Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is unscientific..

DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:32:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

I don't think I could have written a more hypocritical and blatantly false paragraph if I tried...
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 9:17:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:32:13 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

I don't think I could have written a more hypocritical and blatantly false paragraph if I tried...

Want evidence you could?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 9:20:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:32:13 AM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

I don't think I could have written a more hypocritical and blatantly false paragraph if I tried...

Technically he is right.

All different possibilities should be taken into account, and just because you think it is crazy, does not mean you should be closed-minded about it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:09:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

There are entire branches of science devoted to studying crackpot theories (parapsychology, crytozoology, etc.). We can say that certain ideas are crackpot because science has been used to analyze them and expose them as such.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:57:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism, as in 'I know there is no God' is unscientific. Atheism, as in 'I don't believe in a God' isn't unscientific.

Human discovery has consistently shown ideas that were previously ridiculous to actually be true, and vice versa. The only truth is we can't know what we don't know, and we don't know what we will know in the future.

True scientists understand how little we really know.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:07:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:57:46 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Atheism, as in 'I know there is no God' is unscientific. Atheism, as in 'I don't believe in a God' isn't unscientific.

Human discovery has consistently shown ideas that were previously ridiculous to actually be true, and vice versa. The only truth is we can't know what we don't know, and we don't know what we will know in the future.

True scientists understand how little we really know.

Ok. I suppose, then, that statements such as "The boogeyman does not exist", "Vampires do not exist", etc. are also unscientific? The burden of proof lies on the people who make a claim. Until conclusive proof is advanced, the claim must be considered false. The fact that we are discussing god is irrelevant; we must treat these claims as we treat claims about the existence of the Yeti.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 3:05:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:07:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:46 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Atheism, as in 'I know there is no God' is unscientific. Atheism, as in 'I don't believe in a God' isn't unscientific.

Human discovery has consistently shown ideas that were previously ridiculous to actually be true, and vice versa. The only truth is we can't know what we don't know, and we don't know what we will know in the future.

True scientists understand how little we really know.

Ok. I suppose, then, that statements such as "The boogeyman does not exist", "Vampires do not exist", etc. are also unscientific? The burden of proof lies on the people who make a claim. Until conclusive proof is advanced, the claim must be considered false. The fact that we are discussing god is irrelevant; we must treat these claims as we treat claims about the existence of the Yeti.

No, science doesn't make claims that vampires don't exist or anything of the sort. Science only works with the scientific method. Anything that doesn't fall into that realm is pseudo-science.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@DACT.

Your post is ridiculously hypocritical, considering all the times you have claimed that you have had a personal hallucination, and as such anything anyone else says is irrelevant.

@OberHerr.

Do you think I haven't taken the possibility into account?

@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 4:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

Science will coutenance any 'theory' that accounts for evidence, matches what we see around us and is logically self consistent. Creationism, in the normal sense of the world fails on all counts.

It has had its 'scientific' shot for the last 4000 years, but has been shown not to match up with reality.

Not countenancing creationism in science, is no more close minded than not countenancing the theory of flat earth.

Now. There was a famous quote by someone, I forget who, that says (and i cant remember the exact wording) 'before removing the speck from your brothers eye, first remove the plank from your own.'

I actually find it very, very sad that you will never appreciate the true beauty of nature and the world that comes through trying to understand how things work. The thing that sets us truly apart from animals is our inquisitiveness, our inherent need to know how things work, and not being satisfied until we know.

The biggest crime of God, if he exists, is the fact that some of his most devout followers have had one of his biggests gifs gouged out of them. You shouldn't be thanking God for your faith, you haven't been given a boon, he has taken away one of the biggest gifts he has given humans.

You will never be able to see the true beauty of the universe, that comes from having the smallest insight as to how it works. You can only appreciate the superficial vacuous surface. For that, I truly pity you.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:11:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

An examination of evidence.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@DACT.

Your post is ridiculously hypocritical, considering all the times you have claimed that you have had a personal hallucination, and as such anything anyone else says is irrelevant.

@OberHerr.

Do you think I haven't taken the possibility into account?

@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.


Really? "Science" makes that observation? I think you've confused science with your interpretation of scientific datum.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

*Sigh* Please, please, read some philosophy of science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:11:35 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

An examination of evidence.

