Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[tylerdolphin]

What page(s) is that on/ did someone actually make the earth is 6000 years old argument?

I can't think of any religious leaders who will seriously deny evolution or other scientific facts, but their sheep usually don't get the memo

Any page Statler posted on. So pretty much start at the beginning and read the crazy.

[phins_4_ever]

Wait...if Im understanding Statler here, and admittedly I only skimmed the post, God exists because you have to assume he exists to disprove God? What?

Nobody can prove God doesnt exist anyway. Just like how you cant prove he does exist. I know you think you can, but you cant.

Yep, that's what Statler said.

But you are right I can never prove that God doesn't exist. I can only point to evidence that he does not exist i.e. an eye witness account. The Bible is not a testimony of eye witness accounts but rather 'hear, say' as it was written decades and centuries later.

The burden of proof does not lie with the non existence but rather with those who claim he exists or existed.

[spydertl79]

Lindsay Lohan is god because you can't prove that she isn't

[Statler Waldorf]

You are now freaking me out. You cannot be serious.

The irrational are often “freaked out” by rational argumentation.

I presupposed that he exist? Are you kidding me?

Yes you did, and no I am not kidding you.

You said that I have to presuppose that he exists. Forget that you are using 'presupposition' in the totally wrong context. But it certainly wasn't me who said that I have to presuppose his existence.

No, I am using the term correctly; I wouldn’t expect you to know how to use the term considering the fact that you used arguments that presuppose the existence of the very thing you were arguing against. If you knew what a presupposition was you certainly wouldn’t do this on purpose.

You are using presupposition in a contradictory format which does not exist at all.

Nope.

I.e. You say that Irish said that the Universe exists and you continue on to say that it doesn't prove anything because it is just an opinion and to make it true he has to presuppose that God exists. This is only true to those who believe that God exists.

Wrong, stating the universe is all that exists is an assertion that doesn’t prove anything. If he wants to prove the universe is all that exists he must begin to use argumentation. Logical argumentation relies upon assumptions that can only be true if the God of scripture exists, therefore his arguments presuppose that the god of scripture exists. Using arguments that presuppose God exists in order to argue that God in fact doesn’t exist is a form of self-refutation.

In Irish's case:

The Universe exists. God does not exist.

a) The Universe exists.
Presupposition: The Universe was created.

You really think that is the only presupposition this premise has? Really?
1. The law of non-contradiction exists, because the universe either exists or it does not exist.
2. His memory is reliable because he is appealing to material he has read or heard.
3. His senses are reliable.
4. The principle of induction is valid because he is appealing to scientific inquiry into the Universe which is only valid if induction is valid.
So before he can use this premise he must first account for how any of the above presuppositions can be true if atheism were true. Start there.

b) God does not exist.

Presupposition: He has never met God, nor has he spoken to God, nor are there any eyewitnesses to God's existence.

Those are not presuppositions; it is you who is using the term incorrectly. This position still assumes that all of the above presuppositions are true beforehand, please account for how any of them can be true if atheism were true. Start there.

A presupposition is a precondition which has to exist to make a statement true. A presupposition is not an additional statement which contradicts the original statement in order to prove it. That's what you are doing. You can never prove a statement with a contradictory preconditional statement because if the contradictory statement would be true what is the point of making another statement.

Now we are finally getting somewhere! As I pointed out above, your arguments all rely on presuppositions that can only be true if God exists (the laws of logic exist, induction is valid etc….) and yet you are using them to try and argue that God does not exist. So you are refuting your own position.

What you don't understand is that the burden of proof that God exists or existed lies with you.

According to….?

You have to proof that he existed. You cannot turn around and make us use contradictory preconditions to prove our point because of your inability and lack of evidence to prove his existence.

You actually proved He exists by trying to argue that He doesn’t. The ability to argue is proof that God does in fact exist because if He didn’t exist all argumentation would be impossible.

Everything you have posted in this thread is based on this premise "I, Statler, throw some **** up against the wall and you scratch it of and proof to me that it was whipped cream". And when we scratch it off and prove too you that it was **** you come up with the notion: "To prove that it was **** you have to presuppose that it was whipped cream in the first place because I said so."

