This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Asylu
@Wakka It's nice to see that we can agree on some points, because Life is when cells reproduce themselves with no external prompting. Fetuses are alive when they begin to grow without metabolic support from the mother save for nutrients. And I also agree that God/s are not a solution to
any
scientific question or theory.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I also agree that God/s are not a solution to any scientific question or theory.
Why not?
Dismissing a
possible
cause arbitrarily is actually very
un-
scientific.
Post by
Orranis
And I also agree that God/s are not a solution to any scientific question or theory.
Why not?
Dismissing a
possible
cause arbitrarily is actually very
un-
scientific.
This is actually correct, but seen as every theory it must be adequately tested, and generally every theory that states God is the cause has been disproved.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
generally every theory that states God is the cause has been disproved.
No they haven't. You may claim that my argument for God being the first cause doesn't follow, however that does not automatically mean that he is
not
the first cause. Science
can't
disprove it--why? Because science can only make
a posteriori
claims about God.
Post by
Orranis
generally every theory that states God is the cause has been disproved.
No they haven't. You may claim that my argument for God being the first cause doesn't follow, however that does not automatically mean that he is
not
the first cause. Science
can't
disprove it--why? Because science can only make
a posteriori
claims about God.
I did not make a specific attack Hyper, I said Generally. But remember, just as much as science cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But remember, just as much as science cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it.
You're dodge the issue (besides the fact that I can prove it...just not with science).
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
That's the point.
Possible until proven false, if you want it colloquially.
Post by
Orranis
But remember, just as much as science cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it.
You're dodge the issue (besides the fact that I can prove it...just not with science).
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
That's the point.
Okay, so let's say that some beings created the universe. How do you know it is the one God you speak of? How do you know it was not a pantheon? How do you know that he/they were omnipotent? Furthermore, show us your proof, whether or not it has science.
Edit: I do agree with your main point though. I do not dismiss God, I simply view him as another theory of creation of the worlds.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Furthermore, show us your proof
I have. Countless times in the past couple months. I'm done with that.
Edit: I do agree with your main point though. I do not dismiss God, I simply view him as another theory of creation of the worlds.
Which is why my OP was directed at Asylu, not you.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Furthermore, show us your proof
I have. Countless times in the past couple months. I'm done with that.
Can we get a self-quote then?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually, in a debate, the burden of proof lies with the positive.
No, the burden of proof lies with everyone making a claim, whether it be positive or negative.
No claim can be taken as true or false without proof.
"Proving something to be false" is done by creating a significant level of doubt,
No. Proof has nothing to do with doubt. Whether I'm able to convince you or not has no bearing on the fact that it is actually true. Take the .
999
is congruent with 1 argument that was going around earlier. There is a factual truth there at persists whether people doubt it or not.
Look at the court system:
Lol @ thinking that has anything to do with philosophy.
I didn't do anything until it can be proven that I did. (I am innocent until proven guilty)
Apply that same statement to god:
He didn't do anything until it can be proven that he did.
No. No. No. That makes absolutely no sense. Whether God did or did not do something has absolutely no dependance on whether I, you, or anyone else can prove or disprove it.
The correct statement would be.
We can't say say whether God did or did not do something until it's proven or disproven that he did or did not.
So, long answer short, the bolded text is closer to the opposite of the truth than it is to the truth.
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
The first mover/primary cause/God concept is, however, the simplest explanation for just about everything. (a la "God did it")
That does not make it a correct assumption.
Nor does it make it a false one. (It's not an assumption btw).
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
science = all is false until proven true.
That's not true. Human macro-evolution has not been proved. That does not mean it's false.
Links between certain things and cancer have not been proved. That does not mean they are false.
Yes, you can ignore things until such a time as they are proved, but that does not make them false, that makes them indifferent.
there would be many theories which would be valid for like days, and suddenly its invalid.
how would you like to live in a world of chaotic science theory?
You haven't studied the history of scientific theory, have you.... scientific theories have been coming and going since man started banging stones together to make sparks.
furthermore, if science takes on the attitude of the "oh god made it that way" attitude, there would be no advancement in technology, science and a lot other sectors.
And if they take on the attitude that A though Z are not true because we have yet to prove that they are, there would be no advancement either.
However if science treats them all as possibilities it can then proceed to make sense of them all in light of data as we receive it.
no, actually everyone is wrong until proven right. theories, speculations, and presumptions do not stand up in the legal/scientific/philosophical community unless they are proven to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt. this preserves integrity, protects liability, and promotes accuracy.
i agree with that poster.
We don't know that aliens exist, therefore they don't. Wow, I guess that means the majority of the scientific community are now promoters of inaccuracy, destroyers of liability, and defilers of integrity for thinking that there might be life out there.
Post by
95916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.