₦airaland Forum

Trollronaldo:
The link and image I shared showed that not only Lavoisier did the experiment. Did you read it before crating 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 scientisr 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.

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

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.

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.

DeepSight:
Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

Trollronaldo:
Does the phlogiston analogy not address this?

Lexusgs430:
Bloody brainwashed fanatics......... They decide the part of that storybook, they would obey.... Fragrantly ignoring the other part, to continually attempt to fool people like themselves..........

They claim been religious, but are swimming in sin, than non-believers..........

Lexusgs430:
Either be brave or foolish....... Learn to spell or spell correctly.........🤣😜

Trollronaldo:
okay, what's your argument, let me address it.
What particular issue do you have with my argument?

LordReed:
You have it backwards. One doesn't look for evidence of non-existence, you look for evidence of existence. Without sufficient evidence for existence of a god you cannot reach the conclusion or form the belief that a god exists. So there is no flaw like you are saying.

Trollronaldo:
Why?

Trollronaldo:
I am trying to prove to you that Atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

It can't do that without making you see irrefutable reasons by engaging you.

So please, is the God hypothesis and phlogiston a good equivalence?

Sicne the phenomenon we are using to explain a deistic god actually exist.

Trollronaldo:
I understand everything you saying, sincerely.

But my argument is, deism and atheism different sides of same coin.

Deism has to come in frequently into the discussion

Trollronaldo:
Ok good, we are getting there.

In this case, if you swap phlogiston with God in this argument and swap the idea of phenomenon phlogiston was trying to explain with the singularity that the deistic god created before big bang, is that a perfect equivalence knowing fully well that the singularity is thing that exist?

Trollronaldo:
We are getting to the point, bit by bit. Relax

I need to to tell me if the phlogiston example is not a classical case of disproving a non-existent phenomenon?

Trollronaldo:
non-existence right.

Does phlogiston exist?

Ws there a time when it existed?

Trollronaldo:
Was there a time when phlogiston ever existed?

Tell me

Trollronaldo:
okay, before I move to the next issue.

Do you agree that deists do not necessarily need to provide evidence before you disprove it based on scientific falsification?

Maynman:
How is disproving a theory the same as looking for evidence of non existence?

Trollronaldo:
this is shifting the goalpost.

The argument is that deist has the burden of proof.

Yes they do in philosophy, no they do not in science.

Simple

Trollronaldo:
you are shifting goalpost I am going to follow you go thr last time carefully.

An example of of seeking evidence for non-existence is in the case of phlogiston in science. Phlogiston was an idea that was regarded as real but was proven to be nonexistent when oxegeb and combustion reaction were discovered.

That been said, it was disprove by another scientist hundred of years after.

If you don't agree with deistic ideas, go on and disprove it before rejecting it

Trollronaldo:
I don't think you understand as well, what I mean.

The argument is simple, In science, is it must that the person who the person who created an idea under falsification practice should be the person to disprove or prove it?

Trollronaldo:
So Mr. LordReed, I hope I have been able to convince you that deists do not necessarily need to be the one to provide evidence for their ideas, if you think it's not true, you can go ahead and bring a counter-evidence before rejecting it, else the most logical stance remains Agnosticism.

Trollronaldo:
The Avogadro’s idea never existed before it was proven by another person.

The point remains again, it wasnt even avagadro that proved it.

Trollronaldo:
Yes another example is continental drift.

Alfred Wegener proposed that Earth’s continents move very slowly. Over millions of years they can move a long way. Between 1912 and 1929 he published a stream of fossil and rock to support it. He died on an expedition to Greenland in 1930.

Wegener’s theory of continental drift was rejected by most other scientists during his lifetime. It was only in the 1960s that continental drift finally became part of mainstream science. Guess what, does scientist who rejected it commuted fallacy.

Alfred didn't have to prove his ideas, other people did.

Trollronaldo:
Amedo Avogadro

He proposed that equal volumes of different gases contain an equal number of molecules, provided they are at the same temperature and pressure.

Although his hypothesis was rejected by other scientists during his lifetime, by 1870 it was generally recognized to be correct. Avogadro’s hypothesis in now known as Avogadro’s law.

Dtruthspeaker:
For decorative purpose or for putting toys called creations in them.

Ensquare:
God created area and he operated in area too

Trollronaldo:
So why do scientists look for evidence for non-existence?

Can i give you examples?

Ensquare:
Light travels at 300,000,000meters per second.
Light years is the distance light will travel in 365yldays
1lightyr is 9.46 trillion kilometers
The observable universe span 46billion lightyears.
To be in charge of such expand you must be unimaginable mighty.
God is big and mighty before He can take of such area

sukkot:
well it is complicated until you understand it. just like anything else is hard till you understand it

sukkot:
hehe you see you seem to think all these disciplines are separate. they are all the same but it takes a special mind to integrate all into one. its like someone broke one thing into different pieces and now everyone has made a doctrine out of the different pieces but in reality all the pieces have to come together to get the full picture and all the pieces being the bible and the quran and egyptology and metaphysics and science and orisha and ifa and astrology and history etc etc

Bandakisk:
Thanks for your clarification.
What are your prices for Room & Parlor?

Trollronaldo:
Let me ask you this question, does an average atheist reach the conclusion that a God or creator does not exist on the basis of insufficient evidence?

sukkot:
so people dont understand that we exist multidimensionally meaning while an aspect of you exists in this 3 dimensional reality flesh another aspect of you exists out in the ethers and that aspect of you that exists out in the ethers hates the aspect of you that is 3 dimensional flesh and is always looking for a reason to delete you and take you out so that it can exist alone unencumbered. that aspect of you that exist in the ethers is always looking for every opportunity to take you out. the question is will you give it the opportunity to take you out ? or will you appease it so that it becomes at peace with you and nourishes and protects you ?