It’s unfortunate so much of this has apparently gone right over your head. I listed several of the presuppositions that your argument contained, it is up to you to explain how any of those presuppositions could be true in a purely natural universe. You can’t have assumptions that refute your position, I am sorry.

It is interesting how when reading a person's posts on the main board it's impossible to know the crazy that lurks beneath.

You’re not really trying to pull the old, “anyone who I can’t refute in a debate is crazy” line are you? You do realize that’s irrational right?

I hope you didn't miss the dinosaur discussion earlier in the thread.

I recall you got beat up pretty badly in that discussion Mr. “The Earth is Old because I say it is!”

What page(s) is that on/ did someone actually make the earth is 6000 years old argument?

Didn’t “make” it, proved it.

I can't think of any religious leaders who will seriously deny evolution or other scientific facts, but their sheep usually don't get the memo

All that proves is that you don’t know many religious leaders.

Wait...if Im understanding Statler here, and admittedly I only skimmed the post, God exists because you have to assume he exists to disprove God? What?

Oh come on Tyler, you have to skim better than that. I clearly stated that in order to try and disprove God you must use tactics that presuppose God exists. It is no different than someone trying to argue that their brain doesn’t exist; the very act of logical argumentation presupposes that a person has a functioning brain and mind.

Nobody can prove God doesnt exist anyway. Just like how you cant prove he does exist. I know you think you can, but you cant.

You asserting that nobody can prove God exists certainly doesn’t make it the case, why can’t someone prove God exists? I think it’s one of the easiest things to prove.

Yep, that's what Statler said.

Where?

But you are right I can never prove that God doesn't exist.

…then why did you use it as a premise in your above argument?

I can only point to evidence that he does not exist i.e. an eye witness account.

How is an eye witness account evidence that God doesn’t exist? Wait, what?

The Bible is not a testimony of eye witness accounts but rather 'hear, say' as it was written decades and centuries later.

Which part of the Bible are you referring to?

The burden of proof does not lie with the non existence but rather with those who claim he exists or existed.

According to whom? You?

Lindsay Lohan is god because you can't prove that she isn't

“Lindsey Lohan doesn’t exist because I have never seen her and all of those who say they have are really just using hearsay, and we all know that if I have not seen something then it must not exist.”

[irish fin fan]

I got beat up over you saying that dinosaurs coexisted with men? Well unless you had something buried in one of your extremely long, multiple response in one post nonsense, I think not.

I'm not going through the usual responses to you because your posts are certifiable insane. Your a fully signed member of the lunatic fringe group based on what I read in your posts.

[spydertl79]

There is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the Easter bunny as there is for a Christian god.

Hows that rationality taste?

[tylerdolphin]

Oh come on Tyler, you have to skim better than that. I clearly stated that in order to try and disprove God you must use tactics that presuppose God exists. It is no different than someone trying to argue that their brain doesn’t exist; the very act of logical argumentation presupposes that a person has a functioning brain and mind.

So for you to disprove the flying spaghetti monster, one must suppose it exists and therefore it exists?

[phins_4_ever]

It’s unfortunate so much of this has apparently gone right over your head. I listed several of the presuppositions that your argument contained, it is up to you to explain how any of those presuppositions could be true in a purely natural universe. You can’t have assumptions that refute your position, I am sorry.




“Lindsey Lohan doesn’t exist because I have never seen her and all of those who say they have are really just using hearsay, and we all know that if I have not seen something then it must not exist.”

We can debate if Lindsey Lohan exists or not but there is certainly more proof of her existence than there is for your 'sugar daddy'.

At this point you either don't admit to what you have posted or have forgotten what you have posted or purposely deny what you have posted to make me go back and continuously dig out your quotes from the past over and over again. Three people now say the same thing that I have stated. YOU said that I have to presuppose that god existed before I can say he did not exist. I have posted your very own quote yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge your very own statements. If I would be you I would wonder if it is you who is irrational rather than accusing others of it because even those who believe in Jesus Christ or are otherwise religious have contradicted you.
The one who accuses everybody else of insanity and declares him/herself the only one sane is usually the insane person. You can substitute sane/insane with rational/irrational if you want to. But I certainly put you into the category of insanity.

There truly are many forms of a presupposition but yours does not exist. If you want to declare your statement that one has to presuppose the existence prior to making a statement of non-existence - that does not exist (how ironic). While presuppositions are largely assumptions it does not include contradictory statements. The assumptions have to be supportive of the statement made even in its negation format i.e. I never do it again - presupposition: I have done it before.

