LordReed:


It does but not in the way you think. Phlogiston was proposed to explain certain phenomenon and experiments were carried out but the experiments didn't show the existence of phlogiston instead they showed the existence of oxygen. The scientists weren't searching for evidence of non existence of phlogiston, they were looking for evidence of its existence, they didn't find it because it doesn't exist. Similarly an atheist requests for evidence of the god or gods and no conclusive evidence has been produced so the atheists says well then I don't believe. You cannot fault the atheist for reaching a conclusion, he has not, he just can't form a belief in a god.

But the experiment that disproved phlogiston was purposely meant to disprove the existence of phlogiston. It disproved the existence of phlogiston by finding oxygen. Oxygen was required to prove that phlogiston doesn't exist.

Should we go through the experiment here?, I don't mind taking you through the history. It was designed by
Antoine Lavoisier

I think if we are going to be able to reach a common ground here. We need to approach this conversation with all kind of sincerity of purpose. We just have to agree that Phlogiston is a perfect example for what you requested so we can move on.

Trollronaldo:
But the experiment that disproved phlogiston was purposely meant to disprove the existence of phlogiston. It disproved the existence of phlogiston by finding oxygen. Oxygen was required to prove that phlogiston doesn't exist.

Should we go through the experiment here?, I don't mind taking you through the history. It was designed by
Antoine Lavoisier

I think if we are going to be able to reach a common ground here. We need to approach this conversation with all kind of sincerity of purpose. We just have to agree that Phlogiston is a perfect example for what you requested so we can move on.

They were experimenting to prove it correct! You go look at the history, I already have.

LordReed:


They were experimenting to prove it correct! You go look at the history, I already have.

no sir, they were not experimenting to prove it correct.
Hold on I will take you true the history.

LordReed:


They were experimenting to prove it correct! You go look at the history, I already have.

https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier.html
Please read, I can also share more. The scientists that disproved phlogiston didn't believe in phlogiston.

LordReed, observe how Lavoisier maintained skepticism, tried to disprove it before coming out to reject or campaign against phlogiston theory?

It's what I expect people to do with the god hypothesis.

Trollronaldo:
LordReed, observe how Lavoisier maintained skepticism, tried to disprove it before coming out to reject or campaign against phlogiston theory?

It's what I expect people to do with the god hypothesis.

At least the proposer of the theory maintained some degree of skepticism.
The proposers of religion maintain is the 'gospel truth' (pun intended)

jaephoenix:

At least the proposer of the theory maintained some degree of skepticism.
The proposers of religion maintain is the 'gospel truth' (pun intended)

The proposer of phlogiston thinks that Phlogiston is true and he defended it even with no testable evidence, simply based on logic. however, this doesn't matter, The objective is to show that, the proposer of God hypothesis doesn't have to provide evidence for it according to scientific principles.

In that regard, you are not suppose to outrightly reject it until a counter-evidence has bee provided.
Based on this, atheism is not scientific, this is also true for deism.

Trollronaldo:
The proposer of phlogiston thinks that Phlogiston is true and he defended it even with no testable evidence, simply based on logic. however, this doesn't matter, The objective is to show that, the proposer of God hypothesis doesn't have to provide evidence for it according to scientific principles.

In that regard, you are not suppose to outrightly reject it until a counter-evidence has bee provided.
Based on this, atheism is not scientific, this is also true for deism.

Good. You said the proposer of phlogiston based it on logic. Is religion based on logic?

jaephoenix:

Good. You said the proposer of phlogiston based it on logic. Is religion based on logic?

Deism is based on logic.

jaephoenix:

Good. You said the proposer of phlogiston based it on logic. Is religion based on logic?

maybe the logic for deism is flawed but, if it has to be flawed, atheism has to be a flawed logic also.

Trollronaldo:
Deism is based on logic.

Explain how a thing can be omnipresent? What are the qualities using logic.

Trollronaldo:
maybe the logic for deism is flawed but, if it has to be flawed, atheism has to be a flawed logic also.

Deism is the flawed one, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?
Does thanos have the ability to exist?

Maynman:

Deism is the flawed one, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?
Does thanos have the ability to exist?

can't you see that I don't want to argue with you because you don't understand anything?

Trollronaldo:
Deism is based on logic.

Whats the logic

Trollronaldo:
can't you see that I don't want to argue with you because you don't understand anything?

Lol

Trollronaldo:
can't you see that I don't want to argue with you because you don't understand anything?

You are the ignorant one that doesn’t know what you are saying.
Your concept of god and his qualities are gotten from monotheism.

As a deist why do you think any god has the ability to exist?
The same way, why do you think any marvel character has the ability to exist?

jaephoenix:

Whats the logic

The logic behind deism is that, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Deists argue based on law of casualty.
Their idea is that a cause caused the universe but this Casue doesn't intervene in the proceedings of the universe. Two claims:

1. Casualty: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.
People may argue about infinitive regress, it's true that this resosning will lead to infinite regress but there's evidence for now that you cannot create something from nothing hence the universe cannot be created from nothing.

2. The Cause of the universe doesn't interfere with the universe: this is also true with the evidence available.

I am not a deist, I am an Agnostic because I see some level of sense in both deism and atheism in the same vein I can identify their flaws which is why I have to wait for an evidence.

Atheism has so many flaws as well.

Trollronaldo:
The logic behind deism is that, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Deists argue based on law of casualty.
Their idea is that a cause caused the universe but this Casue doesn't intervene in the proceedings of the universe. Two claims:

1. Casually: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.
People may argue about infinitive regress, it's true that this resosning will lead to infinjtr regress but there's evidence for now that you cannot create something from nothing hence the universe cannot be created from nothing.

