Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
These "aliens" are disproven by mine Church. And mine Church is proven here:
The True Religion is Proven - YouTube
"a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." (The burden of proof). Did you get it?
I can prove, what there is no huge lion in the box of milk.
So, I can prove the negative too.
One can point to the author of the paper, what his formula nr. 3 does not follow from the formula nr. 2, that does not violate the Presumption of Innocence: because the author was proven wrong.
Embedded in this post are the nonsense ideas that:
- "scientific consensus" is some species of a fallacious argument from popularity
- that scientific evaluation of evidence is somehow subjective
and that any "subjective interpretation" is as good as the next one.
This is a new low. Even for you, Michael.
I never mentioned science once, and I never attempted to apply scientific standards of evidence to the claims of the existence of a God.
I was just highlighting joinfree's hypocrisy in claiming he has no burden of proof when making a claim, but that other posters do have a burden of proof if they don't accept that claim.
He also implicitly made the assertion that a statement of non-belief in a claim is a contradiction of that claim. Saying "I don't believe your claim" is not "your claim is false" or "I believe the opposite of your claim".
Even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is some kind of consensus on the topic of God among the myriad religious belief systems, sects, and cults - that smacks of hypocrisy coming from someone who asserts his own rejection of the scientific consensus, and professes a God belief that can hardly be considered mainstream.
The author of the paper is in right, if he calls the "exotic invisible forms of matter", which he has introduced into the text, as "hypothesis", or uses the sentence:T
........
You're correct that *some* claims can be shown to be false, but it depends on the nature of the claim. That's typically why the scientific method puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. I cannot completely "disprove" the existence of exotic invisible forms of matter for instance, so the burden of proof falls to the individual(s) who claim that such forms of matter do exist.
......
The author of the paper is in right, if he calls the "exotic invisible forms of matter", which he has introduced into the text, as "hypothesis", ....
Such neutral text would pass the peer-review.
The Presumption of Innocence is not the Presumption of Verity. If man uses common sense language, then he does not sin before his God.FYI, even passing a "peer-review" process doesn't automatically equate to being right, nor does it demonstrate that the peer reviewed paper is the "scientific consensus" on that topic. All it means is that the paper passed a peer review process. I have published some peer reviewed papers on astronomy for instance, but that doesn't mean that the ideas I presented are automatically considered to be 'true' nor does it demonstrate that they represent the majority viewpoint on those topics.
The Presumption of Innocence is not the Presumption of Verity.
If man uses common sense language, then he does not sin before his God.
I am willing to call the atheism by the word "false". Why? Because the atheism must be false "in the eyes" of mine God. So, I am calling it false everywhere. Please tel us all, what positive and new has taught us the false atheism yet.FYI, that's exactly the same point that the atheists are making. You're ultimately comparing apples to oranges. .....
I agree with much of what you said, but I think the above statement misses the point. From Wiki -
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.
Yes, I understand that; but it's not what the burden of proof means, as I already explained."a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." (The burden of proof). Did you get it?
Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.Yes, I understand that; but it's not what the burden of proof means, as I already explained.
Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.
That´s quite a misrepresention of the principle of the burden of proof.The Prince of this fallen world has invented the Burden of Proof:
Any human is wrong (sick, delusional, criminal, etc.) until he is proven right.
No; the truth value of a claim is unknown until it's either substantiated or shown to be false; and the onus is on the claimant to substantiate it.Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.
I think you either misread or misunderstood what I said frankly.
I am willing to call the atheism by the word "false". Why? Because the atheism must be false "in the eyes" of mine God. So, I am calling it false everywhere. Please tel us all, what positive and new has taught us the false atheism yet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?