Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Science doesn't answer truth...

imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 6:11:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Science is based on logical "facts" and logical facts are based on axioms and axioms are based on perception. However, there is no way to determine if our perception is even correct.

If we have a wrong perception, then the axioms are wrong which means the logical facts are wrong which also means science based on those logical facts are wrong. Therefore, science is not reliable enough to answer the truth.

And no, this doesn't mean religion is truth (far more unlikely than science). Science is one of the most reliable things we got. But because I believe science doesn't answer truth, I don't think science can disprove god. Just plain logic and math alone does a better job disproving god.

If you see an error in my explanation, please state it.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:28:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:11:50 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Science is based on logical "facts" and logical facts are based on axioms and axioms are based on perception. However, there is no way to determine if our perception is even correct.

If we have a wrong perception, then the axioms are wrong which means the logical facts are wrong which also means science based on those logical facts are wrong. Therefore, science is not reliable enough to answer the truth.

And no, this doesn't mean religion is truth (far more unlikely than science). Science is one of the most reliable things we got. But because I believe science doesn't answer truth, I don't think science can disprove god. Just plain logic and math alone does a better job disproving god.

If you see an error in my explanation, please state it.

What if I say:

Through logic I can conclude that if God exists, I must be able to make observation A. I fail to make A and science gives me proof that A can't be made, therefore God does not exist.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 1:44:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 7:28:18 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:11:50 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Science is based on logical "facts" and logical facts are based on axioms and axioms are based on perception. However, there is no way to determine if our perception is even correct.

If we have a wrong perception, then the axioms are wrong which means the logical facts are wrong which also means science based on those logical facts are wrong. Therefore, science is not reliable enough to answer the truth.

And no, this doesn't mean religion is truth (far more unlikely than science). Science is one of the most reliable things we got. But because I believe science doesn't answer truth, I don't think science can disprove god. Just plain logic and math alone does a better job disproving god.

If you see an error in my explanation, please state it.

What if I say:

Through logic I can conclude that if God exists, I must be able to make observation A.
Fallacy of ambiguity. It Would entail you being aware of everything that can be observed to conclude God exists. Simply claiming there is only one would be a fallacy of omniscience.
I fail to make A
Failure doesn't entail absolute failure
and science gives me proof that A can't be made,
Science can only prove A can't be made by humans, doesn't make it absolute
therefore God does not exist .....
because you couldn't make observation A
which you prefaced as needed for God to exist. Circular reasoning.....
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 3:41:16 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Science doesn't answer truth... Science has pretty much become about confirmation bias. They conduct endless worthless studies to give the desired outcome.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:18:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

Exactly. It's in response to the people who say God is not real because of a lack of scientific evidence. God's existence is a question of truth, which is not what science is supposed to answer. Pure logic like I said does a better job at disproving god. So philosophy isn't outdated, if you know who i'm talking about.

But science still is useful.

I was going to put this in the science forum, but decided not to. Then I was going to put in the religion forum, but decided not to.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:19:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 1:44:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:28:18 AM, A1tre wrote:

I'm sorry I don't understand what is wrong here, I hope you don't mind me asking you to further clarify your points of critique.

What if I say:

Through logic I can conclude that if God exists, I must be able to make observation A.
Fallacy of ambiguity. It Would entail you being aware of everything that can be observed to conclude God exists. Simply claiming there is only one would be a fallacy of omniscience.

I used Modus Tollens here:
If A, then B
Not B,
therefore not A

I don't need to know of all observations that can be made if God exists, neither do I need to make the assumption that there is only one observation. What I am saying is out of all the possible observations of God there are a few that must necessarily follow from his existence. If I can use science to prove that at least one of these observations is impossible, then it follows God does not exist.

I fail to make A
Failure doesn't entail absolute failure
and science gives me proof that A can't be made,
Science can only prove A can't be made by humans, doesn't make it absolute

Science is capable of proving negative statements. If I pour hot water onto ice, the ice will melt and the water will cool down. The water will not start to evaporate. Does this observation change when something other than a human is making it?

therefore God does not exist .....
because you couldn't make observation A
which you prefaced as needed for God to exist. Circular reasoning.....

