Sixth Grader Demolishes Christian in a Debate

[Lark]

All this isn't the point.

Kyu says, "The boy is asking for tangible evidence that cannot be provided." That's not what happened. The "boy" asked for some LOGIC that the Christian could not provide.

Now I'd like to hear about "Christian logic" and how it is different.

No, I think its entirely the point.

Its the point you got to understand you're clearly failing, HARD, at doing so right now.

I dont think you want to hear anything to be honest besides a capitulation and good examples of superior material than I'd furnish have been provided already but, hey, go with your sixth graders, they're at about your level.

 

[Mal12345]

No, I think its entirely the point.

Its the point you got to understand you're clearly failing, HARD, at doing so right now.

I dont think you want to hear anything to be honest besides a capitulation and good examples of superior material than I'd furnish have been provided already but, hey, go with your sixth graders, they're at about your level.

Yet I asked you about Christian logic. Are you a 6th grader?

 

[Lark]

Yet I asked you about Christian logic. Are you a 6th grader?

You still dont get it and I'm doubting you ever will.

Edit: NB is this type related? I never been prejudiced against a type before but I'm thinking ESTP could be were to begin.

 

[Mal12345]

You still dont get it and I'm doubting you ever will.

It's still my topic. I've invited you to start your own, but you refuse.

 

[Polaris]

A lack of evidence for a thing's existence does disprove that thing's existence when that thing is defined in such a way that, if it existed, there would necessarily be a certain piece of evidence for its existence where, in fact, there is no such evidence. E.g. if I were to say that there exists a pink dragon that it's impossible for you not to see, and in fact, you don't see any such pink dragon, the pink dragon's existence has been disproved.

A thing's existence is also disproved if it is defined in such a way that it inherently refers to nothing; i.e. in such a way that it can have no referent.

 

[ygolo]

As a compliment to the George Coyne interview that [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION] posted, I would like to post a pointer to this old book (that I believe I've posted before):
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 (There is a free pdf to download here)
http://www.nap.edu/audioplayer.php?record_id=11876&n=0 (podcast--sort of an advertisement for the book)

 

[Mal12345]

A lack of evidence for a thing's existence does disprove that thing's existence when that thing is defined in such a way that, if it existed, there would necessarily be a certain piece of evidence for its existence where, in fact, there is no such evidence. E.g. if I were to say that there exists a pink dragon that it's impossible for you not to see, and in fact, you don't see any such pink dragon, the pink dragon's existence has been disproved.

A thing's existence is also disproved if it is defined in such a way that it inherently refers to nothing; i.e. in such a way that it can have no referent.

Do you see a difference between necessary evidence and possible evidence? Do you have any criteria for determining what is necessary and what is possible evidence?

 

[Sniffles]

No need to put yourself down. I am confident your didactic skills are up to the task.

In any case, you could give an answer for the benefit of the whole forum. You see, I am not the only one intrigued by the originality of your thought. Nor am I the only one interested in a dissection of Coyne's views.

You'll have to do better than that!

 

[kyuuei]

If you had written this, I would have agreed with it. That summarizes my own views rather closely. I have devoted my education and now my career to science, and do not take kindly to statements that appear to trivialize it, and do attempt to correct misunderstandings regarding it.

This is exactly what I DID write from the very beginning. But the whole thread got out of hand because ...

Kyu says, "The boy is asking for tangible evidence that cannot be provided." That's not what happened. The "boy" asked for some LOGIC that the Christian could not provide.

Now I'd like to hear about "Christian logic" and how it is different.

... The semantics are still being argued over. You literally just said you agree with my viewpoint, but this is the viewpoint I started out with when I started this damn debate.

And somehow, it turned into whether or not I agree/respect/whatever science. That's not what I was trying to debate about at all. I really, honestly, do like to stick to the OPs of threads for the most part. And yet, people kept picking apart my wording and magically we got to a point where my point was entirely lost in the entire thread.

I made it. And I made it again. And now, somehow, it is not only my fault for writing books trying to explain how my words tie back into my point, but someone is NOW telling me "Well why didn't you just say that?!" I DID.

 

[kyuuei]

You'll have to do better than that!

It would get everyone to stop being so damn mean to me? You're better at all of this than I am..

 

[sprinkles]

Do you see a difference between necessary evidence and possible evidence? Do you have any criteria for determining what is necessary and what is possible evidence?

The word used was 'necessarily' which means an inevitable result, something that happens without fail.

So in that case, necessary evidence would be referring to evidence that appears without fail, no exceptions - which would set it apart from 'possible evidence' which may appear but is not guaranteed.

 

[Sniffles]

It would get everyone to stop being so damn mean to me? You're better at all of this than I am..

