Eternal punishment unjust?

[Bryan]

Yes, Do you?

Of course. The initial question is essentially irrelevant. The real question is whether or not universalism is the only just system involving a god and an afterlife.

A loving parent would never give up on his child, especially if he was all-powerful and perfectly good. If you don't get that, then I can't help you understand it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Therefore, a loving parent will let his child murder an infinite number of people (for example) rather than take away that child's ability to act on his own in a manner for which the child is responsible.

Matthew: I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul: Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew: I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul: Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew: I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul: Don't do it again.

See where this is going?

Justice in action, LaClair?

[Bryan]

All these religious discussions revolve around Mr. Paszkiewicz and his religious assertions.  In none of your 400+ posts have you mentioned Jesus' message of love and forgiveness.

Well, I think maybe Jesus would want you to love and forgive me for that.

What's wild is that you finally admit that fact but state you didn't like how I presented it.

I don't care how you presented it; I certainly didn't say I didn't like how you presented it. I simply noted the nature of your presentation.

And yet, I'm the one who supposedly holds you to a higher standard?

You're revising history again. I don't know whether or not you hold me to a higher standard, and apparently you won't answer when asked whether you do or not.

Perhaps you realize the trouble you'd be in so far as hypocrisy.

Next time I'll be sure to kiss the royal hand first.

j

Do you know Paul's address?

Imagine that.  400+ posts defending aspects of Christianity, and you fail to mention the central tenets of Jesus' message.

I haven't seen the central tenets of Jesus' message attacked, so why should I defend them?

Parse my inadequate use of the English language and "control" me all you want.  That doesn't change the fact that you would rather start a thread on Hell rather than on Salvation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

While I don't accept your conclusion, I forgive you in Jesus' name.

John 3:16

[Guest Paul]

Of course.  The initial question is essentially irrelevant.  The real question is whether or not universalism is the only just system involving a god and an afterlife.

Therefore, a loving parent will let his child murder an infinite number of people (for example) rather than take away that child's ability to act on his own in a manner for which the child is responsible.

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

See where this is going?

Justice in action, LaClair?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan's argument is inapplicable and illogical. He is trying to compare finite human beings living in a world where they are in continual contact with each other, to a supposedly infinite god who could take away the power of any person to harm any other person any time he so chose. So, for example, the god imagined by the Judeo-Christian narrative could isolate a wrongdoer without condemning him to eternal torment; or keep him in the midst of others but remove his power to harm them. Under those circumstances, why would a god with infinite power, knowledge and wisdom be limited in his Love? Why would he ever give up on one of his children?

[Strife767]

A loving parent would never give up on his child, especially if he was all-powerful and perfectly good.

And Bryan's answer to that, astonishingly:

Therefore, a loving parent will let his child murder an infinite number of people (for example) rather than take away that child's ability to act on his own in a manner for which the child is responsible.

What a ludicrous suggestion it is to equate an unwillingness to deliver infinite punishment to an unwillingness to punish at all.

Bryan, I've noticed more and more people are posting to let you know they see right through your non-arguments and semantic games. Maybe it's time to move on to a more gullible crowd. We're not falling for it.

[Guest Guest]

Well, I think maybe Jesus would want you to love and forgive me for that.

I don't care how you presented it; I certainly didn't say I didn't like how you presented it.  I simply noted the nature of your presentation.

You're revising history again.  I don't know whether or not you hold me to a higher standard, and apparently you won't answer when asked whether you do or not.

Perhaps you realize the trouble you'd be in so far as hypocrisy.

j

Do you know Paul's address?

I haven't seen the central tenets of Jesus' message attacked, so why should I defend them?

You're committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

While I don't accept your conclusion, I forgive you in Jesus' name.

John 3:16

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never felt there was anything you did that required forgiveness from me. I quite enjoy what you say.

We're just playing this perverse little game on a public forum where we all throw stones at each other. I find it more interesting than Halo.

Oh, and you probably mean this quote from Matthew 6:

"14: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15: But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Now this is what Christianity is about.