What evidence? You just made a claim, I want you to back it up.

I have NEVER seen any scientific data that gives any weight to there not being a Creator.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 5:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:11:35 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

An examination of evidence.

Up to this point, science has been unable to show that life can arise from non-organic material. Science has also been unable to find a cause for the creation of the universe(assuming Big Bang theory here). Nothing points to 'spontaneous', nor does it detract from 'creation'.

To take it a step further, let's pretend that tomorrow scientists successfully create life in a laboratory setting. This wouldn't detract from the possibility of a Creator either, because if it is possible for men to create life, it would be possible for God to do the same thing.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:00:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:37:34 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 5:11:35 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

An examination of evidence.

What evidence? You just made a claim, I want you to back it up.

I have NEVER seen any scientific data that gives any weight to there not being a Creator.

Are you kidding me?

I suppose I wasn't being exceedingly clear, but when I said evidence, I was implying lack of thereof.

Let's start with the concept of deism, which is essentially that the universe what created by an impersonal supernatural force or creator. This 'god' does not suspend natural laws to create supernatural events, and does not intervene in human affairs.

Of all religious ideas, this one is perhaps the most plausible. Currently, we don't know what initiated the big bang, or what came before that, and so on.

The irrationality does not arise from the idea that a supernatural force, one that exists outside the laws of said universe, created it. The irrationality arises when one attempts to ascribe said force with the characteristics people associate with a personal god.

You have absolutely no reason to think that, should this supernatural creator of the universe exist, that he cares what we eat, who we sleep with, what we do with our foreskin, etc (pretty bad examples, but you get the idea). The point is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. Combine this with the fact that you have the burden of proof, an examination of the evidence (or absence of), indicates that this scenario is as likely as unicorns.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 5:26:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@DACT.

Your post is ridiculously hypocritical, considering all the times you have claimed that you have had a personal hallucination, and as such anything anyone else says is irrelevant.

@OberHerr.

Do you think I haven't taken the possibility into account?

@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.


Really? "Science" makes that observation? I think you've confused science with your interpretation of scientific datum.

Science is the knowledge acquired from testable observation and prediction.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

*Sigh* Please, please, read some philosophy of science.

How else would you differentiate science from pseudo-science, except to say that the latter is unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:35:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'..

It seems you have evolution in mind, rather than atheism per se, with talk of science and creation and all. The response to this would be simply to say that regardless of whether creation science can be called science, or what exactly makes a good scientific explanation, I don't think we need to go to far to conclude rather confidently that evolution and common descent (and slightly more controversially, natural selection) far, far outstrips any other hypothesis. To take just one example, given the incredible vulnerability to refutation by just one fossil in the wrong period (a Rabbit in pre-Cambrian being the often used example), coupled with the more or less identical evolutionary tree from genetic evidence, and the predictive power evolution afforded even Darwin (who predicted the existence of a previously unknown moth on the basis of surrounding plant life), I think we can say that if we ever come to a 'theory of everything' in biology,it will certainly look much more like evolution by natural selection than creationism or ID.

Of course, it's possible that this is all wrong, but given the evidence we have, it would take a heck of an explanation why seemingly all the evidence points in the wrong way.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:00:06 PM, Physik wrote:
Are you kidding me?

I suppose I wasn't being exceedingly clear, but when I said evidence, I was implying lack of thereof.

So, you can show me a formula to show the probability of God, scientifically, I presume?

Let's start with the concept of deism, which is essentially that the universe what created by an impersonal supernatural force or creator. This 'god' does not suspend natural laws to create supernatural events, and does not intervene in human affairs.

Of all religious ideas, this one is perhaps the most plausible. Currently, we don't know what initiated the big bang, or what came before that, and so on.

Correct, there is nothing that science has ever learned that makes is even slightly more likely that there isn't a creator.

The irrationality does not arise from the idea that a supernatural force, one that exists outside the laws of said universe, created it. The irrationality arises when one attempts to ascribe said force with the characteristics people associate with a personal god.

You have absolutely no reason to think that, should this supernatural creator of the universe exist, that he cares what we eat, who we sleep with, what we do with our foreskin, etc (pretty bad examples, but you get the idea). The point is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. Combine this with the fact that you have the burden of proof, an examination of the evidence (or absence of), indicates that this scenario is as likely as unicorns.

