Fine. Anything and everything is possible. It is possible that a deity exists and that by some slight intervention (or none at all since no credible case of such can be found) a single tribe of ancient man stumbled through religious evolution and ended up with the one correct religion in the world. No matter how stupid, no matter how unlikely, no matter how incredibly moronic the premise, it is possible simply because you don't know anything for absolutely sure. Our entire knowledge based is centered around the fact that statistically impossible things might happen when we aren't looking.
You seem to be missing the point.
That's entirely dependent on an outside proof of the improbability of the existence of the divine entity postulated by said religion, because with the existence of said divine entity it changes from a statistical improbability to highly likely...
The point being that the anthropological argument you made proves nothing, and sits equally well with existence and non-existence of the said entity.
Which is why I am not accepting it...
And why would I not be prepared to reject it? Show me some evidence to contradict it.
I'm not trying to prove God exists, I'm merely showing that your argument is invalid.
Isn't it? You got to have some humor in a debate.
You seem to have missed the fact that the trailing off meant "not really".
Straw-manning people isn't funny.
I never claimed you said such a thing either. I was asked why I see it as evidence he is not the son of god and that was my explanation. By the teachings of the christian religion, the son of god could raise the dead, heal the sick, walk on water, blah blah blah. So if there are several dozen accounts of such people, all with nearly identical histories and stories (some with more evidence of existing than others) then either all of them are the son of god, or, unless some evidence turns up that any of those amazing things happened, then none of them are the son of god. The christian religion does not speak of the multiple sons of god, it speaks of one son of god.
Fair enough, the question of whether there is evidence for Jesus' miracles is a separate argument which I don't care to address.
Again, I never said you were trying to prove jesus is the son of god.
Then why did you make that argument?
"you said:
Yes, for whatever reason, jesus was chosen as the son of god, out of the dozens of other sons of god out there. Just as I chose ganondorf as my main in smash bros, does that mean he is the one true smasher out of all the other possible choices? I fail to see how this could be anything other than evidence he was anything but a normal man if he ever existed at all.
I never said anything even remotely to the effect of proving anyone was the son of God.
Well something is containing all the matter and energy that exists. Something is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Something had a 'big bang' some 14 billion years ago. Something is out there that we live inside of. Unless you are prepared to say you might not exist (which I fear you are) then the universe has to exist (whether as science believes it or in some other form) to allow you to exist.
Of course you can claim I have no proof any of that exists either. Probably tell me I am begging the question. Would the burden of proof not be on somebody who claims the universe does not exist?
You're correct, you are in fact, begging the question. You are referencing to just reality to prove reality, which is about equivalent to referencing to just a comic book to prove the events within a comic book happened. Assuming that something exists, and then logically moving from that assumption to prove the thing assumed is logically invalid and results in false results from true premises all the time.
The burden of proof is always on the person attempting to make the claim that something exists.
Actually it is people. Usage of the word decides what the definition is. Currently the definition is: arousing or deserving ridicule : absurd, preposterous.
Exactly the problem...
Ridiculous is whatever the majority decides is ridiculous, and the majority is far too often wrong.
A good quote on this.
"1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago you knew we were alone on this planet. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow." - MIB
(It should be obvious that I'm not appealing to it's authority, merely citing two cases of "ridiculous" things being true, just using a quote to do that)
You're right in that the majority defines what is "ridiculous", but you missed the point, anything can be considered "ridiculous" if that's the fancy of the day. It could be considered ridiculous that the earth is not flat and balanced on the back of 4 elephants, which are in turn on a giant turtle.
Heck, atheism is considered ridiculous by the majority, so obviously we should just ridicule you for believing it, right?
Saying something is ridiculous because the majority believes it false is an appeal to majority fallacy, the number of people who hold an idea is in no way related to it's logical validity.
Who are you to decide what is logical?
It seems illogical to me to bring philosophy into a scientific debate. Science can manage very well without some philosopher wagging his finger saying "Prove the universe exists! Prove that every religion isn't right! Prove that all things are not possible! Prove that your evidence for that other stuff exists!"
Perhaps I have been noting philosophy too liberally. The fact is that the foundation of logic is not found in philosophy, but is instead found in mathematics. You want absolute definitions of what is logical? Take a discrete mathematics course (or I can answer specific questions if you'd like).
But the fact is, I am not defining what is logical, math is. On the basis of tautologies and contradictions.
Science accepts the mathematical definitions of logic as an axiom.
Philosophy does as well by the way.
In making these arguments, I am referencing to mathematical standards of logic. Science CANNOT function AT ALL without mathematical logic to back it up. Mathematical logic is core to everything that science is.
