All Forums | General Discussion

First installment of Crazy Christians for 2013

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 17850
Posts: 552
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #526
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



rostos, inductive reasoning is drawing general conclusions from specific observations.  specific observations = proof. 

But Dirt, couldn't you also specifically observe a car crash that kills drivers of both cars....and therefore draw a conclusion not to drive based on this?  Now you may say it's a crazy conclusion, but one could do it.

I think it's more about risk tolerance based on your observations.  I might be on the top of a steep ski hill with a friend.  He makes it down first, but it looks pretty treacherous.  I assess my risk based on what I've seen, what I know of my abilities, how intense my desire is to ski down the slope, and my general tolerance for risk.  

No different than getting on a plane. 

I just don't think this proves anything....it just shows how some people make decisions.  

On the other hand, you have some folks who refuse medical treatment because they have faith that God will cure them.  

I would say in the first instance, one has plenty of information to at least make an informed decision.  I'm not going down that mountain on faith if I think it's likely I break a limb.

In the second instance, the person is basing their decision based on very little, if any, information.  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #527
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:


But Dirt, couldn't you also specifically observe a car crash that kills drivers of both cars....and therefore draw a conclusion not to drive based on this?  Now you may say it's a crazy conclusion, but one could do it.

I think it's more about risk tolerance based on your observations.  I might be on the top of a steep ski hill with a friend.  He makes it down first, but it looks pretty treacherous.  I assess my risk based on what I've seen, what I know of my abilities, how intense my desire is to ski down the slope, and my general tolerance for risk.  

No different than getting on a plane. 

I just don't think this proves anything....it just shows how some people make decisions.  

On the other hand, you have some folks who refuse medical treatment because they have faith that God will cure them.  

I would say in the first instance, one has plenty of information to at least make an informed decision.  I'm not going down that mountain on faith if I think it's likely I break a limb.

In the second instance, the person is basing their decision based on very little, if any, information.  


that's not the point.  faith is belief that is not based on any proof.  i'm saying i don't have faith becauise i use rfacts and evidence to make decisions.

in your car crash example, that's not faith.  you are deciding not to drive based on the fact of a  car crash you witnessed or read about.  you are making a decision based on evidence.  it might be a poor decision, it might be overly cautious.  that's not what we're talking about.  it is a decision based on facts so it isn't a decision based on faith because there is proof, even if it is marginal.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14765
Posted: #528

Quote Posted by ktrain:

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, there is no argument that can prove or disprove the existence of God.

We can argue all we want with premises, conclusions etc but at the end of the day nothing is really proven.

Your argument of evil goes nowhere when the theists argues back that the reason for evil is because God has given all of us free will to choose to do what is right or wrong.

Sadly some of us choose to do what is wrong. We see that happened just yesterday in the Boston bombings...so sad indeed!

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #529
Quote Originally Posted by SirJohnDrake:

Quote Posted by ktrain:

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, there is no argument that can prove or disprove the existence of God.

We can argue all we want with premises, conclusions etc but at the end of the day nothing is really proven.

Your argument of evil goes nowhere when the theists argues back that the reason for evil is because God has given all of us free will to choose to do what is right or wrong.

Sadly some of us choose to do what is wrong. We see that happened just yesterday in the Boston bombings...so sad indeed!


No but we can PROVE that your god, as described in the bible, with the characteristics given to him by the writers of the bible, cannot possibly exist.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14765
Posted: #530

Quote Posted by kk:

No but we can PROVE that your god, as described in the bible, with the characteristics given to him by the writers of the bible, cannot possibly exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, you can attempt to show contradictions or whatever but anything you perceive as being contradictory can be explained to disprove the contradiction and so like I have said, at the end of the day nothing can be proven or disproven...so why bother eh?
 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #531
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



that's not the point.  faith is belief that is not based on any proof.  i'm saying i don't have faith becauise i use rfacts and evidence to make decisions.

in your car crash example, that's not faith.  you are deciding not to drive based on the fact of a  car crash you witnessed or read about.  you are making a decision based on evidence.  it might be a poor decision, it might be overly cautious.  that's not what we're talking about.  it is a decision based on facts so it isn't a decision based on faith because there is proof, even if it is marginal.

For me, proof means something is not refutable.  2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen and a electrical charge = water.  

If you decide not to drive based on car accident rates, it's not "proven."  It's a decision based on observation (factual for sure).

