It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to disprove a god: a lesson in logic.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

At least you didn't say you couldn't prove a negative....my issue here is I believe you are wrong when it comes to things like invisible magic unicorns. As you said, if we dig deep enough into the description of these beings there would be a way to test for their existence.

The problem here is not that these things are impossible to disprove as negatives can be proven..ask any legitimate logician. You and I have fundamental disagreements about the true nature of reality. You are much more on the reductionist side of things, which leads one to question how your world view would even begin to justify the idea that we can know what is true.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


As you said, if we dig deep enough into the description of these beings there would be a way to test for their existence.


there is a way. several ways, perhaps more. the question has always been that of accepting the results.




edit on 17-1-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
my issue here is I believe you are wrong when it comes to things like invisible magic unicorns. As you said, if we dig deep enough into the description of these beings there would be a way to test for their existence.


Perhaps with the 'invisible magic unicorns' example, yes. We could equally form a more generic claim though, and truly make something unfalsifiable. The concept of god certainly isn't the only unfalsifiable claim out there.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem here is not that these things are impossible to disprove as negatives can be proven


It isn't proving a negative, however; that's what I was attempting to explain in the OP.

If you were to make a claim that states something in particular, and we prove that claim to be false, it's not that we've proved a negative, rather, we've simply shown how the original claim was a false notion to begin with.

If you say "god created bananas" we can prove this to be a false claim because we have a well documented history of how modern bananas came to be, and it is within human history. We have not proved a negative, but we have shown how the claim is a false one.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are much more on the reductionist side of things, which leads one to question how your world view would even begin to justify the idea that we can know what is true.


What is my world view, exactly? And what is my position on 'truth'?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Perhaps with the 'invisible magic unicorns' example, yes. We could equally form a more generic claim though, and truly make something unfalsifiable. The concept of god certainly isn't the only unfalsifiable claim out there


I don't think God is an unfalsifiable claim. I think that is what people say because they are regurgitating some of the more popular atheist speakers.




If you say "god created bananas" we can prove this to be a false claim because we have a well documented history of how modern bananas came to be, and it is within human history. We have not proved a negative, but we have shown how the claim is a false one.


I don't think simply describing the mechanism behind the creation of a banana is enough to explain away its creator. I could describe the mechanisms behind the creation of a watch but that doesn't remove the need for the watchmaker. I get that your trying to get a point across and I understand that you are saying you are showing the claims by the religion to be false but in order to do that you must show something else to be true. When you try and disprove a claim you are also presenting a claim of your own.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




there absolutely is. the question has always been that of accepting the results.


I quit watching at a minute....had he actually researched the Bible and seen what it said about prayer I might actually have listened but this is just a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't think God is an unfalsifiable claim. I think that is what people say because they are regurgitating some of the more popular atheist speakers.


So god is falsifiable then?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't think simply describing the mechanism behind the creation of a banana is enough to explain away its creator.


It doesn't, and I'm not suggesting that my remark. I was just demonstrating how any given claim can be proven false, and not be proving a negative.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I get that your trying to get a point across


So far you haven't shown this to be true.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I understand that you are saying you are showing the claims by the religion to be false but in order to do that you must show something else to be true.


I agree, and we have.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
When you try and disprove a claim you are also presenting a claim of your own.


Absolutely true



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




So god is falsifiable then?



Any of the ones that actually have holy books and traditions to judge off of and aren't just people making stuff up when stuff needs to be made up to prove they can come up with an unfalsifiable God yea they are normally falsifiable somewhere in their lore.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Any of the ones that actually have holy books and traditions to judge off of and aren't just people making stuff up when stuff needs to be made up to prove they can come up with an unfalsifiable God yea they are normally falsifiable somewhere in their lore.


Precisely the reason for the existence in the OP.

You seem to agree with the logic within the OP, I'm not quite sure what you're responding to then? Perhaps one of us is at a misunderstanding



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Precisely the reason for the existence in the OP.

You seem to agree with the logic within the OP, I'm not quite sure what you're responding to then? Perhaps one of us is at a misunderstanding


I think you thought I was attempting to debate but it was more of just my two cents.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




there absolutely is. the question has always been that of accepting the results.


I quit watching at a minute....had he actually researched the Bible and seen what it said about prayer I might actually have listened but this is just a waste of time.


in short, i called your bluff.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you thought I was attempting to debate but it was more of just my two cents.


