Roe vs Wade

Please make it stop, my eyes are bleeding lol

"Then there is a fucking santa clause, easter bunny, loch ness monster, big foot, atlantis, et al."

You are mistaking the absence of proof of non-existence for proof of existence. Continuing in this vein is a waste of time, so I hope you have a better basis for your argument.

Just a quick response - I have to get work done and have a meeting this evening.

"It doesn't matter how many words you throw at the problem, the outcome will still be that there is no proof, leaving open the possibility that god/a creator/a supreme being does exist."

Then there is a fucking santa clause, easter bunny, loch ness monster, big foot, atlantis, et al.

In logic, there is a concept called the law of non-contradiction.

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I will respond later - either later tonight or tomorrow.

@SN

And there ya have it folks - SN is now a theologian

Hell, next week you’ll be right up there with Franklin Graham

Heard your boy Joe is looking for a new religious leader, ya gonna take him up on it?

Pretty sure 8cm, made it more painful....

Clash of The Titans?

It really, really is.

There is no logical process by which one can reach the conclusion that something for which there is no evidence does not exist.

It doesn't matter how many words you throw at the problem, the outcome will still be that there is no proof, leaving open the possibility that god/a creator/a supreme being does exist.

I'm making some popcorn...

Can't wait to hear how you can prove there's no god.

This is painful lol

Give me your best "logical" argument that god does not exist...

LOL.

No, it can't.

@TBR

Thanks.

This is why we are speaking different languages :) I have stayed in the logic lane and you are staying in the scientific method lane. From the logic constraints, it can be proven that God does not exist.

"In essence, you are claiming that until something is proven, it is unproven. If it is unproven, it can exist or cannot exist."

That is not what I am saying at all. You don't understand science. That's OK, a lot of people don't.

The word "proof" does not mean the same thing in science as it does when the general public uses it.

In essence, there is no proof in science, because the basis of science is the ability to falsify results.

Why do you think such well established "proved things" like gravity are still called theories?

Because we don't have complete understanding of anything. "Proof" in science refers to evidence to support a hypothesis.

Some gravitational Einstein could come along with a new theory of gravity that uncovers new evidence or explains the existing evidence better, and then we will have a new theory of gravity. But it will remain a theory, because the basis of science is the ability, or responsibility might be a better word, to falsify results.

One of my mantra is that the most important thing you will learn in your life is how much you do not know.

We have no evidence of the existence of god. It may be because it does not exist. It may be because we lack the measurement tools to gather evidence as to it's existence.

Let's take your cup as an example. 200 years ago we thought a cup was a solid thing. We lacked the measurement tools to look closely enough to realize that cups (or rocks, or trees, or ???) are not solid at all, but made of a fine lattice of atoms with strong covalent bonds that helps it hold it's shape. Unlike water, which has weaker bonds and can not be molded, except when the bonds are strengthened by applying cold.

So your statement "If it is unproven, it can exist or cannot exist" is true in a colloquial sense, I suppose. We simply have not gathered the evidence to support the hypothesis that god, or bigfoot, or the Easter bunny exists.

"It's funny that all these evangelicals and catholics are against abortion when the Bible actually doesn't say anything about it being illegal. There is only one reference to the expulsion of a fetus, in the book of Exodus, regarding one of the laws of Moses."

Among white evangelicals, only 20% believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 77% believe it should be illegal in all or most cases. Among Catholics, it's 56% for legality in most/all cases and 42% illegal in all or most cases. Among all adults, religious or not, the figures are 61% for legality in all/most cases and 38% illegal in all/most cases, leaving Catholics much closer than evangelicals to the average.

It sounds weird, but Catholics don't really go directly to the Bible for guidance, so the lack of biblical references isn't a telling point for us. However, although there have been a host of attempts to pretend it didn't happen, abortion was not frowned on the by the Catholic Church until relatively far into its history. Early term abortion was probably not considered sinful until the 16th century, for instance. It's basically only become anathema since multiple schisms between Protestant denominations and Mother Church, so it's a doctrinal choice that has been reaffirmed over the last few centuries rather than one of dogma, or underpinning.

@TBR

You might want to read what you write, what I have written and rethink.

"You can not scientifically prove a negative. That's what we are talking about here."

NO. That is what YOU have been writing.

I have stayed in the logic construct. Everything I have been saying has been LOGIC oriented. You keep dragging in the scientific method and I have even stated "I understand your premise. I sincerely do. In essence, you are claiming that until something is proven, it is unproven. If it is unproven, it can exist or cannot exist.

That premise fails logic."

So why are you adherent to ONLY the scientific method? Isn't your masters in Sociology? I thought that would dictate the use of logical constraints instead of scientific. As I just mentioned, I do not know . . . does your work involve drugs? Does it involve behaviour? Does it involve the law?

Because, again, by your LOGIC, Santa Claus is a real possibility.

It's funny that all these evangelicals and catholics are against abortion when the Bible actually doesn't say anything about it being illegal. There is only one reference to the expulsion of a fetus, in the book of Exodus, regarding one of the laws of Moses. There the Bible orders the death penalty for murder of the woman (life for life), but not for a forced miscarriage. It's just more BS that they made up, just like you'll go blind if you masturbate:

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ABORTION
Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible.

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ." Ex. 21:22-25

Again, with your five minute internet search, you have completely overturned science as we know it.

Congratulations, Dr. Dunning-Kruger...

@TBR

"You just really don't know what you are talking about.
But one thing is for sure.

