Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 302
  1. #181
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Proving the existence of supernatural entities is not possible.
    That’s right we can’t prove spiritual principles using a strictly material incomplete framework. That wouldn’t make logical sense. Just as we can’t measure someone’s IQ with a teaspoon. Using the right tools for the right purpose matters. If we want to prove spiritual principles we have to be wiling to consider the tools we’re using and the method.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #182
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    That’s right we can’t prove spiritual principles using a strictly material incomplete framework.
    Then do not claim that your 'proof' is objective because it isn't, it is subjective and 'personal'.

    You see friend, the absolutely WONDERFUL thing about proof or facts or evidence is that it is proof, fact or evidence irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. A bloody knife sticking out of someone's back is evidence that someone has been stabbed by a knife and the proof, facts and evidence do not change just because you don't believe in the existence of knives. The proof that knives exist is there for ALL to see - not just for those who believe in knives.

    Oh...and you avoided the question yet again. For the third time...

    'Do you really, honestly, with all your heart believe that if you had been born an Indian in Bombay and your parents had been Hindu and you had grown up in a Hindu community, that you would be on here today extolling the virtues of the Christian man-god?'


    The fact that you won't admit it by avoiding the question is evidence enough that you are NOT honest with yourself.

    ---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Oh?

    If a then b.
    b
    Therefore a.

    If a is a supernatural being that wouldn't prove the existence of a supernatural being?

    What?? Could you translate that into the English language please?
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  4. #183
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    What?? Could you translate that into the English language please?
    My apologies, I thought you might have some familiarity with logical structuring.

    I was asking you if a sound argument with valid premises would constitute proof of something. For example:

    Premise 1: If and only If a specific Supernatural Entity exists then some observed effect.

    Premise 2: That observed effect.

    Conclusion: Therefore that Supernatural Entity exists.


    If we could support premise 1 and 2 (and since the argument is sound) would that constitute proof to you?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #184
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My apologies, I thought you might have some familiarity with logical structuring.

    I was asking you if a sound argument with valid premises would constitute proof of something. For example:

    Premise 1: If and only If a specific Supernatural Entity exists then some observed effect.

    Premise 2: That observed effect.

    Conclusion: Therefore that Supernatural Entity exists.


    If we could support premise 1 and 2 (and since the argument is sound) would that constitute proof to you?
    In that case your reasoning is a tautology - a circular argument. You are saying that the existence of X exist if C exists.

  6. #185
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My apologies, I thought you might have some familiarity with logical structuring.

    I was asking you if a sound argument with valid premises would constitute proof of something. For example:

    Premise 1: If and only If a specific Supernatural Entity exists then some observed effect.

    Premise 2: That observed effect.

    Conclusion: Therefore that Supernatural Entity exists.


    If we could support premise 1 and 2 (and since the argument is sound) would that constitute proof to you?
    I think this probably falls into the space of "Well, if it's observable, then it's part of the natural world, and is therefore "natural" and not "supernatural"."

    In my experience, 'supernatural' hasn't been defined in a way that's useful for proofs and so on. Not to say that it's impossible to do so; it's just that - typically - "supernatural" means that the thing is something that transcends the natural world and thus isn't a part of the natural world. It's a definitional problem for sure.

  7. #186
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I think this probably falls into the space of "Well, if it's observable, then it's part of the natural world, and is therefore "natural" and not "supernatural"."

    In my experience, 'supernatural' hasn't been defined in a way that's useful for proofs and so on. Not to say that it's impossible to do so; it's just that - typically - "supernatural" means that the thing is something that transcends the natural world and thus isn't a part of the natural world. It's a definitional problem for sure.
    This is a fantastic point that is sometimes lost. By definition, supernatural cannot ever be detected or even, according to some, reasoned into existence.

    As science and evidence chase away incontrovertible truth regarding supernatural powers and beings, modern apologists now seek to argue it is illogical to expect that God can even be detected since he is beyond our material existence.

