The Official CC Debate Thread!

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

"Actually, science can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist you ****** bag "

do it

The fact that nobody has ever legitimately believed in the existence of Santa is a good start. And no, kids do not count, since they have been deliberately, traceably, and temporarily misled by people that do not believe. If nobody argues something exists and there is no evidence in favor of its existence, then it's safe to conclude that it does not in fact exist.

Slavery was reconciled with religion long before the Second Great Awakening (after all, there had to be two of them). Slavery is also sanctioned in the Bible. If you'd rather not use the New Living Translation, consult this site before considering other versions: What the Bible says about slavery

So slavery was introduced by the bible? Or is religion responsible for slavery even though it's an unrelated phenomenon?

[someon]

that is evidence, but not proof. But it is reasonable to think that whether something is true or not, or whether something exists or not, is independent of how many people think that something is true/exists.

Or, you could say, there exists a scenario given what we know now where santa claus exists.

[StellaNova]

^^I'm pretty sure there was a time when no one legitimately believed that the earth went around the sun.

[Salve!]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Santa Clause putting presents under my Christmas Tree. But then again, who knows. Why are we arguing belief and religion anyway? Believe what you want, who cares.

[Wartsandall]

^I'm beginning to believe the same thing. We each have our own beliefs regarding what we believe to be an outcome. Ultimately, we will all find out in time.

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

I'm pretty sure there was a time when no one legitimately believed that the earth went around the sun.

Yep, though I'm not sure why you're pointing out how often historically science has been wrong.

But it is reasonable to think that whether something is true or not, or whether something exists or not, is independent of how many people think that something is true/exists.

Again, I agree, but scientific proof is not the same as absolute truth.

[StellaNova]

^Your basic argument was "No one legitimately believes in Santa Claus, therefore, he does not exist." My point was that hundreds of years ago someone could have used the same argument to "prove" that the earth doesn't move. So I was basically trying show that this argument doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

Hundreds of years ago, scientific theory was that the Earth didn't move. That only changed when better evidence emerged. I think we can agree that better evidence is unlikely to emerge wrt Santa.

[someon]

the point is that the scientific method does not, and cannot prove nonexistence- I thought that was the point you made before?

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

Sorry, I was pointing out that real science almost never relies on hard proof. Scientific theories are based on a collection of apparently irrefutable evidence.

But of course if the standard is proof, the rule holds.

So I was basically trying show that this argument doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

This statement is still false.

[analogous]

These arguments are interesting. Let's change the topic slightly:

If people have predestined lives, do they have free will?

[math+sci=asian]

*sigh*

No offense, but you're an idiot for starting a debate thread with God.

^also, that's a big if. That's going to be something along the lines of the God arguments.

[sg12]

How about a totally different topic?

What do you guys think about the healthcare reform bill that just passed. Does it go far enough? Too far? Just right?

What do you think about the compromises that brought in the Republic faction of the vote?

[AeroEngineer3141]

I've always thought that the advantage of the scientific method and science itself was that we could always go back and change our hypotheses when we found data to refute it. Nothing is set in stone, and because scientists are always trying to prove or disprove other scientists, we can have a nice system of checks and balances that stops us from accepting anything without proper support.

If people have predestined lives, do they have free will?

I think that there is a logical flaw in that question, in that it surmises that free will and predestination are correlated. For example, we can often assume a set of events - that does not mean, however, that the free will of the persons involved had their free will taken away. Likewise, predestination might not mean that so-and-so is going to happen because it's destiny, but rather because this person's mentality makes it impossible for him not to do so. This person would choose his actions. However, his ability to choose, like all other things, is limited by his mentality.

I don't think that was a very good way of explaining it, so I'll try again tomorrow.

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

You mean that lives can be predestined without taking away free will if people's free will always/inevitably leads them to the same actions/decisions.