You will keep talking..."

And one thing is for sure, you will deflect and run away from a discussion touting you are all-knowing and everyone else does not know anything about the subject matter.

But by your logic . . .

Bigfoot is a possibility. The Loch Ness monster is a possibility. Little green men from Mars is a possibility. Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and ghosts, are all possibilities.

"As Catholics are the purported followers of the pope, what does the pope say that the bible is?"

Doesn't matter to most of us. This is the definition of lower "c" catholic: "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." There are very devout Catholics who follow the Pope's every utterance, but it's a small group and the rest of us embrace the literal meaning of catholicism. We get divorced, use birth control, fuck people with the same genitals as us, and occasionally commit adultery, knowing that we are forgiven for the asking.

The myth of papal infallibility is not something embraced by most of the world's believers. If eliminating the Latin mass didn't do it, then birth control and the Church's views on homosexuality, celibacy, and pedophile priests did. It's certainly not something I've ever believed, because as a semi-rational person, it's impossible to believe. You'll find that those who do are also very conservative in every other way as well.

"The bible is created by humans. So yeah, humans are to blame. But, I would spin it just a tad different. Human's who wanted control over others created something that took advantage of the uneducated. The people who could read and write created something that the people who could not, aka, the suppressed, felt was the answer to everything."

You have no rational basis for that spin. When I described the Bible as a scrapbook, I wasn't being hyperbolic. For centuries, Jewish scholars have identified at least four separate writers of just the first five books of the Bible - the Torah - and while there is dispute (if it's the received word of God, then of course it can't possibly have been written by multiple people), it's doctrinally based rather than a valid scholarly argument. It's actually better to think of it as a multi-author version of the Collected Works of Shakespeare. Comedy, drama, lyrical poetry (the Song of Songs might be the most beautiful prose poem ever written), political instruction (Esther), along with things written a hundred years later purporting to be contemporaneous with the events described (that would be most of the Gospels), rantings of a man who hated everyone and everything (hello, Paul), along with some wacky lint (Revelations) and a bunch of stories from the Hebrew tribes prior to the First Temple.

You could, I suppose, say that those who came later and had nothing to do with the actual writing, followed the dictum of religion being the opiate of the masses, but it's an irrational charge to lay on who knows how many writers over what is at least a thousand years.

You just really don't know what you are talking about.

But one thing is for sure.

You will keep talking...

And pulling this back in . . .

NPR is reporting that it looks as if one of the conservative judge's clerks leaked the Alito draft.

@TBR

I understand your premise. I sincerely do. In essence, you are claiming that until something is proven, it is unproven. If it is unproven, it can exist or cannot exist.

That premise fails logic. It has to. Proven is the opposite of not-proven. Those are two sides of the coin and if you can only prove one side, then the other side never exists. You can't prove something without not proving something.

I think you are correct, we are speaking different things. I am going straight to the logic angle. I can prove that something doesn't exist, ala the cup with no water. That was part of the class. departments.bloomu. edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf - another article :)

Negatives are proven all the time. DNA can prove that the person either raped the person or not. Fingerprints can prove. All the proving of a negative happens all the time in courts.

But, again, I do understand. Is there more to be learned than what has been learned? I realize that there is an unmeasurable amount of things that are unknown. And in that unknown, there could be the possibility of a god. And because of that, it is technically correct to say, "God can exist." However, there is no evidence that there is a god. There is just a book, written over a long period of time, often through 'grapevines' of storytelling and then translated into English by a King. The text of the bible, IIRC was written by over 30 people. It was written over the course of 1600 years in various languages. (Now I am really trying to remember these damn classes!) It was written in multiple languages with different regional dialects. And because of all this, grapevine and translations, we expect it to be accurate? Do we expect it to be non-fiction?

Here, let me give you an analogy of how difficult this is . . . we are arguing in this country over vaguity in language that was in the constitution and that was in ENGLISH and only ~250 years ago. Yet, somehow, someway, something that was written from 1500bce to 100ad and in multiple languages, each with a regional dialect and as passed down stories and then translated nearly 1500 years later is somehow, someway, accurate.

That is the definition of faith IMO. That is the definition of gullible in my eyes. That is the definition of weak-minded in my eyes. That is the absence of scepticism.

@2OUT

The elephant line in the article sounded familiar and was the timeframe I was in that class. I still feel very very very fortunate to have the instructor that I had. He was an advisor to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The class had a serious impact on me. It is one of the three classes that I still have the textbook. The other class that had a profound impact on me was a class called Social Geography. The person that taught it was the person that created the formula that McDonald's use(s/d) when determining where to place locations. That professor and I had a lot of interesting conversations. He taught me a lot about impact fees. I feel fortunate to still talk to him on occasion, the last time being ten or so years ago. The last class I kept the books was a 4000 level English class. Those books though are just novels.

I myself prefer going to my grave thinking there is a wonderful life beyond the pearly gates.

Am I wrong???

Who cares.

The issue here seems to be that you are not talking the same language I am.

I have been very clear that in science there is no way to prove a negative. There is no empirical, scientific evidence that god exists.

However, that does not mean that god doesn't exist. It is just that we have not found evidence of the existence of god.

It is the same in the physical world. In the last 30 years, 408 new mammalian species have been discovered. We are discovering new things all the time.

You are talking about some opinion piece about the paranormal.

It seems you just can't understand what I am talking about.

That was just a quick search. I actually think I read that article as a handout in my Creative and Critical Thinking class. It looks so familiar

Of course you did.