    Karen Armstrong made such an argument a few years back; it is the approach eye seems to be taking here. It makes sense - it's hard to argue the non-existence of something if you define it as non-detectable.

  8. #187
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    In that case your reasoning is a tautology - a circular argument. You are saying that the existence of X exist if C exists.
    That isn't a tautology, it is deductive reasoning.

    Iff A then B.

    B

    Therefore A

    A tautology would be a circular argument where one of the premises contains the conclusion as an assumption. That doesn't occur here since we have an if statement. Let me highlight this by changing it to something less controversial:

    Premise 1: If and only If it is a noble gas then it is stable.

    Premise 2: The gas is stable

    Conclusion: Therefore it is a noble gas.

    You agree that that isn't a tautology right?

    ---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I think this probably falls into the space of "Well, if it's observable, then it's part of the natural world, and is therefore "natural" and not "supernatural"."

    In my experience, 'supernatural' hasn't been defined in a way that's useful for proofs and so on. Not to say that it's impossible to do so; it's just that - typically - "supernatural" means that the thing is something that transcends the natural world and thus isn't a part of the natural world. It's a definitional problem for sure.
    First, I'm not necessarily saying we have such an argument, but I'm saying that we could well deduce the existence of something without observing it directly right? The supernatural entity might not be observable, but the effect is. Assuming premise 1 here, that would be a proof of its existence right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #188
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't a tautology, it is deductive reasoning.

    Iff A then B.

    B

    Therefore A

    A tautology would be a circular argument where one of the premises contains the conclusion as an assumption. That doesn't occur here since we have an if statement. Let me highlight this by changing it to something less controversial:

    Premise 1: If and only If it is a noble gas then it is stable.

    Premise 2: The gas is stable

    Conclusion: Therefore it is a noble gas.

    You agree that that isn't a tautology right?
    Sure but that wasn't what you wrote:

    If a is a supernatural being that wouldn't prove the existence of a supernatural being?

  10. #189
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't a tautology, it is deductive reasoning.

    Iff A then B.

    B

    Therefore A

    A tautology would be a circular argument where one of the premises contains the conclusion as an assumption. That doesn't occur here since we have an if statement. Let me highlight this by changing it to something less controversial:

    Premise 1: If and only If it is a noble gas then it is stable.

    Premise 2: The gas is stable

    Conclusion: Therefore it is a noble gas.

    You agree that that isn't a tautology right?
    Not to preempt JJ's reply, but I DO agree that your example isn't a tautology. The problem is that your other example is non-specific. I mean, what observable event could be offered that could definitely only be manifest by a supernatural being, you know?

  11. #190
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It makes sense - it's hard to argue the non-existence of something if you define it as non-detectable.
    Wouldn't that be true of sub-atomic particles as well? We don't detect them, we detect their effects.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #191
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    In that case your reasoning is a tautology - a circular argument. You are saying that the existence of X exist if C exists.
    I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Must have been on here too long today. Oh well!
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  13. #192
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Sure but that wasn't what you wrote:
    Ahh, you were quoting my earlier statement. I was simply saying, If we insert the term 'supernatural being' into the logical structure above, not making that a separate premise.

    Setting aside that confusion, do you agree that the argument structured in my last reply would be proof if we could somehow prove the premises right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #193
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, I'm not necessarily saying we have such an argument, but I'm saying that we could well deduce the existence of something without observing it directly right? The supernatural entity might not be observable, but the effect is. Assuming premise 1 here, that would be a proof of its existence right?
    I hope I spoke to this in my last reply. I would agree that it is not tautological, if the effect in question could only be manifest by a supernatural being. But the problem, as I see it, is describing the event itself and defining "supernatural" in a way that is useful. As it stands now, I can only say that I wouldn't be able to understand such an argument using the information we currently have.

