Proving god is a lie

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 223
#181
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
I fail to see the doctrine in religion or theism.

There is doctrine when organization is set up, where legalism and law is set up.
But this is possible in atheism as well.

Seems to 'me.
#182
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I fail to see the doctrine in religion or theism.
All religions have doctrine. The Abrahamic religions for example condone a bunch of human atrocities. Many said religious followers don’t stick to those teachings because they know it’s wrong.

There is doctrine when organization is set up, where legalism and law is set up.
But this is possible in atheism as well.

Seems to 'me.
Atheism is the lack belief in god(s). An atheists perception of religion can turn into an extreme anti-theism, but that’s not just atheism anymore.

#183
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
If atheism can be defined as 'lacking belief in God, then seems to me theism can be defined as 'having belief in God.
Neither of which statements 'say anything meaningful in how those perceptions of the world 'effect it.

You might claim a theists perception of their belief, can turn political, social, but that’s not just theism anymore.

. . .

When I Google "religion definition"
First three results I get are,
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
A particular system of faith and worship.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

I fail to see how an individua, by those definitions, 'needs doctrine, to be religious.

. . .

For 'me, this conversation, bothers me, by what I perceive as a lack of awareness by some atheists, an obtuseness.
Not you particularly, I mean the ilk of Stephen or backwardseden.
I don't actually remember your viewpoints at the moments, but am going with the assumption you are not so 'rabidly opposed to religion.

In hindsight, since I'm actually more interested in my understanding this particular line, rather than showboating, I should have used private messaging, as I think people speak different in public spaces, myself included. Ego more apparent. But too late now.

Some atheists are interested as atheism as a movement, but then distance themselves from the idea of a group identity.
Despite the clear 'existence of a number of groups in history and modern day, based upon beliefs in atheism and how atheist individuals ought act in society.

I am being obtuse and over semantic with my argument as well, in an attempt to stick my point, but perhaps I attempt poorly.

My 'point though, my opinion,
Is that atheism can be a reason as theism can be a reason.
I find it disingenuous, blind, to deny otherwise,
And I've 'never been much impressed with the definition of atheism as 'just a lack of belief in God.
Such a definition is worthy of the beasts, savages, and babes, than humans, civilized, adults.

If one is able to look around, read history, see ideas and concepts of man wondering 'why,
If they reject the concept of God, 'that I understand.
But a human with a lack of 'existence, or 'mind to consider the world?

Ach, I'm rambling irritated in this part,

. . .

The point is, I don't understand how you can make a statement such as,

You’ll find next to zero results showing atheists killing anyone due to atheism (The lack of belief in god(s)
Atheism doesn’t have a whole ideology/culture underpinning it.

That appears in my reading of history, so patently false.
So willfully ignorant, and avoidant.

I don't understand the problem with admitting that atheists are capable of good or ill acts, same as with theists.
#184
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I don't understand the problem with admitting that atheists are capable of good or ill acts, same as with theists.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
— Steven Weinberg
#185
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
I get what you're 'getting at, but I still view it as a slanted perspective.
#186
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.
I used the term religion - this is a general term. I then used particularly referring to one of the religions.  Christianity. 

And you singled out Christianity as being "the most dangerous in particular".
Did you actually believe  that this stupid and  irrational  comment of yours would be so easily be forgotten?

Timid8967Doyou have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity?  #153
You have even expressed to  us that Christianity is dangerous to our children's safety and survival? 

This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival.#153
So stop with your shite!  Not once have you mentioned the dangers of Islam in such a way. And now you want us all to believe that you are including all religions and that you are putting them ALL under the same umbrella.? 

The Christians here might well give you a pass on all of your faux anti religion, faux anti Christ and faux anti bible  stance but that is only because they don't want to agree with me. 

I keep asking myself - why does this Stephen keep analyzing every word and sentence I make? 

Keep asking. But I don't have to analyse anything that comes from you. Your  hypocrisy, inconsistencies and outright bullshite,  just LEAP off the page!!!!!  see above



Stephen, just FYI, My words, [.............................................] are words that are meant to ask, answer, and attempt to produce discussion.

 And that is exactly what I am doing.  I am discussing YOUR words. With YOU.  As I do with other peoples words on a public forum. Words that you and they write and post up on a public forum on the WWW..   
 


