6 Days of Creation

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]All human beings place their faith (trust and confidence) in someone or something from day one cradled in the cleft of a mother's arm, each following day and eventually immobile and dependent upon a death bed. All human beings die from the same cause: shortness of breath. All human beings will reside at one of two addresses for all ...[text shortened]... ly members and friends, google fudge, as it is also up to me and mine. Kind reagards, Bob

.[/b]

This is a long string of unsubstantiated claims with no evidentiary backing some/many of
which are demonstrably wrong.
All humans manifestly do not all die from shortness of breath for example.
And we do not all put our faith in something from cradle to grave, this is the point of science
and reason.

I think you meant to comprehend absolute truth, which is also impossible.

You can't KNOW any of this because you have no proof or means of demonstrating it to anyone else.
And what's more some of it is demonstrably wrong.

I am sure you believe this but belief does not equal knowledge.

Faith is not a route to knowledge.

You don't know this, you only believe it.

You have Faith*, I don't, and never will.


*religious/blind Faith, not every day, 'I have faith in your abilities' kind of thing, which is entirely different,
and not applicable to this context.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a long string of unsubstantiated claims with no evidentiary backing some/many of
which are demonstrably wrong.
All humans manifestly do not all die from shortness of breath for example.
And we do not all put our faith in something from cradle to grave, this is the point of science
and reason.

I think you meant to comprehend absolute tru ...[text shortened]... bilities' kind of thing, which is entirely different,
and not applicable to this context.

Your perfect right to embrace and espouse opinions contrary to my own

constitutes the implicit tone of my reply. I've enjoyed our exchange.

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Your perfect right to embrace and espouse opinions contrary to my own

constitutes the implicit tone of my reply. I've enjoyed our exchange.

gb

There is a difference between having differing opinions, which we evidently have,
And instances when statements are demonstrably wrong.

It's not a matter of opinion that your post was wrong, its demonstrably provably wrong.
You said things that were not true, and you stated as fact things not demonstrated.
Both are just plain wrong.

You can't state as fact things not proven, and you certainly cant state things that are proven
wrong. (note: not that you can't do it, but you can't legitimately do it)


Having an argument/discussion over differing opinions is one thing...

For example we could argue as to whether faith alone is a proper basis for forming opinions and/or beliefs.

However this should not be conflated with an argument over things that can be demonstrated and checked.

If you say (or I) something that is demonstrably false...

Like the 'great flood' which is demonstrably wrong, or a logical fallacy, or most of the statements in the post
you made we are currently discussing.

Then it is not just a difference of opinion either or both of which may be considered valid.
One side is wrong.
Period.

In this case it was you.

You made statements demonstrably and demonstrated as wrong.
And you claimed things as facts that you have no evidence or justification for.

This means that you were wrong, your arguments/statements were not rebutted but refuted.

If you claim to believe in the existence of god, based on faith alone, and that that is good enough for you,
then we have a difference of opinion and we can discuss/argue about it.

If you claim you know there is a life after death and you know the details of what it's like and how you get in,
despite having absolutely no evidence or any possible way of knowing such things then you are wrong to claim
that you know this to be true. You simply believe it to be so, on faith.


I am also enjoying the exchange, but it isn't a difference of opinion to which we can simply say, we don't agree
let's leave it at that... If you make a claim of fact or knowledge it can and must be testable, or it isn't fact or knowledge.
If your claimed fact, or knowledge fails that test, or can not be tested, then that claim is wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It makes an ass out of you. I said even assuming god spoke to these people.

I DON'T assume that, as implied by me saying, "even assuming".

My point being even if you do assume gods existence and that he inspired the bible,
which is indeed unjustified and patently wrong.
You still face all the problems I mentioned.

Read it again with your brain turned on... if you still remember where the switch is.

I only read the first part about assuming and that was enough for me.
Why should I assume anything? I am not a scientist that needs to assume.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a long string of unsubstantiated claims with no evidentiary backing some/many of
which are demonstrably wrong.
All humans manifestly do not all die from shortness of breath for example.
And we do not all put our faith in something from cradle to grave, this is the point of science
and reason.

I think you meant to comprehend absolute tru bilities' kind of thing, which is entirely different,
and not applicable to this context.

I don't know why you are so obsessed that the folks you oppose, always say something that can be demonstrated to you as absolute fact.

If I had the same obsession, I would discount every single thing you say. Because you simply cannot prove a single thing you say to me. Not one thing.

So open up a little and let someone tell you what they believe to be true from their own personal perspective.

Just as we can't prove a thing to you, you can't prove anything we claim is false either.

So chill and enjoy the repartee without having your back go up with every statement from the perspective of someone you disagree with.

This is not--repeat, not--a professional debate forum.