Actually, I have tremendous reason to believe in a personal God. But, that's subjective, not science.

See, you are not differentiating between subjective and objective matters. Science is objective, religion is subjective. You can't apply science to it in the least.

But, I've never tried to claim that I have empirical evidence that God exists, so the burden of proof absolutely isn't on me. It's a personal belief based on subjective experience, nothing more.

Besides, your reference to unicorns isn't quite correct. Scientifically, we know that there has to be a cause for every effect. So, we know(assuming Big Bang again) there has to have been something to cause the Big Bang. We don't know what it is, but the idea of God is one possible explanation.

Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of in science, so there is more scientific support for God than unicorns.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

The part that says that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Prove that unicorns do not exist according to science.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:45:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Opened the thread. Saw who wrote it. Closed the thread.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:47:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:44:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

The part that says that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Prove that unicorns do not exist according to science.

At least the concept of God explains something that is currently under question. IE it is a potential explanation. Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 6:48:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:45:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Opened the thread. Saw who wrote it. Closed the thread.

No, you didn't. Funny, though. Very funny, in fact.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:04:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:12:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science should be approached in a spirit of free and open enquiry.. But as we see with Dawkins et al and many of the members on this site, most have a completely closed mind and will not contenance any thought that allows for special creation: this is anti science! Which means 'to know'.

So what is science eh ? as opposed to pseudo (fake) science ?

"In pseudoscience, they begin with a solid conclusion (such as 'homeopathy works'), form theories as to why it works, collect data that support the conclusion and reject or explain away data that doesn't; which inevitably results in the conclusion being confirmed. With this system, no evidence is capable of contradicting the conclusion." [1]

"If a theory cannot be falsified then no evidence can be gleaned that would speak to the issue one way or the other – it is thus scientifically meaningless. Ideas that cannot be tested are no more right than there are completely wrong." [1]

So what observation would disprove creationism and/or "special creation" ?

"This point is an important one. If something is real it will manifest itself regardless of who's doing the testing or whether the testers believe in it or not. If the phenomenon requires special (i.e. non-scientific) conditions or the testers have to believe in it for it to show up then it's highly likely that the phenomenon is not real and is merely a result of wishful thinking and confounding factors introduced by non-scientific testing.

Genuine phenomena will stand up to scrutiny." [1]

[1] http://www.ukskeptics.com...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:41:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:00:06 PM, Physik wrote:
Are you kidding me?

I suppose I wasn't being exceedingly clear, but when I said evidence, I was implying lack of thereof.

So, you can show me a formula to show the probability of God, scientifically, I presume?

Probably. But it suffices to say that, given the evidence, the probability of a personal god only exists because it can't be disproved. As such, it is a remote, remote possibility, and is in the same category as unicorns.

Let's start with the concept of deism, which is essentially that the universe what created by an impersonal supernatural force or creator. This 'god' does not suspend natural laws to create supernatural events, and does not intervene in human affairs.

Of all religious ideas, this one is perhaps the most plausible. Currently, we don't know what initiated the big bang, or what came before that, and so on.

Correct, there is nothing that science has ever learned that makes is even slightly more likely that there isn't a creator.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is nothing religion has ever put forward to make it slightly more likely that there is a creator. Unfortunately, you have the burden of proof.

The irrationality does not arise from the idea that a supernatural force, one that exists outside the laws of said universe, created it. The irrationality arises when one attempts to ascribe said force with the characteristics people associate with a personal god.

You have absolutely no reason to think that, should this supernatural creator of the universe exist, that he cares what we eat, who we sleep with, what we do with our foreskin, etc (pretty bad examples, but you get the idea). The point is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. Combine this with the fact that you have the burden of proof, an examination of the evidence (or absence of), indicates that this scenario is as likely as unicorns.

Actually, I have tremendous reason to believe in a personal God. But, that's subjective, not science.

See, you are not differentiating between subjective and objective matters. Science is objective, religion is subjective. You can't apply science to it in the least.

You're misusing the word objective. I allow for the slight possibility that a personal god exists, in that I accurately approximate it to the likelihood of unicorns.

And of course I can apply scientific method to religion. To say otherwise is to go down the road of "God is supernatural, and as such cannot be verified by natural means." You're perfectly entitled to carry that belief, and long as you understand that such a belief approximates to mythology.