It's not really a matter of if it was a debate or not, I simply pointed out some of the issues within your initial comment.
However, now your opinion seems to be different from the conclusion you original offered.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

"I agree that the bible says no such things. However, many Christians believe this number to be factual. Regardless of that issue, there has still been no evidence to show an actual, literal global flood."

Under the circumstances such a position falls into the general category of being irrelevant. Just go to your nearest beach and consider that 10,000 years ago that shoreline was at a distance where today the surface is about 400 ft. deep under water. Then extrapolate the conditions at such a shoreline, in relation to how less than 1 million humans spread throughout Earth would be jeopardized given these facts.

When it comes to Fishing and Farming as compared to Hunting and Gathering what is better? The obvious issue with respect to the former the advantages are obvious for a society, with the problem being that one needs to be close to water.

To these people they would have responded and documented such an event as a world flood not that they comprehended what Earth was.

edit on 17-1-2016 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You do not get it the point of religion is that Consciousness is objective, because of Consciousness reality is possible.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Under the circumstances such a position falls into the general category of being irrelevant.


How is the position that 'it wasn't a literal global flood' irrelevant when the claim is 'there was a literal global flood'?


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
To these people they would have responded and documented such an event as a world flood not that they comprehended what Earth was.


How many times do I have to say that I already understand that and accept that fact!? Do you even read the responses directed to you?

I, Ghost147, fully acknowledge that people 10,000 years ago experienced a large flood in their area, and that the stories concerning a global flood really represent that specific area and not an actual global flood.

Why are you still talking about this? I've agreed several times now and you act as if there is still an argument?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

"How is the position that 'it wasn't a literal global flood' irrelevant when the claim is 'there was a literal global flood'?"

Because the people who make such claims are literally "FOS". All things considered given evidence as offered

To be clear the phrase "FOS", has nothing to do with "Factual Operant Solution".


edit on 17-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

"How is the position that 'it wasn't a literal global flood' irrelevant when the claim is 'there was a literal global flood'?"

Because the people who make such claims are literally "FOS". All things considered given evidence as offered


Yes, but that makes the "it wasn't a literal global flood' relevant


I agree, they were incorrect



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The problem here is not that these things are impossible to disprove as negatives can be proven..ask any legitimate logician.

Absolute nonsense!
Wishful thinking asserted as 'fact'.
It ain't!
Ask any reputable janitor!



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: namelesss

by that logic, everything is equally factual, which is a paradox and does nothing but distract from the discussion.

...that wouldnt be the point, would it?

No, dear, that wouldn't be the point!

Your lack of ability to understand does not make it any 'hindrance' to anyone but yourself!
Nor is it a paradox!
Must I teach you science, now?
Quantum physics?
Or we can approach it from a logical Perspective, but I have doubts of your even 'willingness' to understand...

"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up", Esquire Magazine (February 1936).

Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!

Ah, about 'facts';

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

it is important to remember that about roughly 100 years ago there are no such things as Airlines, Carbon dating, Genetic research, space exploration, dishwashers, computers and the list goes on. I remembers when I was really young (I am 53 at present). My father discussing Evolutionary theory with me and letting me know that at the time there really was no physical evidence towards its accuracy. The funny thing is You are probably familiar with the Cartoon known as the "Flintstones" .

Perhaps more obscure is the whole genre of cave men and women, movies that presented mankind as having lived along with the Dinosaurs. In relation Raquel Welch made such a film and there of course were others that presented the same conclusion. Watching all of this as a child was kind of weird as I had been raised due to my indigenous background. That these animals did not actually exist when Homo-Sapiens speared on earth.


When I purchased a computer whose program was Windows 95 and joined the Internet Community I was actually shocked. To find out that in relation to conservative faith based religion, the idea that Humans and Dinosaurs actually were taken seriously as having lived together was actually taken seriously by some.

Not to go into details but I have also had problems in my life related to religious extremism. My advice is that extremism except in relation to self defense and protecting those you care are about is irrelevant.

The human brain works a certain way and this related to developing neural connections. This is very important because like learning a task. People also related to thoughts pretty much in context to an assurance of what they believe in pretty much the same way.

Looking forward to your next thread.

edit on 18-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

What does that entire post have to do with anything?

Also, your father clearly didn't know much about Evolution, since it was a well known fact 50 years ago, and had an abundance of evidence that supported it.
edit on 18/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join