[Guest Paul]

Of course.  The initial question is essentially irrelevant.  The real question is whether or not universalism is the only just system involving a god and an afterlife.

Therefore, a loving parent will let his child murder an infinite number of people (for example) rather than take away that child's ability to act on his own in a manner for which the child is responsible.

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

Next day:

Matthew:  I killed somebody today, Dad.

Paul:  Don't do it again.

See where this is going?

Justice in action, LaClair?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An omnipotent god would have no difficulty preventing the killing without resorting to torment. An omnipotent god could, for example, isolate the would-be killer, or for that matter allow him to keep company with others while preventing him from harming them.

A loving and omnipotent god would not allow the killing, and surely would not be the author of eternal torment. A loving and omnipotent god would not allow death.

Bryan's argument illustrates one of the central problems with his theology. He wants to believe in an omnipotent god, but conveniently forgets the point when convenient.

[Bryan]

An omnipotent god would have no difficulty preventing the killing without resorting to torment.

Via brainwashing? Imprisonment?

Isn't that giving up?

An omnipotent god could, for example, isolate the would-be killer,

(imprisonment)

or for that matter allow him to keep company with others while preventing him from harming them.

So he could remove from his beloved son the ability to act responsibly. The son's bike gets training wheels for eternity (or you can envision Dad running alongside to make sure junior never falls).

Great job riding that bike, son!

Thanks, Dad!

Wouldn't an omniscient being be smart enough to see that personal growth would be completely undermined by such a system?

Why worry about not killing people if you can't? Paul's system is completely autocratic, assuming he'd take the same path with other potential moral failings.

A loving and omnipotent god would not allow the killing, and surely would not be the author of eternal torment.

What if people were tormented by the imprisonment you mentioned above? I mean, obviously God can't ever flay them alive or pour boiling lead down their throats (or allow anyone else to do it), so these characters are going to be so used to the cushy life that isolation will be like hell for them. Even restricting their ability to kill might torment these souls. Could a loving God do that, Paul?

A loving and omnipotent god would not allow death.

There goes the "single lifetime" question.

Since death isn't an option, and eternal torment isn't an option, it looks like Paul has eliminated annihilationism and the traditional notion of hell from among God's options.

Suicide wouldn't be allowed, so hopefully nobody is bored to death by not being able to do anything heroic or more exciting than going to the movies.

Bryan's argument illustrates one of the central problems with his theology. He wants to believe in an omnipotent god, but conveniently forgets the point when convenient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Omnipotence is not the ability to absolutely anything up to and including the logically impossible.

Religious skeptics are traditionally expert at forgetting that, and including the straw man notion of god in their arguments.

Paul looks like no exception.

[Bryan]

What a ludicrous suggestion it is to equate an unwillingness to deliver infinite punishment to an unwillingness to punish at all.

Is that what never giving up on your child means? Unwilling to deliver infinite punishment (Strife sees what he wants to see)?

If you like, we can have the dad put the kid on restriction for a week for each murder. Once we fix the day sequence the result is the same. An infinite number of dead.

Strife overlooks the fact that Paul doesn't care for the "scales of justice"--he's in favor of forgiveness.

Bryan, I've noticed more and more people are posting to let you know they see right through your non-arguments and semantic games. Maybe it's time to move on to a more gullible crowd. We're not falling for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you believe that they're seeing through a game of mine, then you're gullible.

Not that we didn't already know that after you bought that ReligiousTolerance.org article hook, line and sinker despite the disclaimer within the article itself.

Just a fluke, right?

[Bryan]

Oh, and you probably mean this quote from Matthew 6

An understandable confusion on your part.

In actuality, I wished to touch on the issue of salvation, since you had mentioned that as a co-deficiency along with the lack of mention of forgiveness.

[Guest Paul]

Is that what never giving up on your child means?  Unwilling to deliver infinite punishment (Strife sees what he wants to see)?

If you like, we can have the dad put the kid on restriction for a week for each murder.  Once we fix the day sequence the result is the same.  An infinite number of dead.

