Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#301
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
You asked:
what is the intent or purpose of that story?  

Your answer was: Pretty simple actually.  It's to convey a simple truth that (a) humans had not always existed, (b) humans were created (by God) , (c) they were given the ability to make choices (free will) and (d) we are often tempted to make the "wrong" choice, etc.  If you get stuck on the story because it used a talking animal as part of the story, etc, then you are missing the point.
My answer:
To instruct readers what they should believe.   The main elements are that yhwh is the creator and paradise was lost because of disobedience, as described in the text.
Do you think the scribes who wrote gen 1-2 (in Babylon, 2700 years ago, probably)  wanted/expected the ordinary Hebrews of the time to take it as a true story?  Obviously we can't know if they did, but what do you think?   I think they wanted their story to be believed.
#302
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
** To instruct readers what they should believe.   The main elements are that yhwh is the creator and paradise was lost because of disobedience, as described in the text. **

So then, would you agree that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be a scientific dissertation on how man came to be?  In other words, it's not intended to explain scientifically how "man" came into existence?

#303
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
eh, not letting you off the hook THAT easy, comrade.  You made a pretty clear statement:

** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**

Was that said out of impulse? or was it said for dramatic effect?  to garner a laugh or two?   Or do you really truly believe that that if Book A and Book B both have the same event and that if Book A is false, then that automatically means Book B is false?

It's a simple yes or no question.  

Now...on to your questions:

** How do you determine if the events described in "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man" are REAL?  The question is about Standards Of Evidence.   How do you determine if the events described in "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man" are REAL?**

Pretty much the same way I determine if other events are real.  I wasn't around to see John Hancock put pen to paper so do I truly know he actually signed the Declaration of Independence?  Hmmmm....well....we have historical accounts/records (written accounts) of him doing so.  We also have witnesses and their accounts.  Of course, there's always the possibility that the written accounts of him could be false or the witnesses could be "making it up".  Heck, there is always the possibility that even though the Declaration says "John Hancock" in pretty big script, it may not actually be his signature.

Likewise, with this guy Jesus.  I wasn't around to see him walk on water or raise the dead or heck, even appear in His resurrected form after His death.  So then, how do i know he was real?  Same process....I examine the historical accounts/records.  I learn about the witnesses and their accounts etc.  

So now let's examine Spiderman.  We have written accounts of him, right?  We have comic books, film, etc.  This is written historical evidence, is it?  Or isn't it? .  So how we know if he's real or not.  Are there eye witness accounts of him outside of film?

Of course, in 1000 years one could come across the film "Spiderman".  If they were to just only examine that one document (film) and not look at other stuff, they could come to the conclusion that Spiderman was some sort of God that really existed.  But I would expect this conclusion to be supported by other evidence (i.e. witnesses, etc). 

Or they could reach the conclusion that he was just some made up character.  Simply because there is no other evidence.  But they could come to the same conclusion about Oskar Schindler, if all they examine is Spielberg's film.  They could say "All we have is this film about Schindler".  If they ignore the other evidence (other records, witness accounts, etc) they could erroneously surmise that Schindler was just a made up character.  

What I don't do though is deduce that book B is false simply because book A is false, which you seem to have done in your statement.

** Please diagram your own thought process.

Action A (a miracle) is performed in book X
Book X is really really old
Lots of people believe book X is truly truly true
Therefore, miracles are REAL?**

Nah, that's not the thought process.  Just because a book is old is not reason enough to believe it.  In a thousand years, Orwell's "Animal Farm" will be considered "really really old"-- age alone is not reason enough to believe there are talking animals (but, if your main takeaway from his book is that animals could talk, your missing the point of his story).  Likewise, popular vote doesn't make something real or true (i.e. "lots of peole believe it's truly truly true" is not reason enough to believe something).  Many many people could believe the moon is made of cheese-- that would not make it so.

