jmaccelari Posted May 9, 2008 Share Surely the onus of proof is on those making the claim of a higher power' date=' because it is impossible to prove a negative and I really shouldn't have to. There's no such thing as disproof.[/quote']There is negative proof: it's called "reductio ad absurdum" (proof by contradiction). Let's assume God exists:- he is on the American's side 'cos Bush says so;- he is on Al Qaeda's side 'cos Osma says so;this is a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaccelari Posted May 9, 2008 Share I have no problem with "evidence based" philosophy.Good 'cos the evidence points to a quantum fluctuation which in terms of theanthropomorphic principle states that the universe exists because we cansense it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisH Posted May 10, 2008 Share Surely the onus of proof is on those making the claim of a higher power' date=' because it is impossible to prove a negative and I really shouldn't have to. There's no such thing as disproof.[/quote']There is negative proof: it's called "reductio ad absurdum" (proof by contradiction). What you just did there is reductio ad absurdum. You argued and proved I was wrong by simply contradicting me.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />Therefore I say you are wrong and so my argument must be correct until such time as you further contradict me. That?s reductio ad absurdum, also known as school ground taunting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delgado Posted May 10, 2008 Share I enjoy the teachings of the 4 apostles....... John....Paul......George......and RINGO!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linnega Posted May 10, 2008 Share Surely the onus of proof is on those making the claim of a higher power' date=' because it is impossible to prove a negative and I really shouldn't have to. There's no such thing as disproof. I can't prove there isn't a chocolate teapot orbiting Pluto, I can't prove that there isn't an intangible invisible unicorn under my bed, I can't prove that lions don't fly when we're not watching. None of these lacks of proof support the existence or occurrence of these things. Equating faith and religious belief with atheism is also wrong. One is the absence of the other, not a balancing opposite. You don't call me an a-unicornist or an a-satanist for my lack of belief in those. So from this whole thread we can conclude that there are two points of view. One is backed by reasoned argument and the other is asking someone to bet their sanity and continued support to an unknowable, unquantifiable dogma. The pay off of the first is understanding and continued intellectual growth, the pay off of the second is the promise of a life after this one. Unfortunately the pay-off for both is a bunch of people telling you what not to think and believe.[/quote']Why would there be a burden of proof on either side? Stating that there is God or stating that there isn't one either needs to be proven or rely on faith without evidence. Bruce's comments alude to this, if you stating categorically that there is no God then that is statement of fact and you need to provide reason. You can't simply hide behind the fact that you statement alludes to an absence of something. Can you not see your hypocrisy? You complain about people being told what to think and believe, and yet you are the one insisting there is no God and anyone who believe in God lacks the power to reason. You have not provided a reasoned argument to back up your faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Lem Posted May 10, 2008 Share The pay off of the first is understanding and continued intellectual growth, the pay off of the second is the promise of a life after this one. OK, I'll choose the second one. Thanks for making it this easy after 14 pages. I really thought I was going to have a tough time making my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted May 10, 2008 Share ChrisH, your argument goes something along the lines "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it does not exist". So, every day when a discovery is made, deeper insights into the universe on a largest scale, and quantum mechanics on the smallest scale, the space-time continuum, all of these things that 100 years ago we did not even know existed - does this mean that these things only existed once we comprehended them? Stating that the existence of something is predicated by your comprehension of it, is with all due respect extremely arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantani Posted May 10, 2008 Share Bruce... we should be discussing how to get my FTP to 270, not fannying about on the net! Pantani2008-05-10 03:43:51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantani Posted May 10, 2008 Share Besides... This thread started because I couldn't see what was offensive about the statement, "The UCI must be a Christian organisation..." Why we are now debating the Theory of Reciprocity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRev Posted May 10, 2008 Share " Stating that the existence of something is predicated by your comprehension of it, is with all due respect extremely arrogant." Bruce, it's not arrogant it's a school of philosophy. Empiricism might be naive but just like quantum science, it's valid, no matter how useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted May 10, 2008 Share " Stating that the existence of something is predicated by your comprehension of it' date=' is with all due respect extremely arrogant."Bruce, it's not arrogant it's a school of philosophy. Empiricism might be naive but just like quantum science, it's valid, no matter how useless. [/quote'] Being a school of philosophy doesn't mean it isn't arrogant. Aryanism is also a school of philosophy, based on the arrogant belief of race supremacy. The reason why I say it is arrogant is because it is equivalent to a person stating that he/she comprehends all things that exist. A myopic viewpoint to say the least. It has been my "empirical" experience that the more knowledgable an individual, the more they realise they don't know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted May 10, 2008 Share Bruce... we should be discussing how to get my FTP to 270' date=' not fannying about on the net! [/quote'] 270?? I always thought you were an ambitious guy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantani Posted May 10, 2008 Share Bruce... we should be discussing how to get my FTP to 270' date=' not fannying about on the net! [/quote'] 270?? I always thought you were an ambitious guy?? Dude, it's not that difficult, all I have to do is lose 10kg's and I'm sudenly a 6w/kg rider... The rest will follow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted May 10, 2008 Share Bruce... we should be discussing how to get my FTP to 270' date=' not fannying about on the net! [/quote'] 270?? I always thought you were an ambitious guy??Dude, it's not that difficult, all I have to do is lose 10kg's and I'm sudenly a 6w/kg rider... The rest will follow... We are all 6 w/kg riders, it's just that some of us can do it for 30seconds and others can do it for an hour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRev Posted May 10, 2008 Share Bruce, I see that your life's goal is then the same as Socrates. I don't believe Aryanism is arrogant as a definition, it's erroneous. It is more a religion, if one could use that term for them, than it is a philosophy. Based on misunderstood and wrong logic they have created a whole way of life. Their arrogance stems from their megalothymia. (man I'm loving this big word string) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaccelari Posted May 10, 2008 Share Empiricism might be naive but just like quantum science' date=' it's valid, no matter how useless.[/quote']You callin' quantum science "useless", dude? We wouldn't have any modern electronics,LED lights for your bikes and a sh!t load of other stuff if quantum mechanics was"useless". Neils Bohr and Richard Feynman demand an apology, or else the chance of youspontaneous teleporting to a Vogon mothership _will_ come up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.75d6381975d6e967f7f244707be5c209.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now