I am flattered you make so much of my words,

 Then stop your whining.  You will be playing the victim card next. And accusing me of "harassment" AGAIN.



 such a person of your skills has much better things to be doing.   

 You really are shite at sarcasm.


Topic's author
#187
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Boring! And once more - nothing to respond too. You have added no new information. You asked above, I responded. That is the end of it. You don't like my answers. I don't like your repeating yourself.  

I would prefer it if you just kept to the topic.  It would be nice if you could either advance your ideas rather than continually criticizing everyone else - after the fact. And please don't misconstrue that as being a victim.  There is a difference between fair criticism and what you are doing.  Being fairly criticized is part of what this forum enables us to do - in order to correct and see ideas evolve.  Yet, that is not what you do.  What you do is repeat over and over again - even after you have been soundly corrected. As I have said before - you think you know everything - and that you cannot be corrected. Now I am not going to presume that I might be able to teach you.  Yet, I cannot recall even once where you have accepted on any level that you were mistaken.  Not one.  

And that Stephen is a classic sign of someone who is narcissistic.  OF someone who refuses to learn. OF someone who thinks they are better than everyone else.  

As I said - Boring.  
#188
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
And that Stephen is a classic sign of ...............................   someone who refuses to learn.

Learn what? Taught what? 

Yes you have mentioned my lack of being unable to be taught or to learn anything many times now but again, you forget to inform me what it is that I am supposed to be learning . Or by whom I should be taught or from where I get this teaching? 

 Do you suggest that I learn from the bible?  The scriptures that you find contradictory, confusing and don't believe in anyway and want to see thrown on  the fire ? Have you forgotten this already? 

Dimtim8967 wrote: It is quite confusing and to me contradictory.   #186.  I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books #8

Christians follow the teaching of the Christ, but you say "we"  should not even be discussing Jesus and giving his teaching "oxygen" and airtime".

Dimtim8967 wrote:  Weshouldn't discuss Jesus or the scriptures >>>>  #45  #46



What am I supposed to be learning about, Christianity?  The religion that you say is the most dangerous religion in particular?

Dimtim8967 wrote: Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity?  #153


Who am I supposed to be turning to for this learning  and teaching ? Members of the Christian movement that you say is not only the most "dangerous", but to be riddled in "weirdness"?

Dimtim8967 wrote: No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. #141

 Or should I be learning from YOU, the one that came to this forum believing that he was clever and smart enough that he could deceive everyone here into believing that he was completely everything anti Christian.
 You have run out of steam sunshine, you are spent!

So, once more to my questions. Learn what? Taught what? And by whom? 

Topic's author
#189
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
When are you going to get back on topic? 

If you don't have any new information - stay away and let others contribute. 

Everyone on this site learns from everyone else. That is the nature of a forum.  It is not about you or about me. It is the forum. And if you are too dumb to understand that- it is your problem, not mine. 


#190
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967
And so....GODS are not lies.....GODS are hypotheses.

A lie is a mistruth intended to deceive......Ooooops.....Was that a contradiction?

No......Not if I insert deliberate before mistruth.

And for good measure, naive before hypotheses.
#191
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967

It is not about you or about me

Then stop making it about "me" and simply answer questions raised by your own comments on your own thread! The thread is about YOU and what you propose , and why?  Or don't you even read your own shite?



Everyone on this site learns from everyone else. 

Do  they? This is a discussion forum it is not your fkn pulpit and neither is it a class room or tutor hall. 


See again, you are not being clear on what it is that I am supposed to be learning and who from. And telling me to stay on topic while you shout to the world that I am "unteachable" and incapable of being " taught anything".   That  is not topical it is insulting me on your own thread. 

And you still haven't told me what it is that I have to Learn?  or  taught? or  And by whom?  You appear to be suggesting "the forum" teaches me? But teach me what?  You can't say can you?  That is because you burned all of your bridges the day you arrived and proclaimed ( far too much) your abhorrence for the bible and Christianity and the "weirdness" of  Christians.


Everyone on this site learns from everyone else. 

I see and what have you learned and what do you imagine that you have taught anyone on the forum apart from your zealousness to burn the holy scriptures of Christians . And that "we"  should not discuss Jesus just because  YOU say he  is a "myth" as you do with scripture. You have never said WHY you believe the Jesus story to be a "myth" have you? WHY haven't you?

