Author Topic: Mary Magdalene.  (Read 6766 times)

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9990
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #125 on: May 29, 2016, 06:34:45 AM »
Having read the posts following your post 119 Hope, it looks like you haven't got nothing to be humble about!

ippy.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #126 on: June 03, 2016, 07:30:15 AM »
Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.

You did say Gordon 'butterflies don't have a 'purpose'' so that is a positive statement which needs some supporting evidence doesn't it? If you had said there is no evidence for a purpose in response to Hope then that would be different.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #127 on: June 03, 2016, 07:58:58 AM »
You did say Gordon 'butterflies don't have a 'purpose'' so that is a positive statement which needs some supporting evidence doesn't it? If you had said there is no evidence for a purpose in response to Hope then that would be different.

Not exactly - I highlighted Hope's specific use of the word 'purpose' as being one of these god of the gaps attempts, since I think he wasn't referring to the natural activities of butterflies but was implying divine design.


Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #128 on: June 03, 2016, 01:38:01 PM »
Not exactly - I highlighted Hope's specific use of the word 'purpose' as being one of these god of the gaps attempts, since I think he wasn't referring to the natural activities of butterflies but was implying divine design.

But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct. Purpose needs to be defined of course but it was a positive statement from you and theists are always being asked for evidence when they do that.

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14894
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #129 on: June 03, 2016, 01:49:08 PM »
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct.
If you were a philosopher writing a book on elementary logic for the layman, looking around for examples to illustrate the negative proof fallacy/argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, it would be Hope all the way. He either genuinely doesn't understand what it is and why it's a fallacy, can't stop himself from committing it every other post or simply doesn't care that his reasoning is defective and crashes on regardless like a particularly obtuse Sherman tank.

Quote from: Hope
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?

Quote from: Hope
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?

Quote from: Hope
... until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument

Quote from: Hope
... the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on.  They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.

Quote from: Hope
If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?

Quote from: Hope
Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?

Quote from: Hope
... all that doesn't prove that Christianity isn't true.

Quote from: Hope
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth

Quote from: Hope
Unless you can prove to us that there is no such thing as a deity ...

Quote from: Hope
AS for your use of the terms 'grotesque' and 'impossible', the latter is only the case if Jesus wasn't God - something that no-one has ever managed to prove to be the case.

Quote from: Hope"
radiological dating has no way to prove that an all-powerful God hasn't designed age into his creation such that when humanity developed the ability to date things in this and other ways they would ultimately come up with an age for the earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 02:17:53 PM by Shaker »
I work hard so that my cats can have a better life.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #130 on: June 03, 2016, 01:54:43 PM »
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct. Purpose needs to be defined of course but it was a positive statement from you and theists are always being asked for evidence when they do that.

My use of 'purpose' is, as you say, on the basis of it being undefined by Hope hence my response, which follows on from Hope's use of it in #114.

Quote
The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose.

It seemed to me, especially in view of my numerous exchanges with Hope, including where he posits these 'different questions', that by 'purpose' he is here referring to something non-naturalistic for which he has been asked repeatedly for a supporting methodology.

I simply cited it for what it is, which is fallacious reasoning, as I noted in #122.   
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 02:02:14 PM by Gordon »

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #131 on: June 03, 2016, 02:08:27 PM »
You said that Hope asking you for proof to support your statement that there was no 'purpose' was a negative proof fallacy and I don't see that it is.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #132 on: June 03, 2016, 02:10:10 PM »
If you were a philosopher writing a book on elementary logic for the layman, looking around for examples to illustrate the negative proof fallacy/argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, it would be Hope all the way. He either genuinely doesn't understand what it is and why it's a fallacy, can't stop himself from committing it every other post or simply doesn't care that his reasoning is defective and crashes on regardless like a particularly obtuse Sherman tank.

Absolutely - and he is picked up on this as he should be. But asking for proof to support a statement that there is no purpose isn't like that is it?

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #133 on: June 03, 2016, 02:16:20 PM »
You said that Hope asking you for proof to support your statement that there was no 'purpose' was a negative proof fallacy and I don't see that it is.

It is if you unpack what Hope implies by the term 'purpose', such as in #114 that I quoted a couple of posts back.

In #119 Hope said

Quote
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?

Which taken in context with his earlier comments in this thread, and others, is the negative proof fallacy since he is asking me to disprove his unfalsifiable non-naturalistic claim.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #134 on: June 03, 2016, 03:26:00 PM »
As I acknowledge, he often does use the NPF, and should be picked up on it, as should anyone using it. To 'unpack' his argument is fine, but in the post I'm referring to he's asking you to prove your claim that there is no purpose, which seems fair enough.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #135 on: June 03, 2016, 03:42:04 PM »
As I acknowledge, he often does use the NPF, and should be picked up on it, as should anyone using it. To 'unpack' his argument is fine, but in the post I'm referring to he's asking you to prove your claim that there is no purpose, which seems fair enough.

