HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You need to back up what you say. That is exactly the point. You do indeed. Nobody else has to prove that you're wrong. Saying there is no God requires evidence. Once again, you completely fail to grasp the concept of a logical argument. There is no necessity for anyone to invoke a God in the first place, unless some evidence obtains which cannot be explained without God. If that were not true, then we would all have to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, because there is no evidence to support people saying that it doesn't. Things don't work that way. People who wish to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, must provide evidence, since otherwise there is no reason to credit their claims. The same goes for all other supernatural entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 That is exactly the point. You do indeed. Nobody else has to prove that you're wrong. No.You have to back up what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 No.You have to back up what you say. I haven't made any claims, therefore there isn't anything to be backed up in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 That is exactly the point. You do indeed. Nobody else has to prove that you're wrong. Once again, you completely fail to grasp the concept of a logical argument. There is no necessity for anyone to invoke a God in the first place, unless some evidence obtains which cannot be explained without God. If that were not true, then we would all have to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, because there is no evidence to support people saying that it doesn't. Things don't work that way. People who wish to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, must provide evidence, since otherwise there is no reason to credit their claims. The same goes for all other supernatural entities. There is no reason to think the FSM exists but there is reason to think there is an almighty power force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 There is no reason to think the FSG exists but there is reason to think there is an almighty power force. No such reason have ever been demonstrated. Even if it were, the Flying Spaghetti Monster provides an explanation as to what that power force might be, and it's just as valid as the explanation found in the Bible. If you care to demonstrate reasons to think that such exists, then by all means provide them. As we've been saying all along, your claims require evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 No such reason have ever been demonstrated. Even if it were, the Flying Spaghetti Monster provides an explanation as to what that power force might be, and it's just as valid as the explanation found in the Bible. If you care to demonstrate reasons to think that such exists, then by all means provide them. As we've been saying all along, your claims require evidence. There are laws like "Natural Laws;" "Moral Laws;" and "Divine Laws" The FSM does not comply with any of them so is not valid, whereas God does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 There are laws like "Natural Laws;" "Moral Laws;" and "Divine Laws" If you wish to claim that those things exist, then you will need to provide evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If you wish to claim that those things exist, then you will need to provide evidence! Natural law, the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws. Moral Law. Based on the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong but that there are some things you "ought" to do, and some things that you "ought not" to do. There are those who say they don’t believe or accept moral law but they still get upset when their house is burgled and no matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid the reality of a moral law. Our present-day culture is a novel experiment that is trying to prove that you can, but the experiment isn’t working. When people are "wronged" they still want their "pound of flesh" or justice which is the imposition of moral law. Divine Law. Encompasses natural law and moral law and is independent of the will of man who cannot change it. Divine law can be seen as : - perfect; heavenly; supremely good or beautiful; magnificent; extremely pleasant; delightful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Natural law, the physical universe considered as an orderly system subject to natural (not human or supernatural) laws. Moral Law. Based on the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong but that there are some things you "ought" to do, and some things that you "ought not" to do. There are those who say they don’t believe or accept moral law but they still get upset when their house is burgled and no matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid the reality of a moral law. Our present-day culture is a novel experiment that is trying to prove that you can, but the experiment isn’t working. When people are "wronged" they still want their "pound of flesh" or justice which is the imposition of moral law. Divine Law. Encompasses natural law and moral law and is independent of the will of man who cannot change it. Divine can be seen as : - ; perfect; heavenly; supremely good or beautiful; magnificent; extremely pleasant; delightful. A definition is not evidence. It's merely a definition. "Natural law" is an archaic term for a description of how the Universe works; there is certainly no need to invoke a supernatural being merely because the Universe does what it does. "Moral law," as you call it, was created by humans as far as we know, to deal with the problems of living in large groups. Again, there is no need to invoke a supernatural being to explain that; humans are quite capable of making up rules to deal with communal living. "Divine law" doesn't appear to exist at all except insofar as you claim that it does, and define it as encompassing everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agbus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 A definition is not evidence. It's merely a definition. "Natural law" is an archaic term for a description of how the Universe works; there is certainly no need to invoke a supernatural being merely because the Universe does what it does. "Moral law," as you call it, was created by humans as far as we know, to deal with the problems of living in large groups. Again, there is no need to invoke a supernatural being to explain that; humans are quite capable of making up rules to deal with communal living. "Divine law" doesn't appear to exist at all except insofar as you claim that it does, and define it as encompassing everything else. Strange because last night I was asked to define God and we know him by his laws. The FSM is a nonsense dreamed up by people who make no sense of anything outside their own experience and as such they devise :- Positive law which is governmental or man-made law which may conflict with the above God given perfect laws without which there would be no universe and society would be in anarchy. When atheism is embraced it is to the detriment of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.