By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 20 December 2012
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
I'm not saying that my position is true because there are holes in some of your theories as would be necessary for that to be a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I had other posts where I presented arguments for my views, just because you don't accept them doesn't mean I didn't present them. I have also said multiple times that a supernatural being cannot be definitively proven or disproven by natural means, so your attempt to bring belief in God into an area where there is clearly no way to definitively prove or disprove His existence could be considered a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I've never set out to prove God's existence to you in concrete and provable way, as I've said multiple times this can't be done. I've been trying to point out that...

1) claims that one has to be stupid, illogical, ignore facts, etc. to have faith are over the top

2) the straw man presented in the OP is not an accurate representation of religion, especially not of those who really folow Jesus' teachings

3) even Science does not have a difinitive, provable explaination as to where we came from, even though it does have theories you find compelling

4) We can still have respect for another's viewpoint, even if it differs from ours (referring to the hostility and derogatory debtate style used at times, mainly of the OP, who admitted to having 'hatred' for religion)

No, instead you used anecdotal evidence to substantiate your claim, which is another fallacy.

1) No one suggested this.

2) I certainly didn't dispute this.

3) It based its findings upon evidence, thus supporting its claim.

4) Not when your viewpoint has no scientific or logical basis.

You attempted to substantiate ID through suppositions and burden of proof, my position cannot be one of burden of proof as I have substantiated my side, THEN asked you to substantiate yours. Which you still have yet to do.

1) All of those things have either been stated or strongly insinuated at least by some. Based on his hostility, it's very clear that at least the OP has this view.

2) We agree on something! :D

3) We've already debated evidence, I still see much of the evidence on those specifics we discussed as weak. This is my view, not designed to prove God.

4) Scientific and logical are two different things. Logic can be applied to abstract or non-scientific ideas. Science studies the natural world, while the idea of God is supernatural, these things are not mutually exclusive (for example, I could take my wife to the doctor, but still pray for her to get well), but one cannot be used to prove or disprove the other. I have stated logical arguments already, we will never reach agreement on this.

I disagree that I failed to present an argument, you disagree with it but it was presented nontheless. What I've said over and over (and will say only one more time) is that we cannot prove or disprove God or faith through scientific process. We probably agree on this. I'm not attempting to do this and have said it's not possible, so why do you keep asking for me to do it? My goal is not to do what you are asking me to do. I joined this discussion mainly because the OP was so over the top, and continues to be. I don't feel threatened by Science as the OP seems to feel somehow threatened by religion, nor to I have any hostility towards your views as the OP has expressed 'hatred' for views like mine.

I wanted to present some logical (not necessarily all scientific) arguments for my views, show some things that I view as holes in the naturalist view of how life came to be, and attempt to show a different face of religion then what was presented by those who have no real experience with it (aside from the unfortunate few, vocal individuals who tarnish the image of Christianity). I will agree to disagree with you on this, but I at least hope I've done something to break through some of the straw men that are so commonly used to attack people like me.