What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

[jsfisher]

Scientific theory: Loss Leader is usually correct in his statements.

Evidence: See post 2678357.

 

[andyandy]

sum conclusion (based on every thread i've ever seen Dustin participate in);

dustin is impervious to reason. One might as well talk to a rock.

 

[D'rok]

I submit that it's time for Dustin to tie a ribbon on this thing. Enough buildup already...let's have the soliloquy. Glaucon is losing interest.

C'mon Socrates....we want to climb the ladder of beauty by patching the holes in the leaky jar of our souls so we can turn from the shadows of the cave and bask in the warm glow of the sun of knowledge and thus behold the Eternal itself. Or something like that.

Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom. Show us the "big picture" that we are missing down here amongst the trees. Sh[rule8]t or get off the pot already.

 

[andyandy]

Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom.

I don't imagine Plato ever wrote that

 

[Taffer]

Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom.

Quote of the day, right there, folks.

 

[Beleth]

[addressed to Dustin]
Your logic is just ... terrible. You absolutely suck at this.

Indeed.

Dustin's logic is incorrect, his train of thought (as I pointed out last page) is missing a few cars, and he has shown himself to be incapable of being able to learn in order to remedy either.

Loss Leader, Pixy, D'rok, jsfisher, and everyone else tempted to post further in this thread:
Please, resist the temptation. It will obviously do no good. It won't make Dustin any smarter, and any lurkers who may have been reading this thread (or read it in the future) will already have been convinced of Dustin's intellectual incapabilities by this point.

And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go teach a different pig to sing.

 

[Lonewulf]

Bukkake us with the seminal emission of your wisdom.

I BUKKAKE FOR JUSTICE!

(From the webcomic Something Positive).

 

[Loss Leader]

Scientific theory: Loss Leader is usually correct in his statements.

Evidence: See post 2678357.

Aw shucks.

I'd put it in my sig if I thought it wouldn't ruin my reputation as an opinionated jerk.

 

[D'rok]

Indeed.

Dustin's logic is incorrect, his train of thought (as I pointed out last page) is missing a few cars, and he has shown himself to be incapable of being able to learn in order to remedy either.

Loss Leader, Pixy, D'rok, jsfisher, and everyone else tempted to post further in this thread:
Please, resist the temptation. It will obviously do no good. It won't make Dustin any smarter, and any lurkers who may have been reading this thread (or read it in the future) will already have been convinced of Dustin's intellectual incapabilities by this point.

Good call.

 

[D'rok]

I BUKKAKE FOR JUSTICE!

(From the webcomic Something Positive).

FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

 

[temporalillusion]

Is the buildup done yet? Where do I sign up to be notified when it's done?

 

[strathmeyer]

Be specific and give an example then.

Uhh... I just did. I have given many examples throughout this thread.

Except I made no such claims.

See post #148.

Nope. You can't give an example of what would prove the God I defined only ones YOU define? hmm

Apparently not. On the other hand, I am seeing the benefits of being incredibly stupid as a debate strategy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Loss Leader, Pixy, D'rok, jsfisher, and everyone else tempted to post further in this thread:
Please, resist the temptation. It will obviously do no good. It won't make Dustin any smarter, and any lurkers who may have been reading this thread (or read it in the future) will already have been convinced of Dustin's intellectual incapabilities by this point.

Noooo! They be stealin my bucket!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You consider this to be a useful argument?

If P then Q
Q
Therefore Q.

Or put into your words.

Premise 1-If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true.

Premise 2-Evolution is true

Conclusion- Evolution is true.

This statement:
We see Premise 1 as being true.

Is an assertion that this conditional statement is true:
If we see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species then Evolution would be true.

A conditional is only false if its premises are true and conclusion false together. This is a basic rule of logic. Therefore your second premise says:
Evolution is true.

This is a logically valid argument, but it is completely useless because you have simply asserted the conclusion to be true and then concluded that it is true. Many of us have tried to show you this, but you seem oblivious to the most fundamental rules of formal logic. Simply change your second premise to this:
We see transitional fossils showing a gradual phylogeny in the fossil record from earlier species to later species.

If you are going to use formal logic to make some kind of point, you have to know how to use it properly.

See my re-stated argument.

Well now...that is improvement. Congratulations. Compare that with this statement:
The truth of the first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument.

In my specific argument it does.

Sure. But these facts are not determined through argument...they are determined through observation. The hypothesis is the bit that can be stated syllogistically, not the facts.

So we can't deduce a new fact from two other facts?