Circular reasoning would be arriving at a conclusion that was used as an assumption in the first place. I never assumed God does not exist, my only assuption is that IF he does exist and IF that necessitates there must be certain observations we are capable of making that prove he exists, THEN by proving that it is logically impossible to make that observation one can prove God does not exist.
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 11:45:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Oh and one more thing. Some scientific facts may actually be true. The only problem is that there is no way to actually verify it (simply observing doesn't verify it).
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:41:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 8:18:08 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

Exactly. It's in response to the people who say God is not real because of a lack of scientific evidence. God's existence is a question of truth, which is not what science is supposed to answer. Pure logic like I said does a better job at disproving god. So philosophy isn't outdated, if you know who i'm talking about.
There is no substantial scientific evidence supporting religious convictions of a god.
What do you mean by "a question of truth"?
But science still is useful.
Science provides an abundance of utility, I concur.
I was going to put this in the science forum, but decided not to. Then I was going to put in the religion forum, but decided not to.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 8:19:27 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 6/30/2016 1:44:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:28:18 AM, A1tre wrote:

I'm sorry I don't understand what is wrong here, I hope you don't mind me asking you to further clarify your points of critique.

What if I say:

Through logic I can conclude that if God exists, I must be able to make observation A.
Fallacy of ambiguity. It Would entail you being aware of everything that can be observed to conclude God exists. Simply claiming there is only one would be a fallacy of omniscience.

I used Modus Tollens here:
If A, then B
Not B,
therefore not A

I don't need to know of all observations that can be made if God exists, neither do I need to make the assumption that there is only one observation. What I am saying is out of all the possible observations of God there are a few that must necessarily follow from his existence.
Prove it......fallacy of omniscience. You cannot prove there are any or aren't any and you cannot prove everyone has or no one has ever had the "observation"
If I can use science to prove that at least one of these observations is impossible, then it follows God does not exist.
Fallacy of composition
I fail to make A
Failure doesn't entail absolute failure
and science gives me proof that A can't be made,
Science can only prove A can't be made by humans, doesn't make it absolute

Science is capable of proving negative statements. If I pour hot water onto ice, the ice will melt and the water will cool down. The water will not start to evaporate. Does this observation change when something other than a human is making it?

therefore God does not exist .....
because you couldn't make observation A
which you prefaced as needed for God to exist. Circular reasoning.....

Circular reasoning would be arriving at a conclusion that was used as an assumption in the first place.
You people are baffling bafoons. The fact that you miss the obvious flaw in reasoning isn't enough you have to justify your circular garbage by attempting to claim I'm too stupid to see what the phrase "If a God exists I MUST BE ABLE TO" that is grammatically equivalent to you setting up a subjective (your opinion in a circular argument) claim as to what you or anyone else should be able to do to prove your "if". You then use ambiguity......circular reasoning was the process. Your muddled idea of what constitutes logic may be hidden from you but you're irrational.
I never assumed God does not exist, my only assuption is that IF he does exist and IF that necessitates there must be certain observations we are capable of making that prove he exists, THEN by proving that it is logically impossible to make that observation one can prove God does not exist.
Proper subject matter for modus tollens and modus ponens is agreed upon truths. Nice personal opinion fallacy. Circular reasoning still holds because the assumed arguments ambiguity doesn't therefore subtract from the reasoning you used just because you fail to type or complete the thought in type. You used ambiguity to leave a continuing justification to validate this in your own mind. Hint, it's not even valid much less sound. To use logic terminology in case you want to claim it's at least valid...it's not....lmao
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 10:46:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
scipsaweirdo

You show a lot of hostility. I don't know what reason you have for it, but it does not set the foundation for a productive discussion. Good day.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:48:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
What if I say:

Through logic I can conclude that if God exists, I must be able to make observation A. I fail to make A and science gives me proof that A can't be made, therefore God does not exist.

Or your senses are dull. It never occurs to these types that they are not the epistemological center of the universe.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:26:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.

How do you know that they are English.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:08:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.

I don't quite understand what you asking?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:09:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 9:08:48 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.

I don't quite understand what you asking?

you are*
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:17:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 9:09:03 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:08:48 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.

I don't quite understand what you asking?

you are*

As I said.... LOL!
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:19:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 9:17:05 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:09:03 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:08:48 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:49:35 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

What an ignorant claim, for would not the claim something is likely be a truth claim?

These people are not only ignorant of science, but English.

I don't quite understand what you asking?

you are*

As I said.... LOL!

Oh I get it, confuse a typo for a lack of understanding language.
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:20:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/30/2016 8:41:50 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 6/30/2016 8:18:08 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 6/30/2016 2:11:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Scientific endeavors are not intended to determine truthfulness but are rather initiated to determine the likelihood of something. How robust or strong is the evidence to determine if predictions can be made, or even if it is a probability.

