Now that IS a fallacy. Let's say hypothetically that God isn't real, there isn't any metric that can be used to prove this with 100% certainty. The reason is simple: In order to present this proof with 100% certainly, we would require an infinite (or complete) knowledge of the universe. Plus we would require infinite time to test any theory which objects. The same argument goes for proving that God does exist.

In other words, there are different levels of proof. The discussion of God is one of the ultimate physical laws of the universe. Basically you are arguing for something that cannot be proven, at not by statistics. I keep harping about statistics because that is what math, chemistry and most other sciences are. I think many people fail to realize how complex the universe really is..

makes me feel even more blessed and also disappointed in myself that i had to be shown proof first hand
i know im not the only one, things happen to people that make them believers

Well he isn't entirely wrong with his usage even if it's a newly learnt concept:

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation."

In many ways this is what debate is because the empirical data is not at hand. Generally we accept scientific proof as the results of a research paper but you can imagine proof by assertion is a huge problem in the universities and the lab. For example, the distance to the sun is well known with a precise value (consistent measurements). However it is often passed off as an accurate value (represents reality).

People who argue for science often make the same critical error as the people they are arguing against. It all goes back to the complexity of the universe and how difficult it is to accurately measure anything. It's no wonder people generally form two camps: Religion vs Science.

Science isn't set in concrete it's simply an evolving and growing knowledge base. Religious nutjobs just play a loop of "no you are wrong the bible told me" there is no debating close minded people like that.

8 user(s) are reading this topic (4 guests, 1 anonymous): addone, death_knight, Nirjan, TiStuff here we go. I am out of here

This post was edited by addone on Jul 6 2023 01:06am

make proper arguments and you wont be called out for fallacies

the napkin prophet switches tactics to adhom fallacies and gets caught

actually all you really need to do is bring enough trouble to scripture. i always have a standing challenge "bring me any science that troubles scripture"
i used to say "disproves scripture" later changed it to "troubles scripture"

also..........the claim of multiverse. if true that would equate to possible infinite of infinites

are you aware the multiverse argument was invented as an explanation to the fine tuning argument?





This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 6 2023 01:23am

addone's personality must have been used for chatgpt, he literally projects 100% of the time what he's doing unto others.





nice tag dirt bag.

This post was edited by lodd222 on Jul 6 2023 07:36am

I don't accept the presupposition that all religious and spiritual beliefs are nonsense. My brother thinks that if religion causes the people to behave themselves then that's fine but I think it is deeper than that. Religion is comprised of elements of our mind that is very difficult to articulate, in other words, a religious description is one of metaphysics even if it does make reference to corporeal events. This seems to be the case to me because "science" (what I'll call precise empirical methods) has practical limits. So while I can talk about a topic like death scientifically, there comes a point where a different type of knowledge displaces what can actually be measured. What this knowledge really is I can't say but it appears to be one that is extremely old. Long story short, I believe there is ancient wisdom in the holy books. If you need an explanation of why so much religion is misused, evolutionary selection seems the obvious case because most things are tried and few work. If an organism can find a niche, it will. This idea explains a good deal of political science as far as I can tell.

Spirituality is a personal quest for higher understanding of the unknown/supernatural religion is a canned version of someone else's experience. It's a pseudo scientific method which involves testing things through personal observation and feelings.
Religion is a cancerous tumor that relies on unquestioning acceptance of its supernatural claims.

The reason people like you who don't accept religion as utter nonsense is because it weaves many half truths. Like a good liar it makes you think what it says is true by stating practical wisdom and stories and real events. It heavy relies on people's trustworthiness. Combined with officious dress code and backing of high ranking leadership to enforce its tenets and not to mention the "proof by assertion and authority" what you get is a cult. People just repeat the same nonsense without questioning the validity and origins.

Yes there are unknowns out there, yes we don't know many things like origin of the universe or what happens when we die etc doesn't mean we need to abandon our mental faculties and run to the nearest wizard of Oz story. This is lazy.
I suppose some elements can be studied and researched in Take for example Noah's ark was rebuilt to scale by different companies and none of them are sea worthy. There are thousands of things which have been tested in the religious context and most of them turned out to be utter bullshit.

Religion had to be sold through supernatural and over exegeated stories, it tries to scare people with a boogieman (devil, Satan, demons etc) and it offers a cure (good guy jesus, God, saviour/hero) it's basically comfort food for people who are scared of after death.