Strife overlooks the fact that Paul doesn't care for the "scales of justice"--he's in favor of forgiveness.

If you believe that they're seeing through a game of mine, then you're gullible.

Not that we didn't already know that after you bought that ReligiousTolerance.org article hook, line and sinker despite the disclaimer within the article itself.

Just a fluke, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After all, God is only human. That's the assumption Bryan has to make to defend his position: that there is a god who created us all, is perfect and unbounded in every way, yet is subject to the same limitations we are. That is a bald-faced contradiction.

You can't have it both ways, Bryan. Is God infinite and omnipotent, or not (assuming such a god to exist, of course)? If God is not infinite and omnipotent, then you deny your theology. If he is, then there is no reason for him ever to give up on any of us. You can't compare what an infinite and omnipotent god would do to what a human would do, and you can't reduce your infinite and omnipotent God to our human level. We are bound by limits that you claim God is not bound by. You can't put God in the box of our limits and have him still be God.

[Bryan]

Is that what never giving up on your child means?  Unwilling to deliver infinite punishment (Strife sees what he wants to see)?

If you like, we can have the dad put the kid on restriction for a week for each murder.  Once we fix the day sequence the result is the same.  An infinite number of dead.

Strife overlooks the fact that Paul doesn't care for the "scales of justice"--he's in favor of forgiveness.

If you believe that they're seeing through a game of mine, then you're gullible.

Not that we didn't already know that after you bought that ReligiousTolerance.org article hook, line and sinker despite the disclaimer within the article itself.

After all, God is only human.

How would that follow from anything I wrote above?

That's the assumption Bryan has to make to defend his position: that there is a god who created us all, is perfect and unbounded in every way, yet is subject to the same limitations we are. That is a bald-faced contradiction.

If that's an assumption I have to make, either I've already made it (and I can expect you to specify where) or you can demonstrate how something I wrote entails that conclusion (and again I can expect to see a demonstration).

Until you do that, Paul, you're the equivalent of a windbag.

You can't have it both ways, Bryan. Is God infinite and omnipotent, or not (assuming such a god to exist, of course)? If God is not infinite and omnipotent, then you deny your theology. If he is, then there is no reason for him ever to give up on any of us.

Your statement above could pass for begging the question. Where is it established logically that a God who is infinite, omnipotent, and just cannot give up on a person?

You can't compare what an infinite and omnipotent god would do to what a human would do, and you can't reduce your infinite and omnipotent God to our human level.

If you think that's what I'm doing then you missed the point of the illustration, which was simply to show that continued forgiveness of a repeated murderer can lead to an infinite number of murders. That's just math.

I can understand why you would flee the conclusion. Obviously you don't want to appear to condone an infinite number of murders as a just system.

We are bound by limits that you claim God is not bound by. You can't put God in the box of our limits and have him still be God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a self-stultifying argument (Paul puts God in the box of not being God if god is put in a box). It's the same logical error that Islam teaches: Allah cannot be known (so how do we know that without knowing something about Allah?).

Explain how my argument makes God human--if you can.

[Guest Guest]

there is no god, he is a idea created to control the masses of people who can't understand theur existance and feel there is a creator called god,but in reality it is just a natural chain of events that is easier to explain as god created......no one wants to think that this is all there is...............lights out.................

[Bryan]

there is no god, he is a idea created to control the masses of people who can't understand theur existance and feel there is a creator called god,but in reality it is just a natural chain of events that is easier to explain as god created......no one wants to think that this is all there is...............lights out.................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the "natural" chain of events becomes extraordinarily difficult to explain at the Planck time and prior.

No one wants to think that "this is all there is" because it makes it tough to explain things like consciousness and morality.

Now maybe you can do without those things ...

[Guest Paul]

Actually, the "natural" chain of events becomes extraordinarily difficult to explain at the Planck time and prior.

No one wants to think that "this is all there is" because it makes it tough to explain things like consciousness and morality.

Now maybe you can do without those things ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that sense, everything is hard to explain. If you think according to our usual rules of cause and effect, nothing makes sense: not existence, not non-existence, not God, not no-God, nothing. It all leads to a contradiction, because we're assuming things we don't know.