You may fiddle around with the implication format of presupposition if you want to but it requires a logical presupposition. Saying that in order to deny god's existence I have to first acknowledge his existence is not logical at all even-though you want it to be logical. What we have learned in these threads with you is just because you declare something logical it does not mean it actually is logical. As a matter of fact your thought of train is highly illogical as your logic is based on just what you say or what you want it to be logical disregarding any and all other facts presented to you.

For you an admittance that you have no logical thought is like admitting defeat (and we all know you love to win on an internet forum) and your house of cards you so carefully built around yourself will crumble and the walls of safety and comfort you have built so careful are gone. It leaves you exposed and vulnerable.

I am not a Psychiatrist but I would assume that a Psychiatrist would probably diagnose you with thought disorder (TD) or formal thought disorder (FTD) when reading this thread (or any other thread you are involved in). One of the forms of thought disorder is actually illogicality and can be diagnosed as such.

If you can not even stand by your own arguments and attempting to turn it around and make your statement MY statement than I call it delusional which is actually a form of formal thought disorder.

It was amusing though while it lasted.

[spydertl79]

Stabler is the master of moving between different topics... The only way to have a rational discussion is to debate one topic at a time, narrower topics will lead to more a more productive conversation. Lets keep the discussion on "evidence of god existing" and then allow Statler to pick another topic upon that topic being resolved... Sound good everyone?

Statler- do you concede that there is zero evidence of the existence of god. If not, what evidence is there?

[Statler Waldorf]

I got beat up over you saying that dinosaurs coexisted with men? Well unless you had something buried in one of your extremely long, multiple response in one post nonsense, I think not.

No you were beat up over the fact that you had zero actual empirically verifiable evidence to back up your position. Couple that with the fact you believe that DNA could survive for 65 million years even though empirical experiments clearly demonstrate that under the most optimal and controlled conditions it could not last past 7 million years and your position becomes absurd. We now know that dinosaurs were alive within the last 7 million years (something the old earth community thought to be impossible just a couple years ago), not only this but they were more likely to be alive at the younger end of that spectrum.

I'm not going through the usual responses to you because your posts are certifiable insane. Your a fully signed member of the lunatic fringe group based on what I read in your posts.

“When I can’t hang with him in debate I’ll just call him insane.” - That’s become a pretty common card for you all to play. I see it for what it is.

There is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the Easter bunny as there is for a Christian god.

That’s called an assertion and that proves nothing. The very idea of evidence presupposes that the Christian God exists, it does not presuppose that the Easter Bunny exists, nice try but you fail.

So for you to disprove the flying spaghetti monster, one must suppose it exists and therefore it exists?

No because the FSM doesn’t possess any attributes that account for anything we presuppose to be true before we argue logically. On the other hand, the Christian God possesses all of the necessary attributes that can account for such presuppositions.

We can debate if Lindsey Lohan exists or not but there is certainly more proof of her existence than there is for your 'sugar daddy'.

Not at all, a person would have an easier time being a Lohan skeptic than they would a God skeptic because human reasoning doesn’t presuppose that Lohan exists, it does presuppose that God exists. I can make an argument that Lindsey in fact doesn’t exist without refuting myself, you refute yourself when you try and argue God doesn’t exist.

At this point you either don't admit to what you have posted or have forgotten what you have posted or purposely deny what you have posted to make me go back and continuously dig out your quotes from the past over and over again. Three people now say the same thing that I have stated. YOU said that I have to presuppose that god existed before I can say he did not exist. I have posted your very own quote yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge your very own statements. If I would be you I would wonder if it is you who is irrational rather than accusing others of it because even those who believe in Jesus Christ or are otherwise religious have contradicted you.

What on earth are you talking about? I clearly stated that you have to use arguments that presuppose God exists in order to try and argue that He doesn’t, I have been very clear in that position and stick to it. It’s a position that nearly all Reformed Christians hold to and it’s a very sound one.

The one who accuses everybody else of insanity and declares him/herself the only one sane is usually the insane person. You can substitute sane/insane with rational/irrational if you want to. But I certainly put you into the category of insanity.

