|(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)|
|−|== Notes == |+|
| || |
|−|* Might be interesting to add "fallacy in action" links to youtube videos of AE clips, for different fallacies. |+|
to , a the way to do . the of of ).
|−|* In [[Atheists are just in denial]], might be good to note a few things |+|
|−|** These discussions start off as a cyclic "Is too", "Is not" squabbling, so the way to resolve the argument is to see if the evidence meets the standards - if not, the theistic claim loses |+|
|−|* Theists do this thing all the time where if they can't meet the minimum requirements. .. they redefine and change the thing they're trying to get accepted into into ''meeting them'', instead. |+|
|−|*** Kansas redefinition of science to allow supernatural |+|
|−|*** Redefinition of evidence from science standards to meet low quality apologetics standards |+|
|−|*** Dembski's (and other apologists) creating their own crappy peer-review journals to bypass the fact they can't pass peer-review from real scientists with real, credible journals |+|
|−|*** etc. |+|
| || |
|−|== Temp Storage == |+|
| || |
|−|- Started to babble on out of context of a page. . this ought to go elsewhere |+|
on . to go that if the , the
|−|- also, point out that if the Bible was indicating a spherical earth, why is it that such assertions were prosecuted as heresy by the bible believers before? |+|
| || |
| || |
|−| that isn't a vastly distorted and spun translation? Here's an example: |+|
[[|]] , ()
|−|* "''He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.''" ([[ Job| Job 26:7]] ) |+|
|−|* "''It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, ...''" ( [[Isaiah|Isaiah 40:22]]) |+|
|−|Some spin these references into meaning that the Earth is a sphere. The problem with translation is that the further you go from the literal meaning, the more error you're potentially |+|
|−|=== Proof By Logic == |+|
|−|* Trying to demonstrate existence of god buy purely deductive reasoning |+|
|−|:* Doesn't work unless we're omniscient |+|
|−|:* All premises must be 100% correct and unassumed |+|
|−|* Examples of deductive 'guidance' later demonstrated empirically |+|
|−|:* Expansion from newtonian mechanics to general relativity |+|
|−|:* Existence of black holes |+|
|−|:* Existence of atoms |+|
|−|:* Orbit of pluto |+|
|−|* Bait and switch with different 'god' definitions |+|
Re: You have to believe first, then you'll get your evidence.
While I fully agree that the argument you're trying to refute is nonsensical, I'm not sure a car analogy is the most effective way to do it. A theist would probably respond by saying that through the grace of God you receive a loan (Bad credit? No credit? No problem! Just tithe 20% of your income for the rest of your life!).
The theist is expressing the view that you can make sufficiently convincing evidence appear by believing until it does (I've personally been told that I have to "fake it until you make it"). The amount of belief "required" is not objective and can't be predicted by anyone else, because it's at God's discretion based on His plan for you.
Potentially effective rebuttals at this point depend on the theist and your own familiarity with the subject matter. You can bring up delusional behavior if you want to go with psychology. You can bring up Mother Teresa's letters where she no longer believed and was told that meant she was God's instrument. You can bring up the "if you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him" argument against false enlightenment. Or the foolhardiness of trying to please a whimsical god.
However, I'm of the opinion that your efforts would be better spent in trying to steer the conversation towards something along the lines of the subjectivity of these experiences means that they are highly personal and that we should not make objective rules based on them. Jdog 22:47, 15 July 2011 (CDT)