And in a slightly unrelated note, I told you so Gil.

But, I've never tried to claim that I have empirical evidence that God exists, so the burden of proof absolutely isn't on me. It's a personal belief based on subjective experience, nothing more.

Of course it is, because you have made the claim in the first place. You made a claim, you provide the evidence. If you don't have said evidence, or never claim that you did, that does not absolve you of the burden of proof.

Besides, your reference to unicorns isn't quite correct. Scientifically, we know that there has to be a cause for every effect. So, we know(assuming Big Bang again) there has to have been something to cause the Big Bang. We don't know what it is, but the idea of God is one possible explanation.

Wonderful, so there is a relatively logical argument for deism. How do you support this personal god nonsense?

Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of in science, so there is more scientific support for God than unicorns.

An impersonal god can explain things in science, and is a relatively good explanation considering some things we don't know. You have no reason to believe in a personal god, in the same way you have no reason to believe in unicorns.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 6:47:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:44:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

The part that says that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Prove that unicorns do not exist according to science.

At least the concept of God explains something that is currently under question. IE it is a potential explanation. Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of.

No, deism can explain things we don't know. How do you rationally jump from that to a personal god?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:24:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 7:13:07 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:41:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:00:06 PM, Physik wrote:
Are you kidding me?

I suppose I wasn't being exceedingly clear, but when I said evidence, I was implying lack of thereof.

So, you can show me a formula to show the probability of God, scientifically, I presume?

Probably. But it suffices to say that, given the evidence, the probability of a personal god only exists because it can't be disproved. As such, it is a remote, remote possibility, and is in the same category as unicorns.

Actually, I beg to differ as it can fulfill the requirement for a cause that we haven't found yet. Unicorns can't.

In other words, any possible explanation is more likely to be correct than a non-possible explanation.

Let's start with the concept of deism, which is essentially that the universe what created by an impersonal supernatural force or creator. This 'god' does not suspend natural laws to create supernatural events, and does not intervene in human affairs.

Of all religious ideas, this one is perhaps the most plausible. Currently, we don't know what initiated the big bang, or what came before that, and so on.

Correct, there is nothing that science has ever learned that makes is even slightly more likely that there isn't a creator.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is nothing religion has ever put forward to make it slightly more likely that there is a creator. Unfortunately, you have the burden of proof.

No, I'm not trying to prove God, but I've presented an argument that makes God in a different category than unicorns.

The irrationality does not arise from the idea that a supernatural force, one that exists outside the laws of said universe, created it. The irrationality arises when one attempts to ascribe said force with the characteristics people associate with a personal god.

You have absolutely no reason to think that, should this supernatural creator of the universe exist, that he cares what we eat, who we sleep with, what we do with our foreskin, etc (pretty bad examples, but you get the idea). The point is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. Combine this with the fact that you have the burden of proof, an examination of the evidence (or absence of), indicates that this scenario is as likely as unicorns.

Actually, I have tremendous reason to believe in a personal God. But, that's subjective, not science.

See, you are not differentiating between subjective and objective matters. Science is objective, religion is subjective. You can't apply science to it in the least.

You're misusing the word objective. I allow for the slight possibility that a personal god exists, in that I accurately approximate it to the likelihood of unicorns.

No, I'm not. God is not currently an objective subject, so there can be no scientific study of God.

And of course I can apply scientific method to religion. To say otherwise is to go down the road of "God is supernatural, and as such cannot be verified by natural means." You're perfectly entitled to carry that belief, and long as you understand that such a belief approximates to mythology.

How can you apply the scientific method to religion?

And in a slightly unrelated note, I told you so Gil.

But, I've never tried to claim that I have empirical evidence that God exists, so the burden of proof absolutely isn't on me. It's a personal belief based on subjective experience, nothing more.

Of course it is, because you have made the claim in the first place. You made a claim, you provide the evidence. If you don't have said evidence, or never claim that you did, that does not absolve you of the burden of proof.

If I claim something to be factually true, I have burden of proof. If I claim something as a belief, I don't have burden of proof. I believe in God, there is no burden to prove it.

All of my evidence is subjective, personal. I know I can discuss it with others, but it isn't empirical evidence that can be accepted by science, nor do I claim that it is.

Besides, your reference to unicorns isn't quite