Ultimately, these are science's own standards that it fails on in proving that the universe exists. Every argument I made was science's standards (either directly part of the scientific method, or through it's axiom of mathematical logic), it cannot prove the universe.
I'll respond in kind, see above.
Yeah.
I don't recall saying that null hypothesis were never used anymore. I just said that most of the time they are not used outside of statistical sciences. More often than not the null can be rejected outright or skipped entirely when the alternative hypothesis is suspected to be true at the outset of the experiment.
It might seem that way, but if the results are the same as under the null then guess what, you've failed to reject the null.
Since you are always trying to disprove the null, this behavior is precisely what one can expect.
Yes I do know that small fragments can lead to an amazing amount of information. But an entire civilization being confirmed as existing from a single bone fragment or passage in a book is beyond that scope.
The bible is a poor source for establishing people because it is often the only source. Especially in the case of jesus. Sure certain emperors or other people can be confirmed, but only because they are mentioned in other books, or paintings, or some other form of evidence.
Firstly, keep in mind that the Bible is not a single book. It is multiple books that were compiled many many years after they were written. So we are talking about several sources, some completely independent, all written within about 100 years of a person's life. Then there are the epistles, the apocritha, and many other pieces of documentation, that while undoubtedly Christian in origin, have enough collective reliability to establish to the majority of Historians and Scholars, that Jesus did exist.
With application of appropriate literary criticism, of course. Here, the criterion of embarrassment is especially useful, Criterion of multiple attestation is also quite helpful in establishing what did happen. Of course, Author's agenda plays a role
Because archeology is a science and as such can't afford to suppose somebody exists from a single book, especially one written for the purpose of affirming religious faith.
But it NOT a single book. The bible is an anthology, written by many authors at separate times.
Furthermore, it's not just what is in the Bible.
Suppose 10,000 years from now some historians find a "The cat in the Hat" book. Or even something more credible such as the screenplay to "Spiderman 2"
Then it will be recognized as intended fiction by the scholars in 10,000, just like todays scholars can easily recognize the difference between intended fiction and intended documentation.
And when most historians, who are not religious themselves, are asked about the existence of jesus, they often say they have no reason to suggest a man named jesus did not exist, but no reason to suggest that he did either.
Just the opposite actually, they will say that they have more then enough evidence to suggest the man exists. However, they will flatly deny that his miracles are historically verifiable.
I am wondering. Following all of the rules you are laying out here, what evidence would you offer one way or the other concerning the existence of god?
I'm not going to offer any. That should be rather obvious. I was only poking holes in poor arguments.
[Edit]
And this all leads me to my final question. What are you two doing here? This is a debate concerning the existence of god. If you do not have a side and are simply here to point out flaws in arguments without adding any of your own, then you are not debating the topic. You are doing nothing but detracting from the debate. Unless you have a position on the matter, you have no business being here. Whether or not here exists.
In all the text adumbrodeus has typed, to me anyway, he hasn't given a single argument for or against the existence of god. Not that he could given his 'all things are possible' view of everything.
Pointing out flaws in other arguments is perfectly on-topic. It goes back to the scientific method's idea of the null hypothesis. In all debates there is a default position, "nothing". No relationship, no existence, whatever the case may be. It can also be something if the debate centers around the existence of "something" that is a placeholder for a lack of something, or in a couple of other very odd cases.
When one points out flaws in another's argument without putting forth one of their own, they defend the null, whatever it may be, because as long as no other argument can be proven, the null holds.
Alternatively, one could have sympathies for a particular side but not care to put forth that position directly.
However, regardless of the motives, by attacking arguments making a claim, one ultimately defends the null hypothesis of the debate.
This is NOT detracting from the debate, it is part of the normal course of the debate, it's how debates function. There always exists the possibility of people who are just defending the null hypothesis.
[/edit]
Herm... Just off the top of my head (so don't expect something fully fleshed out)
1 The notion of space/time is an integral assumption made by our brains.
2 To challenge this notion is to challenge the validity of our thoughts as a whole.
3 We cannot coherently challenge the validity of our thoughts.
4 Therefore, the notion of space time should be considered correct.
P4 is enough to establish reason to believe a universe of sorts.
P2 is more than a little sketchy, and P1 is only slightly less so.
It is late and my thoughts are more than a little murky. Probably another problem in there somewhere.
Probably a better one out there as well.
P4 is the problem, it doesn't follow from the premises, because the premises merely establish what is effective, not what is real.
Nice try though, sorry I still think that linguistic determinism is the only way to prove an outside imposed universe.