Exactly. It's in response to the people who say God is not real because of a lack of scientific evidence. God's existence is a question of truth, which is not what science is supposed to answer. Pure logic like I said does a better job at disproving god. So philosophy isn't outdated, if you know who i'm talking about.
There is no substantial scientific evidence supporting religious convictions of a god.

I'm well aware of this.

What do you mean by "a question of truth"?

A question of what is and isn't true. We may have a "true" perception of the universe, but we can't tell if it's true. Scientific facts (which aren't proven) are also known to be disprove other previous scientific facts. This is why I say Science doesn't answer truth.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 7:13:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
We have no other way to determine anything except through our senses. Maybe there is a truth somewhere in the universe, but as of yet, we have no way of determining this. Currently there is some very fantastic work being done by leading physicists regarding string theory and quantum theory. Truly, the only ultimate truth that we do have is proven by science and mathematics because these two methods of finding truth cannot lie.
It seems to me that you are looking for some kind of touchy, feely truth, or truth that has meaning or value to it. The kind of truth you're looking for is subjective not objective. It is based on feelings and personal bias. The only truth that is actually true is that which can be proven scientifically or mathematically.
It's comical when I see people looking for "truth" as if there is one defining truth that applies to all people. Truth is not the correct word. The correct word is actually a phrase "what is the best way to live, and what brings the greatest happiness." We consider truth to say things like "don't murder, rape, lie, or steal." These are truths that we hold to be self evident, but they are really just rules that we live by in order to live in peace, safety, and rest. There are times when murder, lying, or stealing can be justified as truth, so rules are subjective.
The only real truths are those that can be proven scientifically.
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:35:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 7:13:13 PM, j50wells wrote:
We have no other way to determine anything except through our senses. Maybe there is a truth somewhere in the universe, but as of yet, we have no way of determining this. Currently there is some very fantastic work being done by leading physicists regarding string theory and quantum theory. Truly, the only ultimate truth that we do have is proven by science and mathematics because these two methods of finding truth cannot lie.
It seems to me that you are looking for some kind of touchy, feely truth, or truth that has meaning or value to it. The kind of truth you're looking for is subjective not objective. It is based on feelings and personal bias. The only truth that is actually true is that which can be proven scientifically or mathematically.
It's comical when I see people looking for "truth" as if there is one defining truth that applies to all people. Truth is not the correct word. The correct word is actually a phrase "what is the best way to live, and what brings the greatest happiness." We consider truth to say things like "don't murder, rape, lie, or steal." These are truths that we hold to be self evident, but they are really just rules that we live by in order to live in peace, safety, and rest. There are times when murder, lying, or stealing can be justified as truth, so rules are subjective.
The only real truths are those that can be proven scientifically.

You don't know what I mean by truth. You're not even close. I mean reality, not objective morality.

Science doesn't prove anything. There is no such thing as scientific proof.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:39:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 6:11:50 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Science is based on logical "facts" and logical facts are based on axioms and axioms are based on perception. However, there is no way to determine if our perception is even correct.

If we have a wrong perception, then the axioms are wrong which means the logical facts are wrong which also means science based on those logical facts are wrong. Therefore, science is not reliable enough to answer the truth.

And no, this doesn't mean religion is truth (far more unlikely than science). Science is one of the most reliable things we got. But because I believe science doesn't answer truth, I don't think science can disprove god. Just plain logic and math alone does a better job disproving god.

If you see an error in my explanation, please state it.

our perception is correct, electronics work don't they? Are you guys secretly 12 or something none of this stuff makes sense to debate.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 10:02:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:39:05 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:11:50 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
Science is based on logical "facts" and logical facts are based on axioms and axioms are based on perception. However, there is no way to determine if our perception is even correct.

If we have a wrong perception, then the axioms are wrong which means the logical facts are wrong which also means science based on those logical facts are wrong. Therefore, science is not reliable enough to answer the truth.

And no, this doesn't mean religion is truth (far more unlikely than science). Science is one of the most reliable things we got. But because I believe science doesn't answer truth, I don't think science can disprove god. Just plain logic and math alone does a better job disproving god.

If you see an error in my explanation, please state it.

our perception is correct, electronics work don't they? Are you guys secretly 12 or something none of this stuff makes sense to debate.

That's not perception. It's closer to an axiom or a common sense statement. You use your own subjective perception to make common sense statements. Perception is how you view the universe. There's no logic in perception.

lol no, just bored.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!