And please remember that it is you that have taken YOUR OWN thread slightly off topic.  I didn't accuse myself of being unteachable princess.

You say something and I will question it and or comment on it. 


  So let us , as you say,  discuss this topic of yours.:

How do "we"  & "us" and YOU, go about proving god does or  not exist?   


We need to start being proactive. We need to take the bull by the horns.We need to give ourselves the b.o.p. to prove that God exists. Why?Because we have the truth.  

"we"  AGAIN !  What truth is it you believe "we" have? 

Topic's author
#192
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I never mentioned we in my last post.  You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered.  Please stick to the topic - and please add new information. 

If you cannot do this - please leave this thread. 
#193
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I never mentioned we in my last post. 
But you have throughout the thread, haven't you?  Would you like a few reminders?


You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered. 


And now you are simply lying on your own thread.


You asked for me to stay on topic. I have done just that and you, like the spinless coward you are have simply attempted to avoid questions raised by YOUR OWN TOPIC, THIS TOPIC.


 You have NEVER  answered what it is we are supposed to be " taking back"?

You have NEVER told us why you believe Jesus is a "myth".?

You have NEVER told us what is the "truth" that "we" are supposed to have?

You have NEVER told me what is it that "the forum" is supposed to teach me according to you? 

You have NEVER explained why you believe the Christian holy bible should be put to the flames?

You have NEVER explained why you believe "Christianity in particular is a danger to our children and our very existence"?

You have NEVER explained for what reason and why it is that YOU believe  the "we" and the "us" atheists should have to "take the bull by the horns"? 

You have completely avoided answering questions concerning how it is that YOU believe how we should go about disproving the existence or the non existence of god? 

 And the reason you cannot explain or answer any of the above is simply because you dug yourself a very big hole when you came here  with you faux anti Christian, anti bible, anti Jesus and anti god beliefs.  You have done nothing but lie through your teeth since you came here , hence you wanting to put all of YOUR OWN "nonsense" behind you and pretend you have never said anything as if it had all been a bad dream. The truth is  the pressure got to you and so you dreamed up  this load of old bollocks :



Timid8967Thanks everyone for your comments.  

 I would like to think that I am open to learning new things and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas.  So thanks. 

When I read some of my posts, I think I do come across a little or a lot  contradictory. So thanks Stephen for pointing that out.  And thanks Zed and others for noting my inconsistency for calling for people to stop giving air time to religious stuff when it is plain I am doing just that.  I have decided I will stop calling for that for it does not make sense. 

I am going to simply request that everyone delete my previous comments since many of them are nonsense and unhelpful.  

And I will try and start again.  






And it appears that only Fauxlaw fell for your shite and he would he, he knows fk all in any language.



Please stick to the topic -

You started this thread on "Proving god a Lie", I DIDN'T!!!!

So why don't YOU keep with the thread, a thread created by only YOU and simply begin explaining the above.

So when you are ready, off you go.


#194
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967
Bicker Bicker Bicker

As my dear departed Mum used to say.

If not the thread, then I think that you've both lost the plot.
Topic's author
#195
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree.  I am trying to get past the bickering.  Please continue to hold me to account. 
Topic's author
#196
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
This is what my thread started with. It was not me proving anything - I asked others to prove me wrong. 

You on the other hand don't want to me wrong. Otherwise you would have accepted my acknowledgment of the same and desire to learn. 

No, you wanted to prove that I am a fraud.  That is quite different.  

So prove me wrong?  Please keep to the thread. 
#197
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
This is what my thread started with. It was not me proving anything - I asked others to prove me wrong. 



Oh ffs stop it. Your thread is all about proving god is a lie. That is the title of your thread.  And you start your opening piece with this bullshite:


Added05.10.21 08:55AM
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie  is to understand what proof is.#1  Timid8967
See that^^^^^^ nothing there is there about proving YOU  wrong. If you believe god is a lie then tell us all why he is a lie.


No, you wanted to prove that I am a fraud.  

You are a fraud and everyone with the exception of the 19 faced fauxlaw who couldn't spot a mustache in Mexico, can see it. And you came here talking about "intellectual honesty" . You are the biggest liar to come to this forum. 



So prove me wrong?  

Prove you wrong about what? 


