A Burden of Proof Thread - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

A Burden of Proof Thread

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

07-06-2015 , 12:42 PM

#126

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Because, we do not know if there was a creation to begin with.

Again, you can be incredulous and that's fine.

Quote:

Your question already starts with an unfounded assumption. This is circular reasoning.

Not really. I'm experiencing a creation all around me all the time. My experience of creation is sufficient for me to believe that it's there.

Quote

07-06-2015 , 12:45 PM

#127

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Aron, let me give you an analogy that may demonstrate my point better.

Say I argued that all life came from natural causes (like abiogenesis for example) I can not use the fact that there is life as an argument for abiogenesis. I have to demonstrate abiogenesis first.

You're arguing a cause. I'm not arguing a cause. I'm arguing an effect.

Quote

07-06-2015 , 04:50 PM

#128

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Creation is the cause of there being a creation?? You are indeed arguing a cause. You can not have the effect of creation without the cause being creation. This is not incredulity on my end. You have not provided any evidence to justify your claim of creation. You have only used circular reasoning.

Quote

07-06-2015 , 06:42 PM

#129

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Creation is the cause of there being a creation?? You are indeed arguing a cause. You can not have the effect of creation without the cause being creation.

Wut?

Quote:

This is not incredulity on my end. You have not provided any evidence to justify your claim of creation. You have only used circular reasoning.

I have no idea what you're saying, and I think you have no idea what you're saying. I think you're trying to pigeonhole my claim into some other argument, but that argument simply doesn't apply. It's feeling a lot like your claim that the Socratic problem was a problem for interpreting the Bible.

Quote

07-06-2015 , 07:20 PM

#130

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Wut?

I have no idea what you're saying, and I think you have no idea what you're saying. I think you're trying to pigeonhole my claim into some other argument, but that argument simply doesn't apply. It's feeling a lot like your claim that the Socratic problem was a problem for interpreting the Bible.

Your argument for Creation is that you experience Creation so Creation must exist, correct?

Quote

07-06-2015 , 08:12 PM

#131

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Your argument for Creation is that you experience Creation so Creation must exist, correct?

I think it requires a huge amount of incredulity to deny that I actually exist as an object within the universe.

I think you're conflating terms. The structure of your sentence implies that you're using Creation (the activity) and Creation (the object) as the same thing. This is an error on your end.

Quote

07-07-2015 , 05:09 AM

#132

BeaucoupFish

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

You're arguing a cause. I'm not arguing a cause. I'm arguing an effect.

Aka affirming the consequent (formal fallacy).

But I'm not really sure what's going on here, so good luck.

Fraleyight, perhaps you should ask Aaran a slightly different Q, whether anything by the God of the bible CAN be confirmed?

Quote

07-07-2015 , 09:57 AM

#133

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

Aka affirming the consequent (formal fallacy).

I'm not affirming the truth of the cause in any way. I've said that explicitly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Your question was "How do you know there was a creation?" I know there was a creation because I'm living in it. I grant that this singular observation says nothing about causes or anything like that. But it seems that it takes a great deal of incredulity to reject the claim that creation exists.

...

Quote:

But I'm not really sure what's going on here, so good luck.

That's okay. Neither am I.

Quote

07-07-2015 , 11:41 AM

#134

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Your question was "How do you know there was a creation?" I know there was a creation because I'm living in it

How do you know you are living in a creation?

Quote

07-07-2015 , 01:23 PM

#135

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

How do you know you are living in a creation?

Because I reject the idea that I'm a brain in a vat and I accept that the universe around me is real. I have no reason other than sheer incredulity to think otherwise about the universe around me.

Edit: Interesting use of "a" creation. As opposed to living in "many" creations or living in "zero" creations?

Quote

07-07-2015 , 11:02 PM

#136

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

You said "a creation". Maybe the universe exists but was not created.. How do you know this isn't so?

Quote

07-08-2015 , 01:02 AM

#137

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

You said "a creation".

See post #62. It didn't seem odd then, but as the conversation progressed it started to become strange-sounding.

Quote:

Maybe the universe exists but was not created.. How do you know this isn't so?

I'm not really sure what can exist without being created. Maybe you're putting more content into "creation" than I am. I'll re-requote myself one more time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

And I'll quote this from earlier as well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

I disagree that "creation" implies "creator." I think it really just implies "created." For example, in physics, we have particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation, and there's no sense in which we have a "creator" and an "annihilator."