John Madden chooses not to fly.  Some people fly millions of miles a year.  They both have access to the same "facts."  These facts have to evaluated in the context of everyone's personal schema.  As such, I don't call these facts "proof" of anything....just information that is used in making a decision.  But that information alone means nothing unless you take into account the person evaluating that information.

My water example above is true for every creature on earth.  


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #532
i don't see proof as irrefutable proof, otherwise the term irrefutable proof would be redundant.  proof has a few definitions but one is anything serving as evidence.  evidence is anything which tends to prove or disprove something.  so you can have evidence of two opposite conclusions. 

for instance, let's say i am charged with stealing your car.  if the police find me with your car 10 minutes after it is stolen, that's evidence i stole your car.  if i have a receipt showing i bought your car from someone else 10 minutes after it was stolen, that's evidence i didn't steal it. 

in the context of this discussion, whether i stole the car or not is irrelevant.  what is relevant is either position you take is based on evidence and as a result, is not based on faith. 

i don't think the rest of your post applies to this discussion because nothing in the future can be proven if you assume proof means irrefutable proof (little in the past can be proven irrefutably).  the issue is how we make decisions.  if we completely ignore evidence from the past and knowledge of facts, we are using faith.  if we use evidence and knowledge we are not using faith even if that reasoning is flawed, there is a strong counterpoint or we are using very limited evidence. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #533
And, Clubdirt, that is exactly why the word "faith" cannot be used and applied to any decision we make the way Rostos would want us to use it. If we did so, then we would not be able to distinguish between decisions based on the actual definition of faith and decisions based on evidence. The reason the word "faith" exists is to distinguish between decisions based on evidence and decisions not based on evidence.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #534

Dirt logic

1. Whatever happens in the past will repeat itself in the future

2. Plane A has never crashed.

3. Therefore Plane A will never crash

Seriously bud, if this is the depths of logic you have to plunge to back up your atheism, then its no wonder only a very very small portion of the world are Atheists.

I have never in my life such stupid logic.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #535

KTrain.....Here are my arguments, I will present them one by one and you can go ahead and tackle them.

1. The universe began to exist. Latest cosmology and astrophysics have shown that the universe began to exist, With the beginning of the universe, space, time and matter began to exist, That is, prior to this point, space, time and matter did NOT exist.

The cause of the universe LOGICALLY must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial....

What fits the description under naturalism that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial?

Do you believe, space, time and matter created itself out of nothing?

Notice, I am using a scientific argument here, ie, the evidence that the universe began to exist, THEN from this I am using inductive reasoning and logic to show that the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

 

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #536
rostos, i don't even know how to respond to that but being the nice guy that i am, i'll just give it one of these 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #537
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

Dirt logic

1. Whatever happens in the past will repeat itself in the future

2. Plane A has never crashed.

3. Therefore Plane A will never crash

Seriously bud, if this is the depths of logic you have to plunge to back up your atheism, then its no wonder only a very very small portion of the world are Atheists.

I have never in my life such stupid logic.


Yes you have. You just said it.

Plus, once again, you change people's words. Because you know you are incapable of responding to what people actually say.

1. Whatever happens in the past is likely to repeat itself. Not WILL. Not a fact. The sun has risen every day that I have been alive. Therefore, it is extremely likely it will rise tomorrow. Not 100%. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the sun rising tomorrow.

2. Plane A has never crashed.

3. Therefore, it is highly likely that Plane A will not crash tomorrow.

4. Therefore, I am willing to fly on Plane A.

That seems like pretty sound logic to me.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #538
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

rostos, i don't even know how to respond to that but being the nice guy that i am, i'll just give it one of these 

LOL. Sorry had to do it for you. I'm too stubborn not to. I truly believe Rostos does understand us, but consciously chooses to disregard facts. Hence, why he constantly changes our arguments to suit his.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #539
anytime you see him start to talk about atheists you know he is trying to deflect and shift the discussion because he knows he is getting owned...

If he wasnt getting owned he wouldnt have to regress to this tactic

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #540
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

KTrain.....Here are my arguments, I will present them one by one and you can go ahead and tackle them.

1. The universe began to exist. Latest cosmology and astrophysics have shown that the universe began to exist, With the beginning of the universe, space, time and matter began to exist, That is, prior to this point, space, time and matter did NOT exist.

The cause of the universe LOGICALLY must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial....