Boy I love repeating myself. PRAYER RESTORING AMPUTATED LIMBS IS NOT PROOF OF GOD. IT IS EVIDENCE THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE WOULD FIND COMPELLING ENOUGH TO ASSUME THAT GOD EXISTS. THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME!

And?

...and so the Sophoclean tragedy is replayed.

Not only that, but the observable facts of the fossil record are not proof; they are evidence. Why couldn't one of your magic aliens have put them there? Maybe it's the same magic alien that regrows amputated limbs. Capricious bastard isn't he?

See my previous posts about 'proof' being synonymous with 'evidence'.

In fact, I think you've convinced me. There is no proof for evolution that can't be negated by saying a magic alien did it. Only credulous fools believe in fossils as evidence for evolution.

See my previous posts about axioms and Occam's razor.

Perhaps I should cut you some slack, as you have to juggle multiple responses while I only have to deal with you. So here is a recap of what you asked me:



And then things just went downhill from there.

Did you ever provide a answer to that last question? What 'evidence' would you accept for a God where the probability that "God" is the only explanation is so vast that any reasonable person would believe in it?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Boy, Dustin, you're a real jerk.

I said evolution might not be true because the fossil records could have been planted by aliens or a trickster god or maybe you're dreaming it in a coma. You called that nonsense, stating:





But that's not what you said earlier when someone stated what would be acceptable as "proof" of God. To that person you replied:





So, you've applied one rule to everybody else but refused to apply it to yourself. And you called it logic.

It is not. It is just one more example of your mandacity.

If we're not allowed to assert a proof of god because of alternative explanations like "some powerful deity attempting to trick people," then you're not allowed to assert a proof of evolution for the same reason.

Re-read what I actually said.

Now give me 1 reason why these are more likely than the one I provided. I clearly stated that assuming specific axioms, the logic is valid. If we believe that we could be in a coma in a hospital bed somewhere and no scientific evidence at all exists then science has no value and we're left with nothing.

Well you'd have to be very credulous to believe "God" was responsible for such a thing considering the number of alternative explanations just as feasible as "God" including extraterrestrials who have been getting our airwaves for years and have become Christians, Some powerful deity attempting to trick people, Etc.

I will never change my wording to "definitely." So long as there is any possibility, however remote, that I am being tricked by aliens or god, the thing is not proven.

If you assume that you exist and that the world is basically as you perceive it (what any sane person must do for practical reasons) then you could easily say 'definitely'.

In any case, no matter how much of the fossil record you show me, it would prove nothing about the fossil record because YOU DON'T HAVE THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. The entire fossil record is still mostly burried underground. We could find anything in there. We regularly do and are required to completely rejigger our theories to make room for new discoveries.

We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. This is a creationist argument you're making here!

Your logic is just ... terrible. You absolutely suck at this.

Not as bad as your science...

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I submit that it's time for Dustin to tie a ribbon on this thing. Enough buildup already...let's have the soliloquy. Glaucon is losing interest.

If I have a soliloquy how will you know about it?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Uhh... I just did. I have given many examples throughout this thread.

You gave examples of what you'd accept as proof for a God of different characteristics from the one I defined. Not what you would accept as proof for the God as I defined him.

See post #148.

Post #148 is your post. You stated what you would accept as evidence for a God given that... Except you never stated what you would accept for evidence of a God as I defined in my OP.

Apparently not. On the other hand, I am seeing the benefits of being incredibly stupid as a debate strategy.

I'm pretty sure you're used to that by now.

 

[PixyMisa]

We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change.

Yes, Dustin.

We know that, Dustin.

That has nothing to do with your claims, Dustin.

 

[Bob Klase]

Well by definition in order to hallucinate you must have a brain. Rocks don't have brains. Rocks can't hallucinate.

Are you stating with 100% certainty that rocks can't hallucinate? I say that rocks can hallucinate. What's the evidence that I'm wrong.

I'm not asking you to prove something to me. I'm just asking you what you would accept as proof then I'm attacking it as being insufficient.

But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me and you're are completely qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that).

You're still attacking answers as being insufficient for you when you specifically asked something different.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I say that rocks can hallucinate. Prove me wrong.

Premise1- To hallucinate you must have a brain by definition.

Premise2- Rocks do not have brains.

Conclusion-Rocks can not hallucinate.

But you can't attack it as being insufficient. You asked what would prove something to me. You are not qualified to decide what level of evidence/proof is sufficient for me or anyone other than yourself (and based on this thread I'm not sure you're qualified for that). You're attacking answers as being insufficient for you.

I'm attacking them as being insufficient period. I can do that.