Logically consistent theories of ID exist. (page 14)

AuldSoul

Can something be proved to me that I cannot prove?

AuldSoul

If we define that which is objective as material reality, you are correct, ackack.

But if that which is objective encompasses all that is reality, and God exists, God is objective.

Likewise, if that which is objective encompasses all that is reality, and evidence for God exists, then evidence for God is objective.

See, the problem with labeling is you can accidentally create too small a box for your thoughts. If God exists, by God's very existence God is proven to be not supernatural, but natural. Logically, if you really allow for the possibility of the existence of God, you must also allow for the possibility that God is an objective reality, even if it turns out that God is not a material reality.

funkyderek

AuldSoul:

How about being objective? (or at least pretending to be , instead of being pedantic)

I thought you thought objectivity was impossible.

Objectively, the second statement excludes the possibility of evidence for God.
Objectively, the first statement allows the possibility of evidence for God.

Agreed.

I didn't come into this thread to start the argument that ensued. My initial post only demanded that Abaddon correct this statement to one that allowed the possibility of evidence for God. He has refused to admit any error regarding it. And he is wrong, flatly wrong.

His statement is certainly unprovable, but not necessarily wrong. However, to prove him wrong - if that interests you as much as declaring that he is wrong - all you need to do is provide one piece of evidence for the existence of God. I don't think it entirely unfair of Abaddon not to accept your statement that a claim is evidence in itself.

In addition to being a logically erroneous statement, the statement was obstructive to debate and fallacious in its presentation.

I think it was conducive to debate. It's trivially easy to disagree with it, and potentially to disprove it.

It isn't pedantry to point out fallacy in argument during a debate, is it, FunkyDerek?

Not necessarily, but when your pointing out of a fallacy consists of little more than finding a definition of a word used in the statement that would falsify the statement, and then insisting that that definition be used, I'm not sure what else to call it.

ackack

AuldSoul, I don't think you know what supernatural means.

Look, this entire discussion is pointless. You have no evidence, no tests which can be offered to prove God's existence. I have no evidence of test to prove or disprove God's existence. Just leave it at that, and get on with discussion ID instead of continuing this off-topic discussion.

And for the record, natural things can be tested. If God becomes a testable part of objective reality, we'll pick that up again then.

ackack

AuldSoul

There is a possibility that a Creator exists.

There is no evidence for a Creator.

These two statements are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. One must be wrong.

If a Creator exists, then the Creator is real and there is always evidence of real existence.

If there is no evidence for a Creator, then there is no possibility a Creator exists.

If someone declares that they allow for the possibility of the existence of a Creator while declaring there is no evidence for a Creator, such a person is wrong. And not just pedantically. Logically, his point of argument is flawed. And that was all I contested, initially.

If he allows for the possibility of the real existence of a Creator (personally, I highly doubt his testimony regarding that point, I do not believe he does allow for that possibility) he must logically allow for that existence to be evidenced in reality as well.

ackack

There is a possibility that a Creator exists. There is no evidence for a Creator. These two statements are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. One must be wrong.

This premise is wrong. Both statements can be true.

Do you have evidence for a creator?

ackack

There is a possibility that a Creator exists.
There is no evidence for a Creator.

These two statements are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. One must be wrong.

What if the second statement is modified to "Nobody has evidence for a Creator". Would that satisfy you?

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this