Here is my thought process. It's actually pretty simple (I'm an engineer by education and trade, so forgive me if it's analytical)

A.  Action A is performed in book X.
B.  If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind. 
C.  I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D.  If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E.  I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F.   If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G.  If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will ten to believe it's not real.  

If you have a better way of arriving at Truth, I'm all ears.

I think a lot of times where we differ is what we define as evidence and "preponderance of evidence". 

I think many Atheists skip or refuse to do these steps:
    B.  Examine the claim that it is real with an open mind.  Instead, they examine it from their bias or preconceived notion that it is false.
    E.  Challenge the claim that it is not real.  Instead, again they are dead-set in their beliefs that it is false and won't challenge this notion they have

Likewise I think may Theists skip or refuse to do these steps:
   C.  Challenge the claim that it is real.  Instead, again they are dead-set in their beliefs that it is false and won't challenge this notion they have
   D.  Examine evidence suggesting it's not real with an open mind.  Instead, they examine it from their bias or preconceived notion that it is true



#304
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@disgusted
** Evolution, which is supported by evidence debunks the A&E story which has no evidence as support.
BTW it's you who is supposed to be supporting the lies in the bible that I have asked you about.
Next?  **


Actually, it does nothing of the sort.  Evolution doesn't preclude the Creation story.  Evolution could very well.  The fact that there exists animals that are very similar in biology etc doesn't necessarily mean the Creation story never happened.  The Creator could have very well made animals very similar to humans.  Or Evolution could have been part of the Creators plan.  Evolution doesn't explain the "leap" from lower forms of life to Human life-- it just shows there could be a link.

Now, I ask you a very important question "From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?"   The other important question is "How do you read (interpret) the story"?  

These are very important in questions when one is questioning the "truth" behind a story.

If someone were telling me they don't believe Orwell's "Animal Farm" or the "Ant and The Grasshopper" by Aesop.  If there response is "Explain and show that animals can talk and form governments (in the case of Animal Farm)", I'd say "Dude, you're missing the point of the story."

So, before I can start answering your questions about the "lies" of Adam and Eve, I need to know:

1.  From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?
2.  How do you read (interpret) the story?
#305
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
So then, would you agree that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be a scientific dissertation on how man came to be?  In other words, it's not intended to explain scientifically how "man" came into existence?
 I disagree.  In the ancient world the reality of gods was not a matter of debate - gods were considered to be as real as gravity or rocks.  The story of Adam and Eve would not have seemed far-fetched or fantastical but a natural consequence of how gods were.  Lay Hebrews would accept that their priests knew these things by virtue of their relationship with the gods - the priests themselves may have had a more complicatedreationship with the stories, but no-one was encouraged to question its veracity too closely.  Presuamaly they accepted that god had revealed what was necessary, not everything. 

So if by a 'scientific' explanation of how man came into eistence you mean a factual account, I think Gen 1-2 were intended as such and would have been universally accepted as such at the time.  it continued to be taken as simply factual right upto the C19th when science proper began to cast doubt on its literal interpratation.  In 1851 Rusin wrote:
"If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses"

But for more than 2000 years the truth of Genesis wasvirtually  unquestioned

#306
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
eh, not letting you off the hook THAT easy, comrade.  You made a pretty clear statement:

** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**

Was that said out of impulse? or was it said for dramatic effect?  to garner a laugh or two?   
Do you believe the Amazing Adventures of Spider-man are TRUE?

It's a simple yes or no question. 

Or do you really truly believe that that if Book A and Book B both have the same event and that if Book A is false, then that automatically means Book B is false?
Book A and Book B in your example do NOT have the "same event"

From your [POST#296]

Action A is performed in book X
Action B is also performed in book Y
Book X = Action A
Book Y = Action B

Not the "same event".

It's a simple yes or no question.  
If two history books contain SOME of the same (or very similar) believable or unbelievable stories, that does not necessarily mean that any of the OTHER stories in the history books are either ALL true or ALL false.

For example, [LINK]
#307
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** Do you believe the Amazing Adventures of Spider-man are TRUE?**

Nope.

