Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 14, 2015, 02:30:14 PM

Quote from: the joint on April 14, 2015, 01:40:18 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 14, 2015, 06:47:32 AM

Hi Joint, the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

You can conclude, but you would be wrong.

You're committing an inductive fallacy.

Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.

1. Try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy.
2. Have you ever tried READING MY TRUTH?
3. Your statement is little different from the Problem of the Criterion, but here I am giving you God's WORD and the references to "the content-source problem" so that you may decide for yourself if Phoenix Journals contain the truth you would rather have on your side--every time!
4. There is strong evidence for the afterlife, in Journals and in parapsychology, so what comes next for science? Take a look at the "Quantum Parapsychology" page on FB.
5. What you are saying to me in this thread is not more important than what is said right here in this quote; that is why I am saying it to you, because I wish to draw your attention to something important (about God and Truth)...

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on March 24, 2015, 05:10:49 PM

Quote from: http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_104.pdf

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

1) Please reread what you just said, here. It's ridiculous. Make an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy? Yes, I'm sure it would be convenient for your argument if we just ignore the fallacy of it altogether. Heck, why talk about fallacies at all? Why don't we just say that nothing is subject to logical scrutiny and we just all end up accepting everything BADecker has been saying, too?

Your argument is fallacious. It is impossible for there to be empirical proof of God. To think there is necessitates that you commit a logical fallacy.

Here's an analogy: The logical axiom of identity states that 'x=x.' Based upon knowledge of this logical axiom, we don't need to go about trying to find evidence for something that isn't itself. To do so would be idiotic and a complete waste of time. We already know it's a logical impossibility to find an 'x' that isn't an 'x,' e.g. finding an apple that isn't an apple, a person that isn't a person, etc.

The same goes for inductive fallacies. We already know with 100% confidence (such that we absolutely know that we cannot possibly be wrong) what the limits of empirical exploration are. Accordingly, we know what empiricism can't explore or concluded upon. Intelligent Design/God is one of those things.

Deal with it. You have no empirical proof for God, and you never will.

It. Is. Impossible.

2) I already know that whatever empirical evidence you have is not proof of God. I would be happy to read whatever evidence you have, but I will always draw the conclusion that it does not constitute proof of God, and I will be correct 100% of the time.

3) Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy. You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists. You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem. If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God. If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work. Sorry.

4) There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive." However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

5) The difference it makes is that valid =/= sound. Unfortunately, your argument isn't even valid because we already know with absolute confidence that Intelligent Design/God falls outside the scope of empiricism, and therefore you will never have empirical proof.