The point and obvious conclusion is that we do not know the answers to the ultimate questions. We don't even know what "the ultimate questions" are because they're buried in a reality we don't understand. That's the point. We don't understand it. We don't even know what shape it is. We don't know how many dimensions there really are. We know three of space and one of time, but we don't know there aren't others, and what those four look like to the naked eye does not capture the deeper reality, as Einstein and others began uncovering a century ago. It makes no sense, for example, to say that there must be a god because the universe is too well-constructed to have arisen by chance or on its own, because that ignores that a god capable of creating that universe would have to be at least equally well-constructed, a proposition that suffers from exactly the same defect as the theist complains about regarding the origins of the universe.

Just-so stories about supreme beings creating the whole thing don't answer the questions. They're just stories about them.

The other point is that science is not just a collection of experiments in laboratories. Science is a method, a way of thinking about things. It has a proven track record, the evidence for which includes all the technology we see around us, including the medium by which I am communicating with all of you right now. Science works, and that fact is demonstrable.

By contrast, there are important spiritual truths in religion, but to the extent that they work they follow the methods of science: try out an idea (hypothesize), see if it works (collect data), and develop the idea (formulate, expand and revise the theory). If prayer works for you, then pray; but don't think that necessarily means that the object of your prayer is real. There is a shape to the part of reality we can observe, but it isn't revealed by deciding that we're going to give our allegiance to a single collection of ancient writings or a group of practices that happen to work for us. We have to look at how religious practices work for other people, including those who don't practice our particular religion, to get the bigger picture. Science (thinking and acting according to the scienctific method) has a history of progress. Arbitrarily accepting a collection of writings and adhering to it regardless of the evidence, or dogmatically asserting that a set of religious practices is the only when (when the evidence is that different religious practices work for different people) does not. The fact that this is too complicated for the comfort of some doesn't change or diminish the fact that it is true.

People want a sense that some things don't change, so they adhere to religions that tell them that. (Some religions don't say that.) But the fact is that religions change, too. Just look at the older and newer part of the Bible, or the doctrines of any church, and compare them to how people actually live today. The rock of ages is nowhere near as hard and unchanging as people like to think it is. People in these religions just conveniently ignore the fact.

Science confronts reality head-on, as head-on as we are capable of. It doesn't get wrapped up in wishes, but it is driven by them. Before there was a vaccine for polio, for example, there was a desire to find a cure. The problem wasn't solved by sitting around and praying about it. It was solved by hard work, observation and clear thought, in other words by the proven methods of science and reason.

[Bryan]

In that sense, everything is hard to explain.

Are you talking about the Planck time, where it is thought that natural laws did not hold as they do now, or about consciousness and morality?

There are completely different problems in play, and you didn't specify which one you were addressing.

If you think according to our usual rules of cause and effect, nothing makes sense: not existence, not non-existence, not God, not no-God, nothing. It all leads to a contradiction, because we're assuming things we don't know.

Assuming things we don't know does not necessarily lead to contradiction. Your statement therefore appears to be a non sequitur.

Can you rephrase your claim to avoid the appearance of a logical fallacy?

The point and obvious conclusion is that we do not know the answers to the ultimate questions.

Looks like this'll be tough on Mr. LaClair.

How do we know that we do not know unless we have some idea of the truth of the matter?

Yours is a self-stultifying claim. Unless you can rule out anyone getting it right, even by happenstance, your [claim] isn't capable of any support, and the mere fact that you could know that everyone else is wrong reflects a default knowledge of the truth of the matter on your part.

Get with it, Paul. This is like the third time you've committed this rather elementary fallacy.

We don't even know what "the ultimate questions" are because they're buried in a reality we don't understand. That's the point. We don't understand it. We don't even know what shape it is. We don't know how many dimensions there really are. We know three of space and one of time, but we don't know there aren't others, and what those four look like to the naked eye does not capture the deeper reality, as Einstein and others began uncovering a century ago. It makes no sense, for example, to say that there must be a god because the universe is too well-constructed to have arisen by chance or on its own, because that ignores that a god capable of creating that universe would have to be at least equally well-constructed, a proposition that suffers from exactly the same defect as the theist complains about regarding the origins of the universe.

