is a fallacy, but it is possible to prove the truth in the statement of a negative. AKA a positive about the truth of a negative. . .but that ids another philosophical ramble for another day. ----------------
I'm just pointing out the fallacious nature of the exercise.
There are a ton of fallacies in modern-day society. It's tough to say something that couldn't be bent into a fallacy.
Using vocabulary to get round a philosophical concept does not work.
We are taking them seriously as theories in this case.
You cannot change a belief into a theory for your own purposes. If you are, care to show me scientific proof that Good exists and I will accept that Christianity is a theory.
An intellectual exercise, used as part of a debate. Not exactly a 'fruiltess exercise' as you put it.
It is a fruitless exercise because it is impossible.
Also, it would be impossible to prove a negative, because that is a fallacy,
As I have constantly been mentioning throughout this thread. If you acknowledge this to be true, then you should acknowledge that attempting to prove or disprove the theory of Christianity is fundamentally impossible.
but it is possible to prove the truth in the statement of a negative. AKA a positive about the truth of a negative. .
The whole point about it being impossible to prove a negative is that, logically, one cannot prove that something does not exist. You are missing the point here.
There are a ton of fallacies in modern-day society. It's tough to say something that couldn't be bent into a fallacy.
Out of interest, why are there suddenly more fallacies in modern day society than there have been in the past. A fallacy is an illogical line of argument. The point is what yoou are trying to do defies logic.
@FireflyIV If you don't want to join in with the discussion nicely like everyone else, you don't have to sit around getting everyone off topic. If you don't want the discussion to happen because of some reason in the back of your head, blurt it out. Why don't you want this list to be completed?
How about if the rest of us continue.
The list: Questions about the Big Bang: 1. How was the entire universe squashed down to a mini-microscopic particle? (Is there really that much empty space in an atom?) 2. What triggered the Big Bang? 3. What verifies the Big Bang? 4. Against the Big Bang: 1. Many theories of Big Bang do not have sufficient evidence to back them up. 2. The Presence of nebulae in the universe refutes the belief that atoms gravitationally pulled together to form today's planets and stars. 3. Questions about Christianity: 1. What proof is their that an all knowing omnipresent creature exists? 2. How did God start? How did time start? (whoever added these made the two questions sound related, so I put them together) 3. What verifies the Bible? 4. Against Christianity: 1. Many of the stories in the Bible do not have sufficient evidence to back them up. 2. There have been many cataclysmic events outlined in the Bible (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood), yet none of them have left any discernible mark. 3.
The question:
A lot of the things in the questions about Christianity and Against Christianity parts can be squashed down into one...so I'll do that after you tell me I can. If I take 1 and 3 in the Questions and both of the "against" things, I can combine them into: ======================= There is no conclusive evidence for Christianity. ======================= That would be in the "against Christianity" section.
Also, question 3 in the questions about the Big Bang part can be deleted because it just repeats the thing in the "against the Big Bang" part.
Just waiting for comments about what I am about to do.
I've had two people respond. One said yes and the other said no.
Using vocabulary to get round a philosophical concept does not work.
It's not using vocabulary, it's using meaning. . .there is a huge difference between proving and disproving. --------
You cannot change a belief into a theory for your own purposes. If you are, care to show me scientific proof that Good exists and I will accept that Christianity is a theory.
There is no proof either way. . .what we are doing is debating which one is correct. You miss the point of the exercise. And morality is based on perspective. ----------
It is a fruitless exercise because it is impossible.
Perhaps. . .this discussion could be purely for debate!? It is not a fruitless exercise because our objective is not to solve the actual problem, it is to have a debate. You're missing the point of the exercise. ----------
The whole point about it being impossible to prove a negative is that, logically, one cannot prove that something does not exist. You are missing the point here.
Why not? I fail to see the point because you are not presenting one. ------------
Out of interest, why are there suddenly more fallacies in modern day society than there have been in the past. A fallacy is an illogical line of argument. The point is what yoou are trying to do defies logic.
Logic. . .is not a constant entity. Logic fluctuates based on point-of-view; one person's logic will be different from another's, so therefore, there is no set-in-stone 'logic.' Therefore, the entire concept of a fallacy is fallacious in it's own right, because a fallacy for one person's logic would be perfectly clear in another's logic. Fallacies don't exist.
@FireflyIV If you don't want to join in with the discussion nicely like everyone else, you don't have to sit around getting everyone off topic. If you don't want the discussion to happen because of some reason in the back of your head, blurt it out. Why don't you want this list to be completed?
Ahh yes, because I don't agree with you, I must have a hidden agenda. You are free to discuss what you like, I ma just pointing out that what you are trying to do defies logic.
It's not using vocabulary, it's using meaning. . .there is a huge difference between proving and disproving.
In this instance, neither meanings validate what you are trying to do. If you try to prove Christianity as a theory, then by definition of the word theory you must have some scientific proof indicating the existance of a God, of which there is none. If you are trying to disprove Christianity as a theory you must prove that God does not exist, which is impossible, because as I have said so many times before, it is impossible to prove a negative.
Perhaps. . .this discussion could be purely for debate!? It is not a fruitless exercise because our objective is not to solve the actual problem, it is to have a debate. You're missing the point of the exercise.
A debate based on fallacious assumptions is pointless. But again, I'm not forcing you to do anything, debate away if you feel like it.
Why not? I fail to see the point because you are not presenting one.
It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. If you take Christianity to be a theory, to disprove that theory you have to prove that Hod does not exist. That defies logic.
Logic. . .is not a constant entity. Logic fluctuates based on point-of-view; one person's logic will be different from another's, so therefore, there is no set-in-stone 'logic.' Therefore, the entire concept of a fallacy is fallacious in it's own right, because a fallacy for one person's logic would be perfectly clear in another's logic. Fallacies don't exist.
You're wrong. Logic does not change because of perspective. It is constant and set in stone. Fallacies do exist. Whatever your perspectuve or circumstances if you display a fallacious argument it will remain falllacious whatever your perspective or circumstances. Your definitions of logic and fallacy are astoundingly foolish. If we take them to be true, then what is the point in having this or any other discussion for that matter?
Hmm, I am finding this obstinance rather tiring, so this will be my last post on the thread.