 And again you haven't even attempted those question above concerning your own comments and statement on your own thread.


You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered. 


You asked for me to stay on topic. I have done just that and you, like the spinless coward you are have simply attempted to avoid questions raised by YOUR OWN TOPIC, THIS TOPIC.


 You have NEVER  answered what it is we are supposed to be " taking back"?

You have NEVER told us why you believe Jesus is a "myth".?

You have NEVER told us what is the "truth" that "we" are supposed to have?

You have NEVER told me what is it that "the forum" is supposed to teach me according to you? 

You have NEVER explained why you believe the Christian holy bible should be put to the flames?

You have NEVER explained why you believe "Christianity in particular is a danger to our children and our very existence"?

You have NEVER explained for what reason and why it is that YOU believe  the "we" and the "us" atheists should have to "take the bull by the horns"? 

You have completely avoided answering questions concerning how it is that YOU believe how we should go about disproving the existence or the non existence of god? 

 So when you are ready.
 
Topic's author
#198
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Even if you have not comprehended what my topic was about - others have managed to do so - from the getgo and done so very well.

It is not fault that you cannot see this because of your prejudice.  As I said - stick to the topic. 

There is nothing in the opening post that requires me to answer your questions. 

Please stick to this thread and this topic. 
#199
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967



It is not fault that you cannot see this because of your prejudice.  


What prejudice towards whom?  YOU? 

I find it odd in the extreme that you should say this considering I actaully agree with much of your stance on religion? 

Just like you I agree the bible is mess of  confusing and contradictions.  #186
Just like you I too believe the New Testament Jesus story to be mythical. #16
Just like you I too  believe history shows how dangerous Christianity has been.  #153
Just like you I don't believe a dead rotting and stink days old corpse came back to life again. #101
Just like you I don't believe in a person/god with supernatural powers #274
Just like you I agree that there is a weirdness to the christian beliefs even today#141
Just like you I agree that the story of Noah's flood simply doesn't stand up to the lightest of scrutiny #14

 So I think  that your preconceived opinion of any imagined prejudice I hold towards you, is a tad over the top , princess. 


#200
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Timid8967
If a person continues poke and prod, with no regard of the word stop,
And it bothers you,
Simply stop responding, block them or report them.

I'd think.
#201
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
 with no regard of the word 


What word?

29 days later

#202
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Timid8967
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie  is to understand what proof is. 
- I would say the first thing is to know what God is, but that works too.


Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable. 
- No scientific "proof" is not not probable...


For example -  many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.
- Scientific "proof" is inductive...


For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.  
- Do you have any doubts as to wether the sun will rise from the East tomorrow?


What we need is rational proof.  For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is  mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.
- How about this. All Marsians are immortal. Zod is a Marsian. Therefore, Zod is immortal. 


Not probable but true. 
- No scientific "proof" is ever true.


It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true. 
- Indeed.


The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -
- I can see the issue, but only if you hold the belief that God does what is Good, as opposed to what God does is Good. 


because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.
- If anything, the invasion of the americas should've been stopped. 


Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.  
- If you look at it from a pure materialistic view it does cause confusion... What if the oppressed end up in Heaven & the oppressors end up in Hell. I reckon the oppressed wouldn't mind suffering a short while to gain eternal Paradise. Maybe then, they wouldn't want the "evil" to be stopped, so that's probably a good thing rather than an evil thing.


As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.   
- Fetch those premises first, then we can check wether they are correct. 


Please proceed to prove me wrong.
- Was hard not to.




Topic's author
#203
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Yassine
The first thing to do when discussing how to prove god is a lie  is to understand what proof is. 
- I would say the first thing is to know what God is, but that works too.
I think logic is necessary to prove anything - not necessarily its subjects.  god is a nebulas construct.  And there is no consensus. So it is pointless to begin with the construct. Hence why the logic to me is a first place of call. 

Proof is not convincing someone that what you say is true. It is not providing empirical evidence. It is providing a rational scientific proof. 100% proof that is not probable. 
- No scientific "proof" is not not probable...
That is a double negative.  Scientific proof is 100%.  It is providing a syllogism - and meetings its criteria.  