2. The Cause of the universe doesn't interfere with the universe: this is also true with the evidence available.

I am not a deist, I am an Agnosticism because I see some level of sense in both deism and atheism in the same vein I can identify their flaws which is why I have to wait for an evidence.

Atheism has so many flaws as well.

Why do you think a cause has the ability to caused the universe?
If this cause is unknowable, how do you think it doesn’t interfere to the universe?

Trollronaldo:
The logic behind deism is that, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Deists argue based on law of casualty.
Their idea is that a cause caused the universe but this Casue doesn't intervene in the proceedings of the universe. Two claims:

1. Casually: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.

Why do you think something cannot be created from nothing because of the evidence available, is absence of evidence not evidence of absence again? Cc lordreed.

Trollronaldo why are you cherry picking? Are you not committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Nothing is not actually empty.

Trollronaldo:
https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/lavoisier.html
Please read, I can also share more. The scientists that disproved phlogiston didn't believe in phlogiston.

LoLz. Lavosier was not the only one who conducted experiments on phlogiston.

Maynman:


Why do you think something cannot be created from nothing because of the evidence available, is absence of evidence not evidence of absence again? Cc lordreed.

Trollronaldo why are you cherry picking? Are you not committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Nothing is not actually empty.

Why are you stalking me me?

I don't respond to militant atheists who are only interested in arguments. I am interested in people who are ready to engage logically, provide me evidence that will convince me or change their mind after I have convinced them.

You are never going to get a reply from me.

LordReed:


LoLz. Lavosier was not the only one who conducted experiments on phlogiston.

yes, when did I say he's the only one?

LordReed, I respect you so much on this forum. You are one of the atheists who know how to engage, however I am now surprised with the level at which you are moving the goalpost, just like a typical theist who can't condone a superior argument.

I don't see how whether it was Lavoisier alone that conducted the experiment or not changes the objective of this debate. Please kindly let me know how

Trollronaldo:
Why are stalking me me?

I don't respond to militant atheists who are only interested in arguments. I am interested in people who are ready to engage logically, provide me evidence that will convince me or change their mind after I have convinced them.

You are never going to get a reply from me.

Your position is hypocritical and you are not consistent.
Read again.
Why do you think something cannot be created from nothing because of the evidence available, is absence of evidence not evidence of absence again? Cc lordreed.

Trollronaldo why are you cherry picking? Are you not committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Nothing is actually not empty.

jaephoenix:

Good. You said the proposer of phlogiston based it on logic. Is religion based on logic?

There's nothing absolutely wrong in being wrong. I use to be an atheist myself until I encountered strong argument about deism on quora that revealed the flaws in my reasoning.
Atheism is not correct, Agnosticism is the best approach.

The issue with most atheists is that they cannot handle being disproved. It the same thing that happens to theists. If you were a theist before now and you left, you should also leave atheism when you see a superior argument. It's what I did.
The decision is yours to make

I do not have the energy for long debates anymore, it's why I am not engaging much here.

Workch:
There's nothing absolutely wrong in being wrong. I use to be an atheist myself until I encountered strong argument about deism quora that revealed the flaws in my reasoning.
Atheism is not correct, Agnosticism is the best approach.

The issue with most atheists is that they cannot handle been disproved. It the same thing that happens to theists. If you were a theist before now and you left, you should also leave atheism when you see a superior argument. It's what I did.
The decision is yours to make

Why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist or not?
Why do you think any marvel character has the ability to exist or not?
For you to say you don’t know if any god exist or not, then you’ve ascertain that a god can exist.

Maynman:

Why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist or not?
Why do you think any marvel character has the ability to exist or not.

No one is talking about God of zeus here or marble characters.

See please, I don't have the energy for back and forth

Workch:
No one is talking about God of zeus here or marble characters.

See please, I don't have the energy for back and forth

The agnostic position doesn’t make sense.
They claim they don’t know if any god exist or not?
Why do they think any god has the ability to exist or not?
The same way, Why do they think any marvel character has the ability to exist or not?

Maynman:


The agnostic position doesn’t make sense.
They claim they don’t know if any god exist or not?
Why do they think any god has the ability to exist or not?

ok, I totally agree with you.
Can i rest now? 😅

Trollronaldo:
yes, when did I say he's the only one?

LordReed, I respect you so much on this forum. You are one of the atheists who know how to engage, however I am now surprised with the level at which you are moving the goalpost, just like a typical theist who can't condone a superior argument.

I don't see how whether it was Lavoisier alone that conducted the experiment or not changes the objective of this debate. Please kindly let me know how

Because it is only Lavosier you mentioned.

Which goalpost is being moved here? You are talking about the history of phlogiston and only mentioning Lavosier as if he was the only one who conducted experiments on it. Lavosier's experiments built on others that came before him.

Workch:
ok, I totally agree with you.
Can i rest now? 😅

Stop running.
As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

LordReed:


Because it is only Lavosier you mentioned.

Which goalpost is being moved here? You are talking about the history of phlogiston and only mentioning Lavosier as if he was the only one who conducted experiments on it. Lavosier's experiments built on others that came before him.

The link and image I shared showed that not only Lavoisier did the experiment. Did you read it before creating that straw? I also stated in one of my responses that the "scientists" were specifically looking to disprove phlogiston.

You moved the goalpost from you don't want to discuss deism, to atheists don't have to disprove God, to there is no scenario in science where someone disproves non-existence, to the case of phlogiston is not a similar analogy because the phenomenon exist and now Lavoisier is not the only scientist involved..
That's not how to argue, I expect better from you.

It seeming like I am arguing with a typical theist who's running away from the point of the argument.

Theists are good at this when they cannot handle the heat

Maynman:

Stop running.
As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

But I agree with na, what's now the purpose of arguing when we are now on the same page 😂