It isn't, since as his posts show what he is implying by 'purpose' is his own unfalsifiable non-naturalistic claim - there is nothing to be said in response other than to point out the fallacy he has committed.

His request is fallacious and as such has no merit.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #136 on: June 03, 2016, 03:57:36 PM »
Can you prove there is no non-naturalistic purpose?

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #137 on: June 03, 2016, 04:17:08 PM »
Can you prove there is no non-naturalistic purpose?

Why would I even try?

Since 'non-naturalistic purpose' has no meaningful definition or methodology to investigate it then as things stand it is no more than meaningless white noise: and is an oxymoron.

It is like saying 'can you prove there are no square circles'.

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • βε ηερε νοω
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #138 on: June 03, 2016, 04:28:31 PM »
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.

We didn't start the fire...

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #139 on: June 03, 2016, 04:43:01 PM »
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.

I'd say since as far as I know you can't logically define a 'square circle' using geometry then 'square circle' is one of these 'not even wrong' statements - it just doesn't get off the ground.   

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • βε ηερε νοω
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #140 on: June 03, 2016, 05:09:23 PM »
That's because they don't exist. You can define squares and you can define circles and prove there is no subset of "square circles". Assuming your proposed definition of a "square circle" is in the same domain.

It's completely different to trying to define "purpose" or "non-naturalistic" and proving anything about them. There's no logical way of disproving the existence* of anything except by showing that such an entity would be inconsistent with the definitions (and/or axioms) accepted as an agreed or known starting point.

* ie. proving the non-existence
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 05:13:14 PM by Udayana »
We didn't start the fire...

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12274
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #141 on: June 03, 2016, 06:52:26 PM »

It's completely different to trying to define "purpose" or "non-naturalistic" and proving anything about them. There's no logical way of disproving the existence* of anything except by showing that such an entity would be inconsistent with the definitions (and/or axioms) accepted as an agreed or known starting point.

* ie. proving the non-existence

What though if what is proposed is so contradictory or lacking in meaning that there is no agreed or known starting point?

In that situation, which as I'd say was the case with ideas of 'non-naturalistic purpose', then the claim is just meaningless and requests to disprove it are fallacious. 

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • βε ηερε νοω
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #142 on: June 03, 2016, 07:45:59 PM »
Yes, I agree with that. We can dispense with it as meaningless.

Probably it is not meaningless to Hope personally, but it's not a meaning that can be shared and thus explained or discussed.
We didn't start the fire...

Sassy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10817
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #143 on: June 06, 2016, 03:47:02 PM »
Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.

Made up, you see.


Quote
I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?

Without being created we could not exist. FACT.


Quote
You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?

Double negative cannot apply to God. Man made and has absolutely nothing to do with us and creation.
Quote

Things like saying" I aint got nuffing", actually means you have got something, think about it Sass.

ippy

Not accepting something is not the same as not having... You choose not to believe and that is the reality,

Soz it is rushed.
We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love ;D   Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14894
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #144 on: June 06, 2016, 03:51:53 PM »
There's an absolute ton of evidence, although it's unlikely in the extreme that anybody who uses a word such as "evolvement" [sic] would understand it.
I work hard so that my cats can have a better life.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3549
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #145 on: June 06, 2016, 05:17:31 PM »
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.

Made up, you see.

Followed by ...

Quote
Not accepting something is not the same as not having... You choose not to believe and that is the reality.


Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #146 on: June 06, 2016, 05:55:45 PM »
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass.  Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.

Furthermore, nothing in the creation story rules out evolution, remembering that it gives no details on how anything was 'created'.  When one remembers that the early chapters of Genesis is more of a theological treatment of God and his relationship with humanity, rather than a historical record, it doesn't even touch on the issue.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 05:59:37 PM by Hope »
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

Shaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14894
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #147 on: June 06, 2016, 07:02:04 PM »
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass.  Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.
In what way do you regard this "evolution in general" as being separate from the evolution of humans (for which there's an embarrassment of riches, actually), and why would that be the case?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 07:04:08 PM by Shaker »
I work hard so that my cats can have a better life.

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #148 on: June 06, 2016, 09:49:51 PM »
In what way do you regard this "evolution in general" as being separate from the evolution of humans (for which there's an embarrassment of riches, actually), and why would that be the case?
Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive.  They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it.  As for the idea of 'evolution in general' as opposed to 'evolution in particular', there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution.  Most of the latter is conjecture, and sometimes contradictory.
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20639
Re: Mary Magdalene.
« Reply #149 on: June 06, 2016, 10:04:01 PM »
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.
Yes
04W24W0W04100000W4 0000110W02000040100 0W00000000010100001 1W0011200010040040 000W1W3000000000000 0400000000000001004W
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may ap