** Book X = Action A
Book Y = Action B

Not the "same event". **



Well hold on there, Cowboy.  I realize they are not the same event.  My post 296 is actually just me "formalizing" your argument when you said "The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE." 

So in other words, by this statement you made in your post (that prompted this), you are saying Action A is performed (recorded?) in Thing X (in this case a book), a totally different Action B is performed (recorded?) in Thing Y (in this case, a Spiderman Movie).  But because Thing Y is made-up, that must mean Thing X (it's associated Actions, such as Action A) are UNTRUE?  I stand by statement that this is unreasonable lol.  SOrry, just trying to understand the argument you made.

** If two history books contain SOME of the same (or very similar) believable or unbelievable stories, that does not necessarily mean that any of the OTHER stories in the history books are either ALL true or ALL false.**

I agree.  But that's not what you said when you made your initial Spiderman statement (See above).  Are you backpedaling away now from your Spiderman statement?  When you made that comment (the Spiderman comment above), you are basically saying that because  the Spiderman movie is made up and has totally unrelated events that are unbelievable, this provides good evidence that Bible stories are untrue.  That is what you are saying though in your history books comments.

What you said in your Spiderman analogy/comment is different from what you are now saying in the HIstory books analogy/comment.  Let's close the book (pun intended) on the SPiderman analogy/comment before move on to your History books analogy/comment (which I do agree with).

#308
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
** Do you believe the Amazing Adventures of Spider-man are TRUE?**
Nope.
Why not?
#309
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Orion was a giant huntsman of great skills and the ability to walk on water. This gift, of walking on water, came from his father Poseidon who was in the relationship with the eldest of gorgons called Euryale. Some sources even claim that he was born out of Gaea, when Zeus, Hermes and Poseidon urinated on a bull hide and buried it in the earth. And that is why his name was Orion (urine). Anyway, he was also thought to be very handsome individual, good company and, therefore, very popular among people. He was also a hunter and was a companion of goddess Artemis for a while. Upon his death, he was placed among stars and that is why the name rings a bell. We now know it as the constellation Orion. [LINK]

Do you believe that Orion was a real historical figure?
#310
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll answer both your SPiderman and Orion questions simultaneously, because it's the same answer:

Nope. I don't believe them.

Why not?

Here's why, and allow me to modify my thought process (making it more general).  I'll highlight my changes by italicizing them:


A.  A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)

The question becomes Is "A" real? Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)

B.  If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind. 
C.  I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D.  If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E.  I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F.   If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G.  If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real. 
H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  

In the case of Spiderman and Orion the Hunter, "H" is where it gets me.  I'm anticipating the eventual "Well how come you believe Jesus is real??" question (this ain't my first rodeo).  

But before we go down that path, I'd really like to wrap up, close the door, seal the case, end the discussion, close the book and any other euphemism you want to use on the initial Spiderman comment you made:

Do you agree that your original Spiderman claim, as written, is unreasonable, or do you still stand by that statement and the underlying thought process it has as its foundation?

#311
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  
You've just described an unfalsifiable claim.  Unfalsifiable claims are naked appeals to ignorance. [LINK]

Are you suggesting that you can't flatly state that Spider-man and Orion are FALSE?

LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.

LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.

LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.

LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.

In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof.

Otherwise your OPINIONS are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
#312
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
But before we go down that path, I'd really like to wrap up, close the door, seal the case, end the discussion, close the book and any other euphemism [METAPHOR] you want to use on the initial Spiderman comment you made:
My best guess is you are referring to [POST#285]

Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?
The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.
I'm going to pretend you asked me some clarifying questions instead of leaping to astronomical conclusions (regarding my underlying reasoning).