This could be my favorite paragraph anyone has posted in the last month. You first confuse the terms rational and irrational with sane and insane (a person can be extremely irrational and still be sane, in fact most people are generally irrational beings). Next, you say that calling someone insane usually means that the person doing the name calling is in fact not the sane one, but then you proceed to call me insane! You can’t make this stuff up folks.

There truly are many forms of a presupposition but yours does not exist. If you want to declare your statement that one has to presuppose the existence prior to making a statement of non-existence - that does not exist (how ironic). While presuppositions are largely assumptions it does not include contradictory statements. The assumptions have to be supportive of the statement made even in its negation format i.e. I never do it again - presupposition: I have done it before.

This is only true if the argument is sound, and that’s precisely the point! Your argument for the non-existence of God is not sound because it presupposes truths that could only be true if the argument itself is false, it’s a self-refuting argument. What part of that are you missing?

You may fiddle around with the implication format of presupposition if you want to but it requires a logical presupposition. Saying that in order to deny god's existence I have to first acknowledge his existence is not logical at all even-though you want it to be logical. What we have learned in these threads with you is just because you declare something logical it does not mean it actually is logical. As a matter of fact your thought of train is highly illogical as your logic is based on just what you say or what you want it to be logical disregarding any and all other facts presented to you.

You are just making more assertions which prove nothing. I clearly identified some of the truths that your argument presupposes (laws of logic, induction, reliability of senses etc.), I pointed out that you could not account for any of these things being true in a purely natural universe. I am now waiting for you to try and account for such things, and you have provided me with nothing so you are only proving my point. As a Christian I have no problem explaining how such truths could be true, as an atheist you cannot. So your argument is presupposing something that only can be true if God exists.

For you an admittance that you have no logical thought is like admitting defeat (and we all know you love to win on an internet forum) and your house of cards you so carefully built around yourself will crumble and the walls of safety and comfort you have built so careful are gone. It leaves you exposed and vulnerable.

More meaningless assertions I see. Are you going to actually try and refute my point that you cannot account for laws of logic, induction, etc… or are you going to let the position stand un-refuted?

I am not a Psychiatrist but I would assume that a Psychiatrist would probably diagnose you with thought disorder (TD) or formal thought disorder (FTD) when reading this thread (or any other thread you are involved in). One of the forms of thought disorder is actually illogicality and can be diagnosed as such.

More assertions that mean nothing, this is getting rather boring. How are any of my arguments illogical? I am sure you are aware that you asserting they are illogical doesn’t make them so. You are the one using self-refuting arguments which are of course illogical, not me. Perhaps you are the one suffering from some disorder? Maybe? Either way it doesn’t matter, I presented a very clear and concise argument, you can either continue to allow it to stand un-refuted or you can try to refute it; all of these assertions are really just wasting both of our time.

If you can not even stand by your own arguments and attempting to turn it around and make your statement MY statement than I call it delusional which is actually a form of formal thought disorder.

My position has been throughout this discussion that you have to use arguments that presuppose the Christian God exists in order to try and argue that He does not exist. I demonstrated how you are doing this, and I am waiting for a response. How can you account for laws of logic and induction for starters if the Universe is all that exists? You cannot do it! Yet you assume they do exist, why?

It was amusing though while it lasted.

Actually rather boring and disappointing, I was hoping you’d at least try to defend your position.

Stabler is the master of moving between different topics... The only way to have a rational discussion is to debate one topic at a time, narrower topics will lead to more a more productive conversation. Lets keep the discussion on "evidence of god existing" and then allow Statler to pick another topic upon that topic being resolved... Sound good everyone?

Statler- do you concede that there is zero evidence of the existence of god. If not, what evidence is there?

If you’ll notice I am not the one who brings up numerous topics, it is more a result of eight different people all responding to my posts and taking the discussion down different trails. I don’t mind it, I’ll discuss most things.

What do you mean by evidence? I am not sure what sort of evidence you’d expect God to leave behind, fingerprints? You’ve skipped several steps, we should first start off with the question, “If God didn’t exist would we be able to know anything at all?” I think you’ll find that the answer to that question will answer most other questions. Fair enough?

On a side note, do you think it is possible for all of us to keep the discussion more civil? No more questioning one another’s sanity and just stick to the merits of our arguments? Am I foolish to think that is possible?