  15. #194
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Not to preempt JJ's reply, but I DO agree that your example isn't a tautology. The problem is that your other example is non-specific. I mean, what observable event could be offered that could definitely only be manifest by a supernatural being, you know?
    Totally agreed, I'm not forwarding it as some kind of actual proof, I'm only debating the statement that such a being would be 'unprovable.'
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #195
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Totally agreed, I'm not forwarding it as some kind of actual proof, I'm only debating the statement that such a being would be 'unprovable.'
    Well, without a good understanding of such an event and what "supernatural" means, I would have to agree with Whatshisname's claim that is it indeed not possible to prove the existence of a "supernatural" being. That's not to say it's ABSOLUTELY impossible. Only that, given what we have to work with so far, it certainly seems to be.

  17. #196
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is a fantastic point that is sometimes lost. By definition, supernatural cannot ever be detected or even, according to some, reasoned into existence.
    Yeah! That's what I meant when I said 'Proving the existence of supernatural entities is not possible.'
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  18. #197
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Must have been on here too long today. Oh well!
    Specifically, I'm asking you whether or not deductive reasoning can be used as proof of the existence of something, a relatively simple question.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #198
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Then do not claim that your 'proof' is objective because it isn't, it is subjective and 'personal'.
    What someone knows intellectually is objective. Just because you don’t know or believe what someone else knows intellectually and is aware of does not mean it’s not objective. It just means you don’t know what they know and what they are aware of. Yes, you can jump and up down and get all huffy about what they intellectually know, but that's your choice.

    Just like a four-year child born in poverty who can play the piano like a master yet the child has never been taught music or how to play an instrument. We can challenge what the young child knows and how they know it. We may not understand how they obtained their knowledge. But that doesn’t mean it’s not objective knowledge for the child.


    'Do you really, honestly, with all your heart believe that if you had been born an Indian in Bombay and your parents had been Hindu and you had grown up in a Hindu community, that you would be on here today extolling the virtues of the Christian man-god?'
    You seem to have some rather strong preconceived ideas. Many Hindus have no problem with Jesus Christ – though they give him different details/attributes. There are Hindu Christians and there are also Christian Hindus in America and in India. My mailman happens to be one of them.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  20. #199
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, without a good understanding of such an event and what "supernatural" means, I would have to agree with Whatshisname's claim that is it indeed not possible to prove the existence of a "supernatural" being. That's not to say it's ABSOLUTELY impossible. Only that, given what we have to work with so far, it certainly seems to be.
    I'm not sure impossible is the correct word here. I think your objection is that premise 1 is so vague as to make the probability of such an argument unknown, which I would agree with. Or to phrase it another way, that given premise 1's vagueness, that using such an argument for any specific supernatural being is unclear.

    But the fact that the premise itself is logically possible (even if unlikely) and that the structure is valid, we would have to conclude that an argument of that nature is at least possible, even if we don't think it is likely.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #200
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure impossible is the correct word here. I think your objection is that premise 1 is so vague as to make the probability of such an argument unknown, which I would agree with. Or to phrase it another way, that given premise 1's vagueness, that using such an argument for any specific supernatural being is unclear.

    But the fact that the premise itself is logically possible (even if unlikely) and that the structure is valid, we would have to conclude that an argument of that nature is at least possible, even if we don't think it is likely.
    Well, I use use the term "impossible" in order to move past the point. It may very well be quite possible to use deductive reasoning to prove the existence of a supernatural being. But if we don't have a good example of an event that could only be manifest by a supernatural being, and if we don't know what "supernatural" even means, then there's not really anything to deduce. And if there's nothing to deduce, deductive reasoning IS impossible insofar as the scenario in question is concerned.

 

 
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When was the Bible written?
    By Zenstone in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 7th, 2007, 01:36 PM
  2. My first poem I've written in four years
    By RfrancisR in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 28th, 2006, 04:55 AM
  3. The Bible (as written in IRC)
    By Zhavric in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 7th, 2005, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •