9 Forum Posts by "baffle-boy"
At 1/25/10 09:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 1/25/10 07:48 PM, baffle-boy wrote: that is EXACTLY what i was getting at, either i was wording it oddly, or you didnt get it... whatever.That may have been what you were "getting at," but it's not what you were saying, and I'm no mind reader.
calm down, im not that great at explaining things, no need to get all huffy about it.
To your credit you do make both points. That doesn't mean one helps or proves the other. And both positions are still flawed. They both, by the tone of this conversation, seem to assume Jesus made a choice to not talk about the Big Bang - that he even knew about it.
i never really put much stock in what i said about this in the first place, i was mainly saying it so the Christians might have more of a chance here.
2. Lack of evidence is not grounds to make a positive claim. I am not the one committing this fallacy. I am making the reasonable assumption in the utter lack of empirical evidence for a God. I am saying God literally exists no more than the elf under my bed [ as there is no evidence for either to call to be refuted ].
but aren't you saying that because of the lack of proof for a God of some sort, there is positivley no God, or i guess that is a negative statement, therefore you always win... i see somehting is a little geared towards your beliefs... it's not neccessarily true that this idea of "fallacy" is perfect anyways.
once again, the ball on a hill example, there is no EMPIRISTIC proof that it will reach the bottomYes there is. You place a tool on the bottom that detects the presence of your ball. Or you actually look at the frikkin thing.
and you can use a tool to prove that the big bang happened and there is no God? yes, yes, the lack of evidence does not make my statement valid but it can for yours because yours is a negative statement... if i'm getting that right. well it makes sense to me that the lack of evidance either way leaves both equally correct. like invisi-cat.
It's "empirical" by the way. Not to get in your face or anything but come on. It's in my first reply to you. And any cursory effort to actually find out what empiricism is would gain you knowledge of most of the word's major forms.
wow, i said earlier, im no philosopher, making a grammar mistake by saying "empiristic" instead of "impirical" is no reason for you to get your panties in abunch. you are startng to flame here, maybe you should go take a cold shower or something... calm down a little.
At 1/25/10 08:03 PM, baffle-boy wrote: oh, boy! do i love a good debate!You seem to be under the impression that your arguments haven't already been refuted by ... many many many more before me - and on this very site - on this forum - in the previous religion threads. Maybe you should go peruse them before you get back to me.
just don't take this too seriously, tiger, it's only about the most important question in human existence ;)
wow, i like how when i say a post asking that you don't start getting internet angry at me, and it makes you VERY flamey. i bet you'll say something annoying about how im telling you to calm down no doubt.
regardless of all the arguments i have made, and have considered to be rational reasons for agnosticism, the atheist seems to ahve won, because he can quuote pages from a wiki on skepticism, and because i have no real prior knowledge to the subject. some day ill do some reasearch so i can call everything you say illogical, but untill then ill quit. i had fun, i hope everyone else here has fun too instead of getting internet SRS like Bacchanalian here.
oh, boy! do i love a good debate!
just don't take this too seriously, tiger, it's only about the most important question in human existence ;)
oh, and to add to what i said earlier, i was reading some of the thread and i quite liked how someone mentioned this: "there is no absolute truth" there is no way to disprove that statement.
At 1/25/10 06:47 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 1/25/10 04:24 PM, baffle-boy wrote:If you want to know why he didn't bring it up... it's probably because it wasn't important to what he was trying to teach.
that is EXACTLY what i was getting at, either i was wording it oddly, or you didnt get it... whatever.
they are bot invalid untill proven valid, from a skeptic's point of view.
[...]
none of us can prove either way...
if this is a logical fallacy, then how come you make a similar argument, my point of view is invalid because it cannot be proven to be valid. if that is the case then yours is the ame. maybe i should have said "unproven" instead of "invalid". I dont have a philosophy degree, and have never studied philosophy much before, in fact i'm in high school, but my argument certainly seems alid. im not disproving mine or proving mine, i'm just explaining that both of us are equally right/wrong because there is no way of knowing for sure. if this is a "fallacy" you will have to explain to me how...
this wasn't an argument from incredulity, i simply decided to believeIf there is no proof for your position, then...
the most likely to be true.
1. there are no grounds to qualify it as likely...
2. and "simply deciding to believe" because YOU decided it was "most likely to be true" without evidence is an argument from incredulity.
once again, the ball on a hill example, there is no EMPIRISTIC proof that it will reach the bottom, you never sensed it to have, because you turned away; however you would feel that it is most likely to have reached the bottom due to your knowledge of gravity. well my knowledge of the big bang theory suggests that it is less likely that it would all happen perfectly.
and PLEASE explain to me how anything i say is a logical "fallacy" i dont fully understand what you are talking about. i certainly havent made any arguments from incerdulity, i can conceive the idea of there being no God quite well, i even said that it could be. but i believe the opposite, because it makes the most sense, according to what i said earlier.
At 1/25/10 03:59 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 1/25/10 03:37 AM, baffle-boy wrote:Kids can grasp the big bang with relative specificity by grade 7.
because they already believe in science, the people of Jesus' time... did not. in fact they did not have any prior knowledge of any of this but "according to the bible" Jesus could do amazing things to prove himself. I'm not really defending it, just explaining why, if Christianity is real, one might have written it like that.
and i definitely do not practice empiricism to make logical choices, that is simply (in my opinion) stupid.We're talking about the choice to believe something. Whether we place currency in our belief has to do with whether we believe that thing is valid.
Empiricism is essential to determining the validity of a belief/argument/position.
i can understand why you may have to sense something to know that it is valid however, there is no emiristic (is that word...?) proof to your theory either. have you ever seen proof that there is no God, have you ever known absolutley 100% without a single doubt that our existance is a coincidence? i'll go ahead and assume that you haven't. likewise i have no proof that there is a God. this doesnt change the validity of either argument, they are bot invalid untill proven valid, from a skeptic's point of view.
1)i would have to forsake many of my current beliefs to agree with your idea that everything was a coincidence.How much effort you're willing to put into your beliefs has no weight on the validity of your beliefs.
2)there is no scientific or concrete proof that your idea is correctThere is no scientific proof that science is correct? What's your definition of correct here, and how do you determine if something is correct?
Also... this is kind of a hypocritical argument coming from someone who supposedly places no stock in empiricism.
the point was that there is no validity to your theory, therefore you cannot use your theory to say mine isn't valid. certainly if you were right, i would be wrong, but if none of us can prove either way...
4) it is simply more likely that it was no coincidence, and so i choose to believe it.
You didn't read the link. Try again.
this wasn't an argument from incredulity, i simply decided to believe
the most likely to be true. theory no one can say for sure who is right, but if you drop a ball at the top of a steep hill and turn around, it is most likely i would reach the bottom correct? however something could stop it half-way down. i just choose to believe it did make it all the way down because that is most logical. rationalism.
At 1/25/10 12:02 PM, DG-games wrote: @ baffle-boy you say that there is no evidence for our theories, well here you go;
if you say that the bible is right and science is wrong then these things happen
hey chris... also you'll notice i said that i belive in the big bang theory. nice try though.
and they say that genesis was written that way becasue it was written for the people of the time. imagine jesus saying to people who have no science "many tiny particles suddenly collided causing a massive explosion of energy that created the universe"...... while curing the blind and turning water into wine.
i was simply explaining that if it were written with exact reference to science, the message would not have gotten across.
and i definitely do not practice empiricism to make logical choices, that is simply (in my opinion) stupid.
the reasons i believe that there is something (a God if you must call it that) out there that is keeping order are the following:
1)i would have to forsake many of my current beliefs to agree with your idea that everything was a coincidence.
2)there is no scientific or concrete proof that your idea is correct
3) there is no compelling reasons that your theory is correct, whereas there is a compelling reason that mine would be.
4) it is simply more likely that it was no coincidence, and so i choose to believe it.
gee, i hope that was concrete enough that you can't provide a good rebuttle... but you'll probably find a way ;)
also i have no idea how to edit my original post buuuut: i noticed some people were arguing about christianity and creationism, well the (catholic) church believes in the big bang, it was just done by God, and they say that genesis was written that way becasue it was written for the people of the time. imagine jesus saying to people who have no science "many tiny particles suddenly collided causing a massive explosion of energy that created the universe"... they dont even know what the universe is. it was written that way to teach a lesson. im very on the fence about my faith, by the way :l
my word, what a heated debate... well ill offer my two-bits: i used to be a christian, but i can't find any logical proof that THAT particular religion is true. however, it only makes logical sense that there is SOME driving froce behind everything. consider the big bang (THEORY... not proven...) if there was sucj a thing (probably was) then how could the perfect cicumstances for it to happen... have happened? furthermore, a planet had to be created whoich was the exact perfect size, distance from a star, etc., etc. to sustain life, and then the life had to evolve, and stay there without being completely destroyed. this points towards some form of intelligent design, another example is the fact that we are discussing this, how could such a level of intelligence be a normal product of evolution? Existentialism really has no purpose as far as survival goes, yet here it is, almost no doubt because something wanted it to be so. maybe all religions are somewhat correct... who knows? all i can say is that there is no way that all of this is a coincidence. any replies??????
