ppp
Well-Known Member
I would prefer that people (not just you) didn't falsely claim that making an observation is substantively different from making a claim.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is above scrutiny?
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ppp
Well-Known Member
I'm fine with this approach. But thank you for the considerate offer.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ppp
Well-Known Member
But what god? Where? The assumption that there is a god somewhere doing or being does not bear up to... Scrutiny.
ppp
Well-Known Member
That statement is not true. e.g. casimir effect
And even if it were true, that would not demonstrate a god.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and this was demonstrated at the moment of the primordial singularity?
I think not
quantum mechanics?......for the beginning of all things?
I think not
ppp
Well-Known Member
You did not specify when. But feel free to move that particular goal post if you actually feel the need. It won't help your case.
There is at least one instance where your claim that an effect requires a cause is not true. Moreover, you are completely ignorant about anything prior to the end of the planck epoch. Because the laws of universe break down at that point and no longer apply. Which means that you cannot reference current laws to support any argument that you might have about the universe's origin. No laws. No intuition.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ppp
Well-Known Member
I see no evidence that you do "get it". And, as per my previous posts, strong evidence that you do not.
As was already pointed out, you are making a claim that what you "observed" is true.
The onus is on you as the making the claim to prove why your observations are true or accurate.
What exactly do you think you observed in order to claim the things you said are true?
What is the basis for your claim that God isn't truth, or your alternative version of think happened in Eden and what you think God's intention was, etc?
Were you there?
Do you know the mind of God?
Are you getting this from a book you think is more authoritative than the Bible?
Do you think you have special knowledge direct from God Himself telling you all this?
You have given no reasons or evidence for any of your claims about what you think is true. All you've done is stated them as fact without support or justification - which is both a violation of rule #8 and the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" (Stating something is true as a matter of fact, without reasons or evidence to support your claim).
If you claim to observe something to be true then the onus is on you to prove why your observation is supposedly true.
The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia
The burden of proof is not on other people to prove your claim is false.
To claim we are responsible for proving your claim false is to commit the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".
Shifting the burden of proof - Religions Wiki
Last edited:
You claimed that what the Bible says isn't true. Which by most people's definition would be saying there was something wrong.
You claimed that your version of events is true, in contradiction to what the Bible says.
You have not given any reason or evidence for why the Biblical account would be untrue or why your version of events would be more true.
By being unwilling to provide those reasons you are engaging in the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting something is true doesn't prove it's true. You need reasons and facts to establish why you think you can claim something is true.