Uh ... thanks for elaborating on your fallacy to such great length.

Just-so stories about supreme beings creating the whole thing don't answer the questions. They're just stories about them.

With the exception of the story you just spun?

The other point is that science is not just a collection of experiments in laboratories. Science is a method, a way of thinking about things. It has a proven track record, the evidence for which includes all the technology we see around us, including the medium by which I am communicating with all of you right now. Science works, and that fact is demonstrable.

How did that get to be a point in a thread about whether or not eternal punishment could be just?

I'd really like an explanation for that one.

By contrast, there are important spiritual truths in religion, but to the extent that they work they follow the methods of science: try out an idea (hypothesize), see if it works (collect data), and develop the idea (formulate, expand and revise the theory).

Incorrect, but I suppose you can't resist doing PR for your point of view at every drop of the hat. If one tries out an idea and it works, then we have found something that works and the "methods of science" were followed (according to your explanation) no further than the hypothesis stage.

If prayer works for you, then pray; but don't think that necessarily means that the object of your prayer is real. There is a shape to the part of reality we can observe, but it isn't revealed by deciding that we're going to give our allegiance to a single collection of ancient writings or a group of practices that happen to work for us.

Oh? How do you know that?

We have to look at how religious practices work for other people, including those who don't practice our particular religion, to get the bigger picture.

The "shape to the part of reality we can observe" is as big as our observations, by definition. As such, your description is nonsensical (one might expand his range of observations, but he keeps ending up in the initial state again unless he achieves omniscience).

Science (thinking and acting according to the scienctific method) has a history of progress.

Progress that predates any description of a scientific method, in fact. On top of that the scientific method is much less structured than many suppose.

Arbitrarily accepting a collection of writings and adhering to it regardless of the evidence, or dogmatically asserting that a set of religious practices is the only when (when the evidence is that different religious practices work for different people) does not. The fact that this is too complicated for the comfort of some doesn't change or diminish the fact that it is true.

Let's suppose for a moment that it's true.

How is it relevant?

Let's suppose that sacrificing our children to Ba'al worked. Ba'al would look on us favorably for burning them to a crisp and reward us with 9 figure salaries, a private jet, and a lifetime supply of Yoo-Hoo Chocolate Action Drink.

What are we to make of that reality?

People want a sense that some things don't change, so they adhere to religions that tell them that. (Some religions don't say that.) But the fact is that religions change, too. Just look at the older and newer part of the Bible, or the doctrines of any church, and compare them to how people actually live today. The rock of ages is nowhere near as hard and unchanging as people like to think it is. People in these religions just conveniently ignore the fact.

Almost as well as you ignore the fact that you've been avoiding the topic of the thread for some time, now.

Most Jewish and Christian theologians of poor or higher education understand (and accept) the notion of progressive revelation.

(should I point out to Paul that either some things don't change or the fact that things change never changes?)

Science confronts reality head-on, as head-on as we are capable of.

Doesn't that presuppose that a true revelation is impossible?

Did you figure that out scientifically?

It doesn't get wrapped up in wishes, but it is driven by them. Before there was a vaccine for polio, for example, there was a desire to find a cure. The problem wasn't solved by sitting around and praying about it. It was solved by hard work, observation and clear thought, in other words by the proven methods of science and reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that nice? The tail end of the fallacy parade admonishes us to think clearly.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

(Paul):

Just-so stories about supreme beings creating the whole thing don't answer the questions. They're just stories about them.

With the exception of the story you just spun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not an exception. They're buttressed by different modes of thinking. One is scientific and rational. The other is neither of those. That single point dispenses with all Bryan's others.

[WilliamK]

The point and obvious conclusion is that we do not know the answers to the ultimate questions.

Looks like this'll be tough on Mr. LaClair.