Quote

07-08-2015 , 01:34 AM

#138

DodgerIrish

Fraudulent Zodiac

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 28,217

Aaron,

How should someone phrase it if the belief or idea is it just 'is'?

No starting point, no cause, it just is. Never created, always there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I'm not really sure what can exist without being created. Maybe you're putting more content into "creation" than I am.

This is the root of it

Would this require a rejection of the Big Bang?

Does that explain the disconnect between you two, you're taking the Big Bang as a given and that's what frayley is trying to discuss?

Quote

07-08-2015 , 01:47 AM

#139

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

Aaron,

How should someone phrase it if the belief or idea is it just 'is'?

No starting point, no cause, it just is. Never created, always there.

I suppose one phrasing would be to call it "eternal" (though we often think of eternal as being both forward and backwards, I think it would be sufficient).

Quote:

This is the root of it

Would this require a rejection of the Big Bang?

Would an eternal universe require a rejection of the Big Bang? I think so.

Quote:

Does that explain the disconnect between you two, you're taking the Big Bang as a given and that's what frayley is trying to discuss?

I don't know. I'm really not sure what fraleyight is trying to discuss.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 03:10 AM

#140

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

I'm trying to point out to you that you are assuming everything is created and using that assumption to justify you're living in a creation. This is circular reasoning.

The original question was about something we witness that god has done and you said "creation" you are attributing that to god. I am asking how you know the universe was created this way.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 03:12 AM

#141

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Give me one example of something the God of the bible did that has been confirmed.
That was my question, this was your answer:
Quote:
"Creation is confirmed created."

You are indeed saying god is the cause of the creation.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 03:28 AM

#142

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

I think Aaron's point is that the effect, creation is confirmed, not the cause, God.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 03:32 AM

#143

Satan'

stranger

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 14

That written in the bible is seen from a 4-dimensional point of view where one is able to look across time, thus see everything all at once. But then again, people wont give God the right to be more than a mere man

Quote

07-08-2015 , 10:56 AM

#144

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

I think Aaron's point is that the effect, creation is confirmed, not the cause, God.

You can't say creation is confirmed in this context without attributing it to god. We were specifically talking about what confirmed acts god has done.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 11:24 AM

#145

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

You can't say creation is confirmed in this context without attributing it to god. We were specifically talking about what confirmed acts god has done.

This is clearly what Aaron is doing whether you think he is correct to do it or not.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 11:45 AM

#146

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

This is clearly what Aaron is doing whether you think he is correct to do it or not.

I asked him what confirmed acts can his god be attributed for. He responds with creation.. He can't now say that he isn't attributing that to God.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 12:32 PM

#147

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

I asked him what confirmed acts can his god be attributed for. He responds with creation.. He can't now say that he isn't attributing that to God.

Attribution isn't an issue. It is no problem for me to attribute creation to God.

The question is about confirmation. And creation is confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

I'm confirming the object and not the process by which the object was made. This distinction matters because only one claim is subject to the naive evidentialist approach.

If I saw "I drew a picture" and then brought out a picture, there's no way for you to confirm that I actually drew that picture. You might be able to infer whether I drew it based on the perceived quality of the picture, but there's no way to distinguish whether I drew it or whether someone of comparable skill to me drew it. You could always stand there and deny that I drew it, and there will be nothing I can do to prove to you that I drew it. (Even if I drew another copy of it, I couldn't prove to you that I made the original. Maybe I'm just good at copying pictures.)

If it is true that I drew the picture, then the picture is evidence of my having drawn it. The evidence confirms the act. And you can confirm that I have this picture that I'm showing you.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 12:34 PM

#148

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Attribution isn't an issue. It is no problem for me to attribute creation to God.

The question is about confirmation. And creation is confirmed.

Ok, so your first example didn't address my question. Do you have another?

Quote

07-08-2015 , 01:17 PM

#149

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Ok, so your first example didn't address my question. Do you have another?

Can there be anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

If there was a global flood, and there was evidence of a global flood, you would always have the capacity to deny that God caused a global flood because you can always assert that it was some set of natural causes.

Quote

07-08-2015 , 01:50 PM

#150

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,385

Fair enough, I suppose I won't know until I am given the example lol. I would suggest most examples I may attribute to natural causes but I may hear one that I don't.

Quote

Page 6 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 7

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last