If you insist on a professional debate forum, I recommend debatingchristianity.com where they take debating seriously and moderate people for simply diverting from the subject or saying something that does not qualify as debate. You also will get moderated there for making unsubstantiated claims. Sounds like the perfect place for you.

This place is more like a saloon where everyone is sitting around the table, sipping their chosen beverage, and exchanging opinions (while also challenging one another which is ok)

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't know why you are so obsessed that the folks you oppose, always say something that can be demonstrated to you as absolute fact.

If I had the same obsession, I would discount every single thing you say. Because you simply cannot prove a single thing you say to me. Not one thing.

So open up a little and let someone tell you what they beli ...[text shortened]... eir chosen beverage, and exchanging opinions (while also challenging one another which is ok)

Right you are. We are not anything near professional here. We are not that
serious that we can not throw in a joke now and again along with our mistakes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I only read the first part about assuming and that was enough for me.
Why should I assume anything? I am not a scientist that needs to assume.

Well then it's not my fault you are making yourself look like an idiot.

I wasn't assuming anything, and was implying strongly that it was foolish to do so.

The point about the 'even if we assume' is a rhetorical device where one says that
'even if you are right about this thing that I think your wrong about and haven't
demonstrated' the point you are trying to make is still not valid.

In this case, I assume temporarily for the sake of that argument that god exists, and
then go on to say that even in that instance that the point of, whoever I was talking
to I now forget, was wrong/unjustified for reasons given.

If you only read part of the post, misunderstand it, and then respond, this makes you
look stupid.
Try reading the entire thing with brain switched on, or just don't bother responding.

And no, you are clearly not a scientist, which is why you assume all the time.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't know why you are so obsessed that the folks you oppose, always say something that can be demonstrated to you as absolute fact.

If I had the same obsession, I would discount every single thing you say. Because you simply cannot prove a single thing you say to me. Not one thing.

So open up a little and let someone tell you what they beli ...[text shortened]... eir chosen beverage, and exchanging opinions (while also challenging one another which is ok)

Well said, Brother Tom.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't know why you are so obsessed that the folks you oppose, always say something that can be demonstrated to you as absolute fact.

If I had the same obsession, I would discount every single thing you say. Because you simply cannot prove a single thing you say to me. Not one thing.

So open up a little and let someone tell you what they beli ...[text shortened]... eir chosen beverage, and exchanging opinions (while also challenging one another which is ok)

Sigh... I am not obsessed with asking people to present me with absolute facts.

And again you misunderstand the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove god doesn't exist to justify not believing in it, You have to prove he exists to justify believing in him.
Positive beliefs require positive proofs, Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary proofs.


If I tell you I know that there is a teapot, with a floral pattern of red roses on it, currently orbiting Pluto,
you would ask me to prove it (or at least your really should) at which point I would be stumped.
I can't prove that there is a teapot of any description orbiting pluto, so I can't know it.
Thus my claim that I KNOW there is such a teapot is wrong. regardless of whether the teapot is there or not.

I have no evidence, or reason to suppose that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto, thus claiming to know such a
thing is dishonest.
It's lying.
It's wrong.

I could claim I believed on faith that such a teapot existed, on blind faith alone, and you can't prove I'm wrong,
well you could, if you had a space ship, and lots of time, the space around Pluto being really big and the teapot
being really small, and by the time you ruled it out I now claim it's now orbiting Saturn, or a planet around another
star entirely.
You would (should) think I was barmy if I made such a claim, but hey its a free planet, although you might get
alarmed if I now claimed the teapot was giving me instructions and wanted me to increase the proportion of
people who believed in the great teapot, either by converting them to teapotism, or by killing those who wont convert...

However the difference in claiming I know the teapot exists and I believe the teapot exists is that without evidence the
first is by definition wrong and a lie, I can't possibly know the teapot exists. I am free to believe it, although you might
question my sanity if I did so.

If you make a claim that you believe X, then we can discuss the why's and wherefors and have opinions either way.

If you claim to KNOW X, then you need to be able to prove it.


GB's post I was responding to made a series of claims of fact, none of which he provided (or I know of) any evidence for,
And some were actually demonstrably untrue.
This is what I objected to, and it applies if professionally debating (you can do that? cos the money would be nice) or just talking
over the water cooler. If you claim something as fact then you need to be able to prove it. (not necessarily you personally, but you
should be able to cite the place it has been proved and such)

Here is GB's post. (Edited for formatting/numbering only)

"Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
1) All human beings place their faith (trust and confidence) in someone or something from day one cradled in the cleft of a mother's arm, each following day and eventually immobile and dependent upon a death bed.
2) All human beings die from the same cause: shortness of breath.
3) All human beings will reside at one of two addresses for all eternity: eternal happininess in Heaven with God or eternal punishment alone in the Lake of Fire separated from Him for all eternity.
4) All human beings have one brief window to get it right... to apprehend absolute truth which was here long before we arrived and will still be here long after we're gone.
5) All human beings must choose what or whom to place their trust and confidence in.
6) All human beings must face squarely into the same bottom line: that our temporal choices are highly personal and have far reaching ramifications for our immortal souls.
Choice is up to you and your family members and friends, google fudge, as it is also up to me and mine. Kind reagards, Bob."