Do you agree that your original Spiderman claim, as written, is unreasonable, or do you still stand by that statement and the underlying thought process it has as its foundation?
The claim appears to be, simply that some of the descriptions of Spider-man's Amazing Adventures violate the known laws of physics and are, as such, provably false.  This alone does not invalidate the historical places and events described in the comic.  It doesn't even invalidate the existence of a man named Peter Parker.  It also doesn't invalidate the existence of a person wearing a Spider-man costume who wants to stop criminals.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson could take the Spider-man canon and edit out all of the "miracles" and at that point we'd be left with a vastly more plausible, but still not NECESSARILY TRUE historical account. [LINK]

Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
#313
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
Does Science Argue for or against God?

obviously it doesn't prove anything one way or the other but it does help to understand why people think and or believe what they do.

#314
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Does Science Argue for or against God?

obviously it doesn't prove anything one way or the other but it does help to understand why people think and or believe what they do.
Please draw a straight line from "Intelligent Designer" (DEISM) to "YHWH".

Here's your fine tuning argument, [LINK]
#315
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
there are no straight lines I don't believe, just guesses is all which is why I worded my statement as I did, not drawing any lines or conclusions.
#316
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there are no straight lines I don't believe, just guesses is all which is why I worded my statement as I did, not drawing any lines or conclusions.
Ok, sounds good.

I just find it interesting when Theists seem to think that "Intelligent Design" is somehow a "win" for them.

Deism is functionally identical to Atheism.
#317
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not convinced either way because of the limited actual facts/knowledge and the limitations of my understanding.  While it's interesting to talk about and think about it doesn't control or run my life, not that I'm conscious of anyway.
#318
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
**I disagree.  In the ancient world the reality of gods was not a matter of debate - gods were considered to be as real as gravity or rocks.  The story of Adam and Eve would not have seemed far-fetched or fantastical but a natural consequence of how gods were.  Lay Hebrews would accept that their priests knew these things by virtue of their relationship with the gods - the priests themselves may have had a more complicatedreationship with the stories, but no-one was encouraged to question its veracity too closely.  Presuamaly they accepted that god had revealed what was necessary, not everything.  

So if by a 'scientific' explanation of how man came into eistence you mean a factual account, I think Gen 1-2 were intended as such and would have been universally accepted as such at the time.  it continued to be taken as simply factual right upto the C19th when science proper began to cast doubt on its literal interpratation.  In 1851 Rusin wrote:
"If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses"

But for more than 2000 years the truth of Genesis wasvirtually  unquestioned**




That’s a great point . However We also know “the ancients” also used“literary techniques” and poetic language  to convey certain ideas, thoughts and concepts, even when when describing God and His actions: 
 
        - 2Samuel (written around 540 BC) – employs metaphors etc.  The text describes God as being a rock and afortress…..the author is not stating that God is a piece of sedimenatarymaterial or a military stronghold.  Thatsame text also says that God’s nostrils flared.  But read the entire text (or at least that chapter) and you will see howSamuel (David) is using poetic language to describe how God saved him.  This isn’t a scientific (factual) account ofwhat physically happened when God saved Him.  In fact, there is a lot of poetic language throughout the OT Psalms, etc….”on wings of eagles”….”savedme from the pit”). 
 

         - Genesis, itself employs what is hard to deny as “poetic language”
                   - God, when speaking to Abel, says “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!” I think mostscholars agree that this passage is not meant literally mean the earth is shedding tears-- it's using a literary device, poetic language, to talk convey a point. 
                   - When the Great Flood happened, it says “thefloodgates of the sky were opened”.  Thisis poetic language to describe how a large amount of rain started to fall fromthe sky.  It’s not meant to imply thatone point there was an actual mechanical floodgate in the sky.   


