Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[John Shaw]

Johnson Edit: Added a Width so it wouldn't scroll

[Johnson]

Ahhhhhhhh... I see the true false that was never appropriately answered...

An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

True. Science works by examining and reexamining evidence and requires a well researched premise. While the theory of gravitation has not been PROVEN, it is REASONABLE to make the ASSUMPTION that you, Gene, if you were to be thrown off a tall building, would not be able to suddenly fly, because of gravity. While the theory of gravitation has not been proven, I think we very clearly COULD prove that if you are thrown from a building - that gravity will have an effect... Therefore, while it is unproven, certain assumptions are reasoned, researched and based on OTHER pieces of information that HAVE been proven. These EDUCATED assumptions are called a HYPOTHESIS.
This differs from the science of creationism... Which is called, in scientific terms... wild fucking speculation - AKA Fiction.  

[John Shaw]

Question one: 1. An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven":  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

Your question is misleading because of a false assumption on your part, namely that you omit the corollary.

In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is made in the expectation that it will be discharged in due course via a separate argument.

You omit the fact that a scientific assumption is a placeholder explanation until it is scrutinized more thoroughly or disproven with evidence.

You make an assumption because the assumption makes sense.



Question two: 2. Radiometric dating requires "assumptions" to calculate age:  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

True. There is the assumption that isotopes degrade at a fairly consistent rate, based on measuring the current rate of degradation.




Now, I have answered your questions.

Please answer mine: Please provide demonstratable, reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of God, please.


Anything else is a smokescreen obfuscating the only question that matters.

[Johnson]

I'd still like an answer to my question

god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

True ( ) False ( ) ?

I'll add.

god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

True ( ) False ( ) ?

[Johnson]

For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.

[Johnson]

Actually, I just skimmed this,

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ahhhhhhhh... I see the true false that was never appropriately answered...

An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

True. Science works by examining and reexamining evidence and requires a well researched premise. While the theory of gravitation has not been PROVEN, it is REASONABLE to make the ASSUMPTION that you, Gene, if you were to be thrown off a tall building, would not be able to suddenly fly, because of gravity. While the theory of gravitation has not been proven, I think we very clearly COULD prove that if you are thrown from a building - that gravity will have an effect... Therefore, while it is unproven, certain assumptions are reasoned, researched and based on OTHER pieces of information that HAVE been proven. These EDUCATED assumptions are called a HYPOTHESIS.
This differs from the science of creationism... Which is called, in scientific terms... wild *** speculation - AKA Fiction. 

You say that the theory of gravitation has not been proven which is true but the "FACT" that objects drop is indisputable.  You confuse the theory explaining the fact with the fact.  No one disputes that things fall when dropped on the surface of this planet (well, no one I know of).  The mechanism is unknown to us but the fact is observable and repeatable and do not require any "assumptions".  It's nice that you can invent a new kind of assumption (and EDUCATED one).  I did not know that assumptions could be graduated (are they PhD's or just BA's)?

Now something that certainly does fit (in scientific terms) into the category of wild speculation is radiometric dating.  It requires one to make several ASSUMPTIONS which indeed are UNPROVABLE.  Lets just list one since I know it's difficult to get you to answer any point responsively.  It requires that one ASSUME that the ratio of the rock is (x) when created.  This ASSUMPTION is UNPROVABLE since we cannot measure the ratio when created unless we gain the power of time travel and go back to check those ratios WHEN THE ROCK IS CREATED...

The fact that so many sheep have been duped by the "cult of science" into believing such wild claims based on wild assumptions shows the power of cults.  The "believers" will march lock-step behind their high priests (certain - not all - scientists).   

[John Shaw]

LOL at the xian talking about blind belief in others.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Question one: 1. An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven":  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

Your question is misleading because of a false assumption on your part, namely that you omit the corollary.

So I then "assume" that your answer is "False" since a misleading question cannot be "True"?

Now, I have answered your questions.

Please answer mine: Please provide demonstratable, reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of God, please.


Anything else is a smokescreen obfuscating the only question that matters.

Never claimed to have any.  Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...

[ChristianAnarchist]

For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.

Silly assumption on your part since I have stated numerous times that I do not accept all that the books assembled into what is called "the Bible" are all accurate...

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'd still like an answer to my question

god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews,

True ( ) False ( ) ?

I'll add.

god had the power to stop the gassing of the Jews, without even removing anyone's free will.

True ( ) False ( ) ?

True

[John Shaw]

Never claimed to have any. 

Good. Then we agree that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...

I'm sorry, did I make any of those claims?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Actually, I just skimmed this,

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...

[Dylboz]

The FACT that radiometric isotopes degrade at a steady and observable rate is as observable, reliable and repeatably demonstrable as the FACT that objects fall when dropped here on earth. So, Gene, what's up with the weird double standard?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Never claimed to have any.

Good. Then we agree that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Neither do you have demonstratable, reproducible evidence that: the big bang created our universe, that life arose from non-life, that global warming is man-induced (I could go on but you get the picture - well, maybe you don't)...

I'm sorry, did I make any of those claims?

Perhaps you did not, but it seems common among the "cult of science" worshipers to make such claims.  If you disagree with them, please state so.