I disagree with 1 although you can argue about it depending on how you define your terms.

2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Are either demonstrably wrong, or have absolutely no supporting evidence and thus can't be claimed as fact.

2 is the simplest and least controversially evidently not true. It's not just unsubstantiated, it's demonstrably false.
We do not ALL die from the same cause, thus this statement is wrong.

This incidentally refutes your claim I can't prove anything you (collectively) claim is false, I just did.

There is such a thing as truth, if you claim something that is not just unsupported but actually evidently false I can show it.
And likewise you can do the same to me if I claim something false.

We can argue about opinion all day (and enjoyably so) but if you claim knowledge of truth then it must be backed with evidence and be testable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well then it's not my fault you are making yourself look like an idiot.

I wasn't assuming anything, and was implying strongly that it was foolish to do so.

The point about the 'even if we assume' is a rhetorical device where one says that
'even if you are right about this thing that I think your wrong about and haven't
demonstrated' the point y ...[text shortened]... nding.

And no, you are clearly not a scientist, which is why you assume all the time.

I agree I do appear stupid at times. Sometimes I appear like a genius.
The fact is that I am neither stupid or a genius and therefore make
mistakes just like most of the rest of you, except for maybe googlefudge.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh... I am not obsessed with asking people to present me with absolute facts.

And again you misunderstand the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove god doesn't exist to justify not believing in it, You have to prove he exists to justify believing in him.
Positive beliefs require positive proofs, Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary proofs. ...[text shortened]... im knowledge of truth then it must be backed with evidence and be testable.

One of the reasons Jesus came was to show how God would be if He was
human. So if there is something you dislike about how Jesus presented
Himself to us as has been recorded in the Holy Bible then let us discuss
it. Jesus is presented in the New Testament as the Son of God as well as
the son of man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree I do appear stupid at times. Sometimes I appear like a genius.
The fact is that I am neither stupid or a genius and therefore make
mistakes just like most of the rest of you, except for maybe googlefudge.

It's not a 'mistake' to read the first 2 lines of a post, wilfully misunderstand them, and then post a
comment dissing that post and it's contents.

well it is a mistake, but it's not an 'accident' or misunderstanding, it's intentionally not paying attention
to what is actually being said and then deliberately attacking the other person for things they didn't
say or mean.

If you accidentally make a typo, or genuinely misunderstand something, then that's one thing, and is
perfectly normal, it's being human and making mistakes.
If you regularly and systematically ignore what people say and wilfully misunderstand them by not
even bothering to read their posts then that isn't a mistake, it's intentional.

Originally posted by RJHinds
One of the reasons Jesus came was to show how God would be if He was
human. So if there is something you dislike about how Jesus presented
Himself to us as has been recorded in the Holy Bible then let us discuss
it. Jesus is presented in the New Testament as the Son of God as well as
the son of man.

The reason for valuing what JC said (other than as a philosophical exercise) is because he is
purported to be the son of god (however you define that).

I don't believe in god.

Thus I am unlikely to believe he was the son of god.

Or that the bible was divinely inspired.

Because I don't believe in god.

Because I see no compelling reason or evidence to do so.


If you want me to take anything your bible, and thus JC, says seriously, then you first need to
demonstrate to me that your god exists.

And btw, even if 'the universe' was evidence of a creator, which it isn't, it isn't evidence that your
particular version of god is right, there are a whole bunch of religions to chose from.

If you can show your god exists, and that he did inspire the bible, and JC was his son, then I would
be very interested in what they have to say. (although based on what I have read I would also
be horrified/appalled by what they have to say)

Till then, they are the words of people living thousands of years ago who didn't know a whole lot.
On the face of it I can out morally reason any of them and I'm not even especially good at it by today's
standards.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree I do appear stupid at times. Sometimes I appear like a genius.
The fact is that I am neither stupid or a genius and therefore make
mistakes just like most of the rest of you, except for maybe googlefudge.

I agree I do appear stupid at times. Sometimes I appear like a genius....
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `|____________________________|
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `Example of you appearing stupid

The fact is that I am neither stupid or...
|________________________________|
` ` ` ` example of you being wrong


Hope this helps 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh... I am not obsessed with asking people to present me with absolute facts.

And again you misunderstand the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove god doesn't exist to justify not believing in it, You have to prove he exists to justify believing in him.
Positive beliefs require positive proofs, Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary proofs. ...[text shortened]... im knowledge of truth then it must be backed with evidence and be testable.

Seems like a double standard to me.