For example -  many people try and convince others that something is true - by trying to convince them they are correct. This is typically inductive reasoning - but it is not proof.
- Scientific "proof" is inductive...
No scientific proof is deductive. It might well use induction in relation to its premises. But scientific method is not inductive. It uses powers or deduction to reduce the hypothesis to a particular point, 

For example - I see 100 swans and they are all white. This means I can infer - or try and convince you that all swans are white. It does not prove it is so - but if I ever see white swans then there is a probability I am correct.  
- Do you have any doubts as to wether the sun will rise from the East tomorrow?
But that is the point isn't? The sun does not rise.  The earth turns.   My experience is not reliable. 

What we need is rational proof.  For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is  mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true.
- How about this. All Marsians are immortal. Zod is a Marsian. Therefore, Zod is immortal. 
Sorry that does not even make sense.  We have no evidence for the existence of martians. We do have evidence of humans not of martians. 

Not probable but true. 
- No scientific "proof" is ever true.
It is true when it is rational. that is its definition. 

It is suggested that the biblical god is all knowing - all powerful - and all loving. All that needs to prove god is not true is by proving any of these things is not true. 
- Indeed.
ok

The Holocaust - demonstrates god is not all powerful or that is he is not all loving -
- I can see the issue, but only if you hold the belief that God does what is Good, as opposed to what God does is Good. 
Not sure that I understand what you mean.  Can you give an example? 

because he would have stopped it if he is all loving and all powerful.
- If anything, the invasion of the americas should've been stopped. 

What do you mean the invasions of the americas should be stopped? 


Similarly, if god is all knowing he could have stopped the first people from doing evil - before they did.  
- If you look at it from a pure materialistic view it does cause confusion... What if the oppressed end up in Heaven & the oppressors end up in Hell. I reckon the oppressed wouldn't mind suffering a short while to gain eternal Paradise. Maybe then, they wouldn't want the "evil" to be stopped, so that's probably a good thing rather than an evil thing.
Then you would be making assumptions about what people think.  That is not reason. That is speculation. 

As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct.   
- Fetch those premises first, then we can check wether they are correct. 
What do you mean fetch those premises first? 

Please proceed to prove me wrong.
- Was hard not to.
Well you have not proved me wrong. You have commented on some of my points. Indeed you have made assertions contradicting me. But an assertion is not proof. It is not argument. It does not even get the level of refutation.  Thanks for your input though. 
#204
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Timid8967
I think logic is necessary to prove anything - not necessarily its subjects.  god is a nebulas construct.  And there is no consensus. So it is pointless to begin with the construct. Hence why the logic to me is a first place of call. 
- God is a square circle, therefore God does not exist. God is me, therefore God exists. Definition of God is a prerequisite, you can not argue for or against undefined things.

That is a double negative.  Scientific proof is 100%.  It is providing a syllogism - and meetings its criteria.  
- It is a double negative, exactly! "scientific proof is 100%" is a nonsensical statement, this is not a motivational speech.

No scientific proof is deductive. It might well use induction in relation to its premises. But scientific method is not inductive.
- Scientific method/"proof" is by definition *inductive*, called abductive reasoning. 

It uses powers or deduction to reduce the hypothesis to a particular point, 
- That's the structure of reasoning. The structure of a formal reasoning, any formal reasoning (whether in science or law or linguistics...) is always deductive.

But that is the point isn't? The sun does not rise.  The earth turns.   My experience is not reliable. 
- My bad! I thought the sun had wings... The answer is, no you have *inductive* certainty the sun will rise tomorrow from the East & not from the West. Inductive does not necessarily imply uncertain.

Sorry that does not even make sense.  We have no evidence for the existence of martians. We do have evidence of humans not of martians. 
- Exactly! A sound syllogism does not necessarily imply a valid conclusion.

It is true when it is rational. that is its definition. 
- Scientific results, conclusions, findings..., can only be more or less *accurate* if quantitative, or more or less *plausible* if qualitative, they can not be *true*. 'Truth' or 'Falsehood' is a quality of deduction, such as when I say "unmarried bachelors" is a true statement.

Not sure that I understand what you mean.  Can you give an example? 
- The question of which precedes which, God or Good? Is Good good because God does it, or regardless. In the first sense, whatever God does, that is Good. In the latter sense, God does only Good & does not do Evil, that is Good is independent from God.

