God and Climate Change

Everything in the Bible pulls together. The effects of climate change are mentioned in my post, as well as who contributes to it, being people, and how God will contribute to it to the detriment of evildoers, as part of the whole process of changing the earth from what we know of it. Jesus himself, as I quoted him, mentions the "roaring of the waves." Climate change results in such waves.

You pin this stuff on Liberals? Are you inferring that God is a Liberal? If so, then why do evangelicals on the Right bother to believe in Him, since, by your logic, He is on the side of Liberals? Doesn't add up.

I'd suggest then that you need a course in logic.

Using exactly the same logic that you used, I can create this syllogism:

Gravity was created by God. I believe in gravity, therefore I am God.

Still want to argue?

Not sure how climate change is a Biblical issue?

I agree that the Bible is coherent and consistent. Climate change is a reality, but the causes of it are not certain. I would caution you against drawing too many conclusions prematurely. God sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

Exactly!!! That's Mother Nature's department!

Srsly?

How about . . . Gravity was created by God. I CREATED gravity, therefore I am God.

Again, if you are referring to my comment............LIBERALS ARE THE FOLKS who have perpetrated this MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING lie on not only the American people, but the world.

They have made untold millions off of their fear tactics, and continue to do so...........

Mans effect on the earth........ie: us driving our SUV's n such does not even compare to what volcano's spew out with every eruption.

You guys wanna buy into their dribble.........that's fine. Or, you can spend a wee bit of time searching for the truth of climate change.

Of course there is climate change, but it is no where near the DOOMSDAY pending change that liberals wanna scare folks with.

Go back to when Al Gore made his movie..............READ all the statements by the Scientists warning us of what would be reality by 2014..........NONE of it came to pass. NONE OF IT.

Their biggest miss was in the earth's temperature rising...........hasn't even reached a WHOLE DEGREE YET! Then there are their dire warnings about the horrific hurricanes that would strike the US....following Katrina............didn'a happen!

On and on, and on...........

The CLIMATE CHANGES! Shoot, get a Weather Ap on your phone. Check it hourly..........SEE THE CHANGE!

The sun comes up, the earth warms up. The sun goes down, the earth cools down. The temperature changes hourly...........storms cause temperature changes..........Seasons cause temperature changes..........the wind causes temperature changes.....

COWS FARTING are the REAL cause for global warming! (tongue in cheek, but some truth)

And, just so you guys know, EVERY SINGLE PLANT/TREE on earth DEPENDS on carbon dioxide to SURVIVE! Take away carbon dioxide, THE EARTH DIES

That isn't the logic you used in your previous syllogism.

I'm going to examine a bit of propositional logic, because it's an area where lots of very nice people, and very smart people, sometimes make errors.

This is not an attack on you, I like you just fine.


ERROR
The original proposition Dino argued against, was this: Climate Change is a political issue created by the left, and because it's an issue promoted by the left... if you believe in climate change, you must also be on the left.

Dino said this was a logical error, and Dino was correct.

PRINCIPLES:
A. Agreeing with someone on ONE issue, does not mean you agree with them on ALL issues.
B. Being associated, in some small way, with a group, does not make you a MEMBER of that group.
(There are many other principles and logical errors at work here as well, but the two above are plenty to make the point.)

EXAMPLE:
- If Russian communists are all widely known to believe cabbage is the best vegetable, and YOU ALSO believe cabbage is the best vegetable... then YOU must be a Russian communist!
- This clearly doesn't work.
- You can agree with someone on ONE thing, without agreeing with them on ALL things.

EXCEPTION & COMMON USE:
- However, we can still use "group issues" to help us categorize people quickly, as a "quick rule of thumb"... a way to speed up our day.
- If statistically most proponents of Anthropogenic Climate Change are on the left, then when we meet someone who believes this, we could say, "He is LIKELY to be on the left."
- That's a fair thing to say, and it may just speed up our day.
- However, to say, "He is STATISTICALLY LIKELY to be on the left" is NOT the same as saying, "He must NECESSARILY be on the left."
(A likelihood, or statistical probability, does NOT give us grounds to debate an individual data point.)

Conclusion:
1. Lot's of very smart people slip up and make little logical errors... even the smartest people on the planet, like Stephen Hawking.
(Hawking has made some big ones.)
2. We're ALL going to do this, but we can just try to be aware, and be careful.
3. Because we are ALL going to do this, we should ALL, on BOTH SIDES, try to be gracious.
4. I know, I fail at this too... but I keep trying.

...

How many conservatives do you know of that embrace global warming? (I'm not talking about moderates who are left-wing lite).

You're dodging. Own your error.

No, if you can show that climate change is a belief common to both the left and the right you would have cause to call error, but you cannot.

Your error is your invalid syllogism. I demonstrated how it was invalid, and you changed it instead of examining it.

I appreciate most of your posts, and most of your biblical views.
I genuinely do.

I already explained, very very precisely, exactly how this particular logical error works.
I was very careful, and very precise, and I think I was very clear.

Anecdotal Evidence

That being said, your point above doesn't constitute grounds for a logical proof, and we were talking about logical proofs.

In the post above you're asking about my personal, anecdotal experience, in order to prove a proposition which goes far beyond anything that experience can prove.
That's not possible.
An anecdotal experience can never PROVE anything beyond the scope of that particular experience.


In short, anecdotal evidence proves very little.
I could say 3 democrats punched me, so all democrats must be violent... and that would be absurd.
Our personal anecdotal experience usually proves very little.


Conclusion
1. Logical proofs, and statistical probabilities, and psychological profiles, and hunches, are all completely different things.
2. These things all have their place, but we shouldn't mistake one for another.

I'm exiting the thread; you guys have fun, and I hope you all have a great upcoming week.

..

Yes. It is interesting that so many on the right who claim to believe in God, will say the policies God preaches do make Him a libertard.

For those who believe the end time prophecies are yet to be fulfilled, some of those prophesies say the sun will scorch the earth and 1/3 of the vegetation will be burnt. So there should be no argument that at some point we will go into a Biblical climate change. The question is, is that happening now and does mankind have anything to do with it?

Just because someone does not bleed red doesn't mean they are automatically a libertard. There IS a middle ground which is neither. The problem is that people on BOTH sides REFUSE to recognize it.

Climate change IS a belief on both sides. One believes it is true and the other that it isn't.

Cain't argue with that one!

Waittasecond.... you're not going to argue that point? Where's the fun in that!