$10,000 To Disprove Genesis

[Denny Crane]

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Burden of Proof

From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy. X is unproven and remains unproven.

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3)Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(sounds like mags!)

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

 

[magnifier661]

Hey now Denny!!!!

Of course singularity exists! You can't prove otherwise! Lmao!

 

[donkiez]

I am a Christian and I believe the universe is billions of years old. And if there is proof that the earth is 10,000 years old I'd believe that too; but right now I don't.

Did I mention that I adopt evolution too? Don't be so quick to judge Christians. There are a lot of me out there.

Just for the record, I wasnt judging Christians, I was judging creationists and even then I was only really judging the blind homer creationists. I never really understood why more christians (or other religeons) dont adopt your view point of melding science with religeon. For me it seems obvious that science has some or a lot of truth to it. I also feel that there has to be something else out there that created our universe because the big bang doenst answer all of my questions. Whats wrong with the belief system that God started the ball rolling and acted mostly as an observer afterwards, letting evolution and natural selection build the world we have today. To many religeons and people deal in absolutes and all or nothings.

 

[blazerboy30]

Just for the record, I wasnt judging Christians, I was judging creationists and even then I was only really judging the blind homer creationists. I never really understood why more christians (or other religeons) dont adopt your view point of melding science with religeon. For me it seems obvious that science has some or a lot of truth to it. I also feel that there has to be something else out there that created our universe because the big bang doenst answer all of my questions. Whats wrong with the belief system that God started the ball rolling and acted mostly as an observer afterwards, letting evolution and natural selection build the world we have today. To many religeons and people deal in absolutes and all or nothings.

Without realizing it, you're not just judging creationists. You're judging anybody dealing with science. Nothing can be proven. You can only assign probabilities unless we define something as humans, like we've done with mathematics.

 

[magnifier661]

Just for the record, I wasnt judging Christians, I was judging creationists and even then I was only really judging the blind homer creationists. I never really understood why more christians (or other religeons) dont adopt your view point of melding science with religeon. For me it seems obvious that science has some or a lot of truth to it. I also feel that there has to be something else out there that created our universe because the big bang doenst answer all of my questions. Whats wrong with the belief system that God started the ball rolling and acted mostly as an observer afterwards, letting evolution and natural selection build the world we have today. To many religeons and people deal in absolutes and all or nothings.

That's actually an interesting concept. If a creator is outside the boundaries of this natural world; be it 5th dimensional.... He would have the capability to observe the entire universe all at once. That concept wouldn't be that unfathomable

 

[donkiez]

That's actually an interesting concept. If a creator is outside the boundaries of this natural world; be it 5th dimensional.... He would have the capability to observe the entire universe all at once. That concept wouldn't be that unfathomable

I think about life and death more than I should, thats just one of my mental working models. I also like the hinduism model that works on plains of perfection. As you become more perfect you "graduate" to the next plain or dimension, eventually reaching the highest level of perfection which is akin to god like, making God in everyone of us.

I kind of feel like most of our current religeons are outdated and based to much or race and ignorance, when fundamentally they are all more similar than they give eachother credit for.

 

[jlprk]

Proving causality is impossible except for in human-derived concepts like math. The only reason proofs can be performed in math is because we've defined the constructs. You can't prove causality in anything in physics or biology that we didn't define ourselves.

The bettor specifies that the decision-maker will be a court judge, not a mathematician. The standards of proof are much lower. It's simply what a judge (or jury) becomes convinced of.

The question is to disprove Genesis literally happened. The age of the earth is irrelevant. What's relevant is if God said, "let there be light" and there was light.

It's very relevant. Simply prove to the judge that a 6000-year age is impossible, given that all fields of science say that billions of years were required for the history each has examined.

(Religious experts say that the 6000 number is required by Genesis' list of descendants with lifespans.)

 

[jlprk]

In other words, go through the thousands of reasonings by which biology, astronomy, physics, etc. require more than 6000 years. Then go through the steps of reasoning by which religious scholars have determined that age.

Denny says you can't prove a negative, but it's easy. Show the conflict between A and B. Both truths cannot coexist. One is more convincing to the judge. Bingo.

 

[Sinobas]

Snakes don't have vocal cords, therefore a snake could not have spoken to Eve.

$10,000 please!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Snakes don't have vocal cords, therefore a snake could not have spoken to Eve.