How do we know that we do not know unless we have some idea of the truth of the matter?

Yours is a self-stultifying claim. Unless you can rule out anyone getting it right, even by happenstance, your isn't capable of any support, [...]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Magic 8 Ball sometimes yields correct answers, but this does not mean that it provides knowledge in those cases any more than when it is wrong. This applies as well to astrologers, psychics, prophets, and holy books as it does to Magic 8 Balls. Belief in unsupported revelation, speculation, and guesses does not equal knowledge, not even when it pans out.

[...] and the mere fact that you could know that everyone else is wrong reflects a default knowledge of the truth of the matter on your part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If all who claim to know the answer to a question fail to demonstrate a sound basis for their claimed knowledge, then it is entirely reasonable to consider the question unanswered.

This is a burden of proof problem. Those who claim to know, bear the burden of proof. That they might be right isn't a good enough foundation to build on. We need some indication that they are right.

In case anyone doesn't understand it, burden of proof is a purely practical matter. It doesn't posit that unproven claims are necessarily false. It claims no omniscience. It's just a sensible way to proceed in the presence of uncertainty.

Get with it, Paul.  This is like the third time you've committed this rather elementary fallacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And this is the umpteenth time you've accused someone of a fallacy while demonstrating illogic of your own.

Uh ... thanks for elaborating on your fallacy to such great length. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He put it rather eloquently. Once again, Bryan, in your zeal to belittle someone else you've revealed yourself the fool and cad.

[WilliamK]

Actually, the "natural" chain of events becomes extraordinarily difficult to explain at the Planck time and prior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed it does. It is much easier to attribute such things to the supernatural than to keep trying to figure it out.

"God did it." The universal answer that can lay every question to rest. It has satisfied and comforted billions. And yet it has left them with no more actual knowledge, and even further from acquiring any, than if they had simply left the questions unanswered.

[Bryan]

Indeed it does. It is much easier to attribute such things to the supernatural than to keep trying to figure it out.

What is "supernatural" if not phenomena not amenable to explanation via natural law?

If you make everything amenable to natural law, then there isn't any such thing as "supernatural" by definition, is there?

"God did it." The universal answer that can lay every question to rest.

How does it lay "how did God do it" to rest? I don't quite follow.

It has satisfied and comforted billions. And yet it has left them with no more actual knowledge, and even further from acquiring any, than if they had simply left the questions unanswered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you feel the same way about morality, or have you signed on with LaClair's claim that he can derive morality from an "is" using reason?

[Bryan]

Looks like this'll be tough on Mr. LaClair.

How do we know that we do not know unless we have some idea of the truth of the matter?

Yours is a self-stultifying claim.  Unless you can rule out anyone getting it right, even by happenstance, your isn't capable of any support, [...]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A Magic 8 Ball sometimes yields correct answers, but this does not mean that it provides knowledge in those cases any more than when it is wrong.

How do you know that?

This applies as well to astrologers, psychics, prophets, and holy books as it does to Magic 8 Balls.

Likewise, then, how do you know that?

Belief in unsupported revelation, speculation, and guesses does not equal knowledge, not even when it pans out.

Why not?

If all who claim to know the answer to a question fail to demonstrate a sound basis for their claimed knowledge, then it is entirely reasonable to consider the question unanswered.

Do you think that Paul has absolute knowledge of all of the answers that have been proffered to the question?

Has he demonstrated a sound basis for his knowledge?

If not, perhaps you should doubt it.

This is a burden of proof problem. Those who claim to know, bear the burden of proof.

We agree on something, here. Paul claims to know that nobody knows (which would seem to include those who [think they] know but don't make any claims about it).

Does Paul bear any burden of proof for his claim?

That they might be right isn't a good enough foundation to build on. We need some indication that they are right.

We need some indication that somebody has knowledge of the true answer to a question before we claim that nobody knows (as an "obvious conclusion")?

Welcome to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, WillamK (if we don't know that somebody is right, then we can conclude that all are wrong).