I'm really sorry, but I'm honestly just not in the mood for this. I think I've contributed too much already.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

i made hi coo about this thread b/c i want 2 sound like doing good?

same old thread renewed,
getting nowhere fast silly,
get a fucking job.

 

[93JC]

same old thread renewed,
getting nowhere fast silly,
get a fucking job.

This haiku is great.
From now on we only post
in haiku format.

 

[Mal12345]

This is exactly what I DID write from the very beginning. But the whole thread got out of hand because ...



... The semantics are still being argued over. You literally just said you agree with my viewpoint, but this is the viewpoint I started out with when I started this damn debate.

And somehow, it turned into whether or not I agree/respect/whatever science. That's not what I was trying to debate about at all. I really, honestly, do like to stick to the OPs of threads for the most part. And yet, people kept picking apart my wording and magically we got to a point where my point was entirely lost in the entire thread.

I made it. And I made it again. And now, somehow, it is not only my fault for writing books trying to explain how my words tie back into my point, but someone is NOW telling me "Well why didn't you just say that?!" I DID.

I agree with parts of what you say, and then you say I am wishy-washy. And you're the one complaining?

Who else here has agreed with even the tiniest thing you say?

Oh, and bringing up logic is not semantics.

"And somehow, it turned into whether or not I agree/respect/whatever science." That wasn't my doing. My question is, do you agree with or respect logic?

Obviously not, if you continue to discount it (to use one of your own colorful verbs), by claiming there are different types of logic depending on cultural factors.

 

[Polaris]

Do you see a difference between necessary evidence and possible evidence? Do you have any criteria for determining what is necessary and what is possible evidence?

Necessary evidence and possible evidence aren't really terms that I used in my post. What I said was that in some cases, there's a piece of evidence for a thing's existence that must be present if that thing exists (this is purely a result of how the thing is defined; the thing's definition entails the presence of the evidence); and an absence of such a piece of evidence demonstrates that the thing is nonexistent. The other type of evidence is evidence that, when absent, leaves it possible that the thing exists.

 

[Mal12345]

The word used was 'necessarily' which means an inevitable result, something that happens without fail.

So in that case, necessary evidence would be referring to evidence that appears without fail, no exceptions - which would set it apart from 'possible evidence' which may appear but is not guaranteed.

Do you agree that for something (such as evidence) to be necessary it must first be possible?

 

[Mal12345]

Necessary evidence and possible evidence aren't really terms that I used in my post. What I said was that in some cases, there's a piece of evidence for a thing's existence that must be present if that thing exists (this is purely a result of how the thing is defined; the thing's definition entails the presence of the evidence); and an absence of such a piece of evidence demonstrates that the thing is nonexistent. The other type of evidence is evidence that, when absent, leaves it possible that the thing exists.

In the case of the existence of a "God particle," which is an entity that can only be detected indirectly, even necessary evidence is not good enough. Why? Because it depends on the validity of the QM model being used. It is necessary only within that model.

What if, instead of talking about a God particle, we were talking about God? Isn't a person investigating this issue still employing only a model of a possible reality, yet one whose existence is dependent upon postulates necessitated by the system itself? Those postulates determine the evidence necessary to validate the postulates, and the method one uses to validate them.

In the case of the God particle, the postulates at the basis of the model (the system) determine what that particle must "look" like (at least in concept or mathematically), what evidence is necessary to determine its probable existence, and how this evidence is to be gathered.

In the case of God, the postulates at the basis of the theological model determine what God must "look" like.

 

[sprinkles]

Do you agree that for something (such as evidence) to be necessary it must first be possible?

Sure. Necessary things are both possible and necessary. But not all possible things are necessary.

 

[Chiharu]

That to me highlights what I think is wrong with some athiesm, to be honest, with respect, the majority in the media or that I've met in person.

There's a streak of negativity, usually they'll mention their athiest credentials in conjunction with some other desire to see religious practices or thinking disappear or reach extinction, there's a sort of malice, grievance and persecuting zeal which always accompanies it. I dont care much that anyone is an actual athiest, I'm sorry that a lot of them have had bad personal experiences with religion and have such reductive or narrow minded views about the matter but that's all grand. I've never met an athiest that could honestly say the same about my being a believer. They all have a compelling need to change that and tell me the error of my ways.

Ironic? Dontcha think?

Maybe you just haven't met the right atheists


Also, do consider that as humans our brains reward us when we focus on things that match our set beliefs. Our reward systems light up when we read/watch/hear things that concur with our existing beliefs. I'm an atheist, and I see most theists as being incredibly intolerant of my beliefs, whereas my atheist friends leave the opposing side alone. But then, I want the theists to be "bad" and the "atheists" to be good, don't I? And you just proved right here that there are religious people who accept my beliefs. So I suppose I must be seeking out information that my brain wants to "hear". Could that be the case with you?