What fits the description under naturalism that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial?

Do you believe, space, time and matter created itself out of nothing?

Notice, I am using a scientific argument here, ie, the evidence that the universe began to exist, THEN from this I am using inductive reasoning and logic to show that the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

 

 


And this shows that God created the universe how? Because you say so? 

The first thing I would say is can I get some links to your info so I can read up on it. The second thing I would say is how is this information/theory formed and how reliable is it? The third thing I would say is can these methods/theories be improved upon?

What I am getting at Rostos is that neither of us know what caused the universe to begin, how it began, if there is a God or other deity behind it. Neither of us. Science has told me that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how has it ever began? How do we know it hasn't always been there? 

The methods and theories being used to determine this are always being built upon and improved. This is where I take issue with religion because it deals in absolutes. Religion absolutely says "this is how it began" without providing significant details or information behind it. 

I wouldn't rule out the bible's version either, it just seems extraordinarily far fetched to me. The bible itself seems extraordinarily far fetched to me. 

All I am asking for is reasonable proof on this subject and neither side has given it. There is one side that is trying to find it though, and one side that has said this is the only possible way even though it hasn't provided any kind of proof. 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14765
Posted: #541

Quote Posted by ktrain:

And this shows that God created the universe how? Because you say so? 
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's a better explanation then saying I don't know or it just happened accidentally out of nothing.
 
  the universe came from nothing by accident
 
 I don't know but I know it wasn't God
 
   God created the universe
 
 
 
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #542

Dirts logic

I know the plane is not going to crash because it hasn't crashed before......

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2006
Posts: 14765
Posted: #543

Correction: It's a better explanation than saying I don't know or it just happened accidentally out of nothing.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #544

Ktrain

READ the post properly. The fact that you answered it the way you clearly indicates that you didn't.

In regards to my links, I would have thought that someone who is prepared to write off God would have done their scientific research and drawn the logical conclusions. Clearly this isn't the case.

I never said this PROVES God created the universe. Rather, logically it is the best explanation. Space, time and matter cannot create itself. But they both began. The first law of thermodynamics in regards to matter not being destroyed or created is correct, but that applies to a closed system. We are talking about plank time, the time just before the big bang.

I don't care about other religions. I am only concerned about Christianity. The Bible while it is not a scientific text book also says the universe began to exist. Do you want it to provide mathematical equations showing proof where 98% of the world wouldn't understand. As I have stated, it is NOT a scientific text book, it was never intended to be.

Have you even read the bible from front to back?

Again, in regards to proof, I have looked at the latest scientific findings and have made logical inferences. The universe began to exist, space, time and matter began to exist, Something cannot come from nothing in this natural world.

You really need to break down this argument. Look at the evidences presented , break them down then you will break down the inferences. That's how it works.

You cant just say this doesn't prove anything, look at my premises and break them down.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #545
Rostos says the best explanation is a supreme being created the universe because he has CONCLUDED that something cannot come from nothing.

Unlike Rostos, I'm willing to provide the basis for my claims.

I do not know how the universe began, but god certainly is no more logical than this...

https://singularityhub.com/2010/09/07/stephen-hawking-says-god-is-unnecessary-new-book-and-video/
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 27785
Posted: #546

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."  Hawking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrOHjcf30-g 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #547
Ok so Rostos doesn't believe Hawking. And I don't believe your story of magic. How is it any different? You can't prove Hawking wrong. Therefore, his theory is viable. Therefore, you can no longer resort to the "something from nothing" argument. Game over.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 1988
Posted: #548
This thread is great.

https://www.alabamas13.com/story/22003428/chelsea-man

People like this are actually alive. They exist. They have jobs. They are part of society.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2004
Posts: 1702
Posted: #549
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

This thread is great.

https://www.alabamas13.com/story/22003428/chelsea-man

People like this are actually alive. They exist. They have jobs. They are part of society.

Oh my God!

At the end of the article, it says will have more with Lyle at 5 and 6pm. What more could he say?
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #550
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

This thread is great.

https://www.alabamas13.com/story/22003428/chelsea-man

People like this are actually alive. They exist. They have jobs. They are part of society.


i started a new thread because of what happened to this one. 

i wonder what lyle's explanation is for why his god didn't bother to help out the 8 year old kid who died or the girl who lost her leg or everyone else?  maybe the alabama news reporter can ask him that at 5 and 6pm
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.