$10,000 please!

 

[ABM]

Snakes don't have vocal cords, therefore a snake could not have spoken to Eve.

$10,000 please!

Technically speaking, a snake is not a serpent, though.

 

[crowTrobot]

I still chuckle at the thought of the Land of Confusion video

 

[jlprk]

Snakes don't have vocal cords, therefore a snake could not have spoken to Eve.

$10,000 please!

Your way is much faster than mine. Disproving any tiny part disproves Genesis. So it could meet the time limit of $10,000 in attorney fees and be cost-effective.

Methusaleh couldn't live 900 years because humans can't do that.

 

[ABM]

Methusaleh couldn't live 900 years because humans can't do that.

Really? Prove it, then.

 

[blazerboy30]

Snakes don't have vocal cords, therefore a snake could not have spoken to Eve.

$10,000 please!

You're going to lose at this. Vocal cords could have existed then. You just lost your chance at $10,000.

 

[jlprk]

Really? Prove it, then.

Courts rely upon expert testimony everyday from physiologists, biologists, chemists, etc. 100% of them will testify that a human couldn't have lived that long.

Just hand me my $10,000 now so I don't have to embarrass you.

 

[blazerboy30]

Your way is much faster than mine. Disproving any tiny part disproves Genesis. So it could meet the time limit of $10,000 in attorney fees and be cost-effective.

Methusaleh couldn't live 900 years because humans can't do that.

These are pathetic attempts that aren't going to get you anywhere. You're trying to build a proof based on an assumption.

 

[ABM]

Just hand me my $10,000 now so I don't have to embarrass you.

Heh, that's something Whitsitt might say.

 

[RR7]

Technically speaking, a snake is not a serpent, though.

technically speaking? explain.

 

[jlprk]

These are pathetic attempts that aren't going to get you anywhere. You're trying to build a proof based on an assumption.

To disprove Genesis, you need only disprove any tiny part of it. A quick disproof is the opposite of building a proof.

As for assumptions, that's how legal decisions are made. (See my posts in today's Amanda Knox thread.)

 

[ABM]

technically speaking? explain.

You can find it...if you really wanted to. I simply don't feel like handing you 10 thousand bucks right now.

 

[MARIS61]

Don't cigarettes contain carcinogens? Don't carcinogens cause cancer? Maybe you can't prove why a specific person has cancer, but you can prove that smoking causes cancer on the basis of reasonable scientific probability. That's all you have to prove in court for a civil claim is the preponderance of evidence, not a certainty.

No proof has ever been offered that smoking has caused even a single case of cancer.

It is merely a politically motivated assumption based on junk science.

 

[MARIS61]

You can find it...if you really wanted to. I simply don't feel like handing you 10 thousand bucks right now.

That sounds like an admission that you don't buy the genesis story.

 

[magnifier661]

William lane Craig convinced a Oxford panel of 300 mixed atheists and agnostics that God is not a delusion. You think it's easy to disprove anything? I think not.

 

[ABM]

That sounds like an admission that you don't buy the genesis story.

You're right, MARIS, I don't buy it at all, In fact, it's a free gift.

 

[Denny Crane]

The bettor specifies that the decision-maker will be a court judge, not a mathematician. The standards of proof are much lower. It's simply what a judge (or jury) becomes convinced of.



It's very relevant. Simply prove to the judge that a 6000-year age is impossible, given that all fields of science say that billions of years were required for the history each has examined.

(Religious experts say that the 6000 number is required by Genesis' list of descendants with lifespans.)

today a year is 365 days. Back then, it was much longer. So 6000 years isn't what you pretend it is. Pay the man his $10,000 loser!

 

[MARIS61]

You're right, MARIS, I don't buy it at all, In fact, it's a free gift.

Boy, you Christians are a slippery bunch.

 

[RR7]

You can find it...if you really wanted to. I simply don't feel like handing you 10 thousand bucks right now.

hmmm, i see technically that they are, so.....i dunno

 

[ABM]

Boy, you Christians are a slippery bunch.

I was slopeful you'd catch that hint of wit.

 

[MARIS61]

William lane Craig convinced a Oxford panel of 300 mixed atheists and agnostics that God is not a delusion. You think it's easy to disprove anything? I think not.

An agnostic is incapable of independent reasoning and decision making.

I have no idea what a mixed atheist is.