What do you mean the invasions of the americas should be stopped? 
- You mentioned the Holocaust, I was merely pointing out the fact that the invasion of the Americas being of significantly worse degree of damage is more deserving of prevention. That is, you don't always have to mention the Holocaust every time you need to make this point. There are many more devastating events in history.

Then you would be making assumptions about what people think.  That is not reason. That is speculation. 
- You assume a purely materialistic outcome, which the religion you object to does not even condone. I am assuming the very teleological view adopted by said religion.

What do you mean fetch those premises first? 
- Where are the premises of your argument?

Well you have not proved me wrong. You have commented on some of my points. Indeed you have made assertions contradicting me. But an assertion is not proof. It is not argument. It does not even get the level of refutation.  Thanks for your input though. 
- It was not meant as a refutation, I don't adhere to most of this anyways. It was meant as education. 

Topic's author
#205
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Yassine
education???

I am not your student.  You are not my teacher.  Yes, you really are a funny one.   Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits. 


A syllogism is perfectly true if its premises are perfectly true.  That is the point.  Anything else is not able to demonstrate the soundness of the same. 

 Your reasoning in relation to Martians was not a good syllogism because it was in error in its premises.  
#206
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Timid8967
education???

I am not your student.  You are not my teacher. 
- Indeed. We don't have to be students to learn a thing or two.

Yes, you really are a funny one. Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits. 
- I am actually a sincere person, at least most of the time.

A syllogism is perfectly true if its premises are perfectly true.  That is the point.  Anything else is not able to demonstrate the soundness of the same. 

 Your reasoning in relation to Martians was not a good syllogism because it was in error in its premises.  
- The syllogism I provided is perfectly sound, but it's invalid. A sound syllogism can be invalid if it lacks existential import. Something to watch out for...

Topic's author
#207
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Yassine
With respect it was not sound.  You did not a sound premise either 1 or 2.    The two premises lacked more than existential import - it lacked any evidence whatsoever.  

Reason requires premises which are sound - in order to make sound conclusion.  And if the two premises are sound then the conclusion will be. 

So with respect it was not a sound  syllogism  which is why it does not work. Premises requires generalisations that are sound. they are not simply a statement made out of thin air. 

To say all men are mortal is a proven fact in our world.  But to say all martians are immortal is not a proven fact here or indeed anywhere else.  

Socrates is a man. Now it is possible I suppose to say Socrates is a dog. But it is a statement really which everyone knows to be true. 

Zog is a Martian suggests that Martians exist. Yet we have no evidence at all that any martians exist.  We know humans exist. And we know that humans are mortal. 

If you are merely suggesting that for logic to be correct - we need correct premises - then I agree. But I don't believe it is accurate to call a syllogism correct when it has faulty premises.  
#208
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967

Dimtim wrote:
->@Yassine
education???

I am not your student.  You are not my teacher.  Yes, you really are a funny one.   Certainly, humility is not one of your strongsuits. 


  This ^^^^^^ from the man that turns to vile and disgusting insults when caught on the backfoot.


Here you are at your tolerant best and  showing your  humility?>>

Eat shit and die. I don't care.  #86

Timid8967 Wrote:

" I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent.  Stephen is a dick." 


#209
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Timid8967
- Honest question, have you ever taken a Logic class? I reckon you haven't. I am not arguing with you, I am merely pointing something out to you that might seriously undermine your syllogisms if you don't pay attention. The moment you say "all" you are are generalizing on all members of your subject class, thus assuming the existence of at least one member of said subject class. "all men are mortal" assumes the existence of 'men' members in the mortal set, which isn't an issue since that assumption happens to be true. This is not always the case however...
Topic's author
#210
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Yassine
There is no need to be patronizing.  A syllogism's premise to conclude a 100% response requires an all.    I could say some men are mortal and that too would be true. Yet, that could only lead me to conclude that perhaps Socrates is mortal.  And even with that I could be 100% confident that might be mortal, but I want to know that he is mortal. And therefore I need an all.  

Your suggestion of martians however was not based on anything of reasonable confidence. It was created by you to try and refute my logic. Yet you did not achieve what you wanted because you were unable to do more than try and compare apples with oranges.  You needed to provide an example to allow you to compare apples with apples. 

Your suggestion about me attending a logic class is like water of a ducks back because it is you who appears to have a problem with understanding logic. But that is ok. If you are a teachable person and humble then perhaps your god or someone's god will enable you to learn some logic.