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...tml#ignorantiam

In case anyone doesn't understand it, burden of proof is a purely practical matter. It doesn't posit that unproven claims are necessarily false. It claims no omniscience. It's just a sensible way to proceed in the presence of uncertainty.

And this is the umpteenth time you've accused someone of a fallacy while demonstrating illogic of your own.

Do tell. Where's my illogic (anywhere)?

"The point and obvious conclusion is that we do not know the answers to the ultimate questions."

--Paul LaClair

He put it rather eloquently. Once again, Bryan, in your zeal to belittle someone else you've revealed yourself the fool and cad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not the one calling other people names while trying to paper over a fallacy as a mere burden of proof problem.

That would be you.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Bryan

[Bryan]

(Paul):

Just-so stories about supreme beings creating the whole thing don't answer the questions. They're just stories about them.

It's not an exception. They're buttressed by different modes of thinking. One is scientific and rational. The other is neither of those. That single point dispenses with all Bryan's others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No lack of bluster in that post.

How is the conclusion that not one of the "Just-so" stories is true buttressed by science?

Most scientists who aren't idiots at the same time regard the issue of God as scientifically unfalsifiable. Does Paul differ with that assessment somehow as he makes his blusterful claim?

[Guest Paul]

No lack of bluster in that post.

How is the conclusion that not one of the "Just-so" stories is true buttressed by science?

Most scientists who aren't idiots at the same time regard the issue of God as scientifically unfalsifiable.  Does Paul differ with that assessment somehow as he makes his blusterful claim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You betray yourself, Bryan. No one who understands science would make those remarks, unless he was being deliberately obtuse.

Someone in another post likened just-so stories that just happen to be true to a "magic 8-ball." It will be right sometimes, but that misses the point, as are you. Science isn't just a collection of results, but a method. It is by following the method that science moves forward.

By contrast, there is no core method in theology or theism. There are core values in religion (that which takes in all things as best we can and binds them and us together into a coherent and functioning whole), but those have their roots in our humanity. They are not just-so stories, but they don't require any belief in a supreme being or in any particular religion either.

Unfalsifiability in science also means that the matter cannot be proved. It's not something to hold up as a matter of vindication. Do you really not get that, Bryan, or are you playing games?

[Bryan]

You betray yourself, Bryan.

You've made that a tired old line in record time. How do I supposedly betray myself?

No one who understands science would make those remarks, unless he was being deliberately obtuse.

No on who understands science would make what remarks?

Hiding in ambiguity again, Paul? Avoiding my argument? Don't be coy, come back and make your meaning clear. Try not to totally abandon your argument, which is the thing I was addressing:

Just-so stories about supreme beings creating the whole thing don't answer the questions. They're just stories about them.

It's not an exception. They're buttressed by different modes of thinking. One is scientific and rational. The other is neither of those. That single point dispenses with all Bryan's others.

I only asked you two questions, and you dodged both of them.

Must be a lawyer?

Someone in another post likened just-so stories that just happen to be true to a "magic 8-ball." It will be right sometimes, but that misses the point, as are you. Science isn't just a collection of results, but a method. It is by following the method that science moves forward.

So, you don't want to defend what you wrote, you want to change the subject to what science is (as though I don't know).

Very amusing.

I don't suppose you can work in your justification of how (all) "Just-so" stories are scientifically known to lack truth content?

By contrast, there is no core method in theology or theism.

Why does there need to be? Why couldn't a revelation simply be true?

See if you can answer without begging the question. I know how you love your fallacies.

There are core values in religion (that which takes in all things as best we can and binds them and us together into a coherent and functioning whole), but those have their roots in our humanity. They are not just-so stories, but they don't require any belief in a supreme being or in any particular religion either.

Not much for staying on-topic, are you?

Unfalsifiability in science also means that the matter cannot be proved. It's not something to hold up as a matter of vindication. Do you really not get that, Bryan, or are you playing games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should I need to "get that"? Is it supposed to get you off the hook for your claim about all the other tales being "Just-so" stories instead of simply underscoring how you cannot support your original claim?

The pattern continues: Paul dodges the questions and offers fallacies of distraction.