You state Genesis went unquestion for 2000 years.....I would argue though that as long as the writings have been around, there have been folks disputing it-- I have no proof to back up this claim, but human nature hasn't seem to change much over the course of the millennia.  In fact, I would argue that those who believed in Genesis were small in number compared to those around them (the Egyptians, etc) so they probably met with a lot of disagreement from others that were "polytheistic", etc.
#319
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps you are reading into what I wrote or perhaps did not read it correctly or simply just do not understand it.  So I will present it again (I'll add some emphasis, bold letters, in case you missed it) and will answer your questions:

H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  

** Are you suggesting that you can't flatly state that Spider-man and Orion are FALSE? **

Nope.  That is not what I'm saying.  Re-read "H" above again.  When it comes to Spiderman and/or Orion the Hunter (one of my favorites from Mythology by the way) I can "use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion. "

** LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.**  Agreed.  Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that afterlife is or isn't possible).  (See "H" above)

** LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.**  Agreed.  Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that bigfoot does or doesn't exist).  (See "H" above)

** LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.** Agreed.  Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that space aliens do or don't exist).  (See "H" above)

** LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.** Agreed.  Technically speaking, you can't make a definitive claim either way (that the earth is a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars).  (See "H" above)

Honestly, I'll make it easy on you:

     1.  Lack of evidence of X is not proof that X exists (that's basically what you're saying in your examples above.  And I agree with you.)
     2.  Lack of evidence of X is not proof that X DOESN'T exist either (for all we know, X could very well exist, we just haven't uncovered the evidence).
     3.  So what does lack of evidence mean?  Just that....you lack evidence, so technically you can't make a claim either way.  
     4.  Put succinctly:  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

**  In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof.

Otherwise your OPINIONS are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy. **

    I guess that all depends on what sort of evidence you are expecting.  By this (these) statements, I assume you mean that you expect a diety (God, or gods) to be measurable they way we measure and observe physical things around us, right?
#320
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
I guess that all depends on what sort of evidence you are expecting.  By this (these) statements, I assume you mean that you expect a diety (God, or gods) to be measurable they way we measure and observe physical things around us, right?
Not necessarily.

You missed the part about a rigorous logical proof. 

For example, Spinoza's god definitely exists.
#321
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
What is spinozas god,and why does it exist?
#322
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** The claim appears to be, simply that some of the descriptions of Spider-man's Amazing Adventures violate the known laws of physics and are, as such, provably false.  This alone does not invalidate the historical places and events described in the comic.  It doesn't even invalidate the existence of a man named Peter Parker.  It also doesn't invalidate the existence of a person wearing a Spider-man costume who wants to stop criminals.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson could take the Spider-man canon and edit out all of the "miracles" and at that point we'd be left with a vastly more plausible, but still not NECESSARILY TRUE historical account. [LINK]

Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy. **



OK, great! Thanks for clarifying.  On the surface, your initial statement could be interpreted as you stating something to the effect of "because the events in Spider-man are unbelievable this also proves that Bible is untrue."  It appears this wasn't what you were implying (again, this is why always ask people to clarify their positions).

So what you are saying is this:

          1.  Spider-man  does some pretty AMAZING things.
          2.  These amazing things Spider-man does violate the laws of physics, and can't be proven.  In fact, you say they are "provably false", meaning they can be proven to false.
                    - Just curious, what are some things that you say violate the laws of physics and are provably false?  Are you meaning to say "Are impossible for a person to do?  
                    - Surely you're not suggesting that just because A is impossible for X, that proves that A is also impossible for Y and Z?  In other words, if it's impossible for a human being, it's impossible for something else? 
                    - Honestly, I can think of some things that are impossible for Humans, but yet are physically possible for other things (breathing under water unassisted, flying in the air unassisted, laying an egg, spinning a web, scaling a wall unassisted,  immediately come to mind).
          3.  You also state that these "provably false" things "alone does not invalidate other historical events/places in the comic." 
                   -  I couldn't agree more!  Just because a book has some things that can't be proven, or better yet, can be proven false, that doesn't necessarily mean other things in the book (places, people, events) are false too.  

Not sure what the point of Jefferson side-bar is, but I agree-- one can certainly pick and choose things from a book and create a totally different story.  I can certainly do that with "The Lord of the Rings" (it'll be much shorter and less entertaining), "Catcher in the Rye" (my cherry picked version would be less controversial probably), etc.


**Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.**

Be that as it may, there are two things you can not technically do from a logic or philosphic standpoint:

           1.  You can not say definitively it's true.
           2.  You can not say definitively it's false.

Now if you don't mind, when you say "Provably true", what exactly does that mean in your opinion? 
#323
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** Not necessarily.

You missed the part about a rigorous logical proof. 

For example, Spinoza's god definitely exists.**

Alright alright alright.  What exactly do you mean by "rigorous logical proof".  I wan to make sure I'm on the same page as you.  
#324
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
**You missed the part about a rigorous logical proof. 

For example, Spinoza's god definitely exists."

I take that to mean that even if there is no quantifiable positive evidence (i.e. physical or scientific evidence) you'd be willing to accept "logical proof"?  Is that correct?

So in other words, you don't require hard, physical scientific evidence in order to believe something.  There could be no physical scientific evidence, but as long as there is logical proof, you would believe it?

And back to my earlier question, what exactly do you mean by "rigorous physical proof" (again, just want to make sur eI'm on the same page)
#325
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
All we need is a time machine and we can settle it once and for all!

#326
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@janesix
What is spinozas god,and why does it exist?
In its simplest form,

(IFF) an uncreated sole creator god exists (AND) nothing exists in parallel that has not been created by this sole creator god (THEN) every created thing must be made from god-stuff (since that is the only available material in this hypothetical scenario) (THEREFORE) every conceivable thing we can identify are necessarily pieces parts of god.

Spinoza goes into great detail about this in his 1665 blockbuster hit, Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata. [LINK]
#327
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
When it comes to God, all are confused when they search without. All are wise or at the very least dumb and not confused that search within. 

Thus it will be found that God is only shown to the worthy; no matter how hard the people nitpick, sheep-herd each other or battle it out.

I hereby tell you that the truth is we are entertainment and stimulation to the mother of reality as we know it. It's not a 'why' it's not a 'how' it's a truth. She alters what is and what is not at any given time, she herself was randomly generated as a series of 'is's and the 'is' of being able to rig the random generator of variables caused her to permanently gain control of Fate since then.

There is no other version of reality that has no logical loopholes other than mine. If you ask 'but where did the random variable generator come from?' it is simple; it came with time, it was necessitated from the beginning of time.

So where then did time originate? Before time began, there was nothing at all, meaning the beginning of time in and of itself is the beginning of everything it's a semantic axiom and reality is actually semantic at its core, not physical. We are a simulation.

#328
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
1.  Spider-man  does some pretty AMAZING things.

2.  These amazing things Spider-man does violate the laws of physics, and can't be proven.  In fact, you say they are "provably false", meaning they can be proven to false.

- Just curious, what are some things that you say violate the laws of physics and are provably false?  Are you meaning to say "Are impossible for a person to do?
Well among a great many other things, the sheer volume of web that he typically uses to swing from building to building and entangle his enemies greatly exceeds the storage capacity of those magic wrist-bands.  Which makes all reports of activities contingent on this anomalous ability suspect.
#329
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
- Honestly, I can think of some things that are impossible for Humans, but yet are physically possible for other things (breathing under water unassisted, flying in the air unassisted, laying an egg, spinning a web, scaling a wall unassisted,  immediately come to mind).
What about violating the law of conservation of energy?
#330
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
**Anything that is not (EITHER) provably true (OR) provably false is OPINION and INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.**
Be that as it may, there are two things you can not technically do from a logic or philosphic standpoint:

           1.  You can not say definitively it's true.
           2.  You can not say definitively it's false.

Now if you don't mind, when you say "Provably true", what exactly does that mean in your opinion? 
Here's the problem.

You need to make your definition of "exist" explicit.

You also need to make your definition of "true" explicit.

You also need to make your definition of "false" explicit.

Identify and reveal your AXIOMS.

Then present your assertion in the from of a Syllogistic Statement. [LINK]

(IFF) you cannot determine if a statement is either true or false (THEN) such a statement is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FANTASY.