My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Logic isn't myopic. If YOU don't understand logic do NOT hold that against logic. And logic underlies science and inference.

Again: you cannot prove a negative.

Just like it is philosophically inane to say "There is no God". One may easily say "I fail to see evidence for God" but it is not logically robust to claim a universal negative.

Is that why everything He thought, did, and said is considered a myth?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you have evidence of non-occurrence (or non existence) when evidence is left by things that exist......

Not all the time.

Evidence can evaporate, not be generated, or cleaned up.

 

[sjastro]

Not all the time.

Evidence can evaporate, not be generated, or cleaned up.

if evidence can be evaporated or cleaned up then there must be evidence of the processes occurring.
As far as evidence not being generated results in claiming existence of something when there is no evidence to back it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

if evidence can be evaporated or cleaned up then there must be evidence of the processes occurring.

Show me evidence that Jesus walked on water.

You can't.

For to believe that, you'll have to believe those who wrote about it.

That's called "faith."

As far as evidence not being generated results in claiming existence of something when there is no evidence to back it up.

Again, one would have to believe on the Documentation then.

 

[sjastro]

Show me evidence that Jesus walked on water.

You can't.

For to believe that, you'll have to believe those who wrote about it.

That's called "faith."Again, one would have to believe on the Documentation then.

Faith is no substitute for logic or evidence and you have answered your own challenge by showing one cannot prove a negative.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Correct.

And what do scientists do, when they reduce God down to a myth, then ask for proof?

Aren't they doing the same thing?

Nope. Asking for evidence for a claim is perfectly rational.

 

[VirOptimus]

Correct.

And what do scientists do, when they reduce God down to a myth, then ask for proof?

Aren't they doing the same thing?

You claim god(s) exist, a positive claim, the burden of proof are on you.

Scientists deal with sceince, i.e. physical reality. As god(s) are not part of physical reality science does not in any form adress the existance (or non-existance) of god(s).

 

[dqhall]

Then it must have fallen inside the wall, as "all the king's horses and all the king's men" arrived to fix it.

Guess work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Guess work.

If it fell outside of the wall, then they must have went on to win the battle, else all the king's horses and all the king's men wouldn't be out there in the line of fire trying to fix it.

If it fell inside the wall, I also doubt that they would stop what they're doing and try to fix it, unless they did it in rotating shifts; else the enemy would have overwhelmed them.

Either way, it looks like a strange battle to me.

Unless, of course, there was no battle going on at the time.

Maybe they were preparing for battle?

It's an interesting challenge.

 

[Kylie]

Correct.

And what do scientists do, when they reduce God down to a myth, then ask for proof?

Aren't they doing the same thing?

No.

There's a big difference between, "Show me proof it DIDN'T happen the way you claim," and, "I find no evidence to support your claim, so show me proof that it DID happen the way you claim."

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a big difference between, "Show me proof it DIDN'T happen the way you claim," and, "I find no evidence to support your claim, so show me proof that it DID happen the way you claim."

You have to understand my claim first.

 

[Kylie]

You have to understand my claim first.

You've made many claims.Which one in particular are you talking about here?

 

[SLP]

Show me evidence that Jesus walked on water.

You can't.

That is why it is not sensible to accept the claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is why it is not sensible to accept the claim.

And that puts you one step away from denying that claim.

And if one denies it, one would be wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

And that puts you one step away from denying that claim.

And if one denies it, one would be wrong.

There is no credible data for any miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no credible data for any miracles.

That's right.

Why do you think they're called "miracles"?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why do you think it's called a "miracle"?

Because its religious belief (keyword, belief).

 

[SLP]

And that puts you one step away from denying that claim.

And if one denies it, one would be wrong.

How so? What is the corroborating evidence for the claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because its religious belief (keyword, belief).

Which comes first? the miracle or the belief?

 

[VirOptimus]

Which comes first? the miracle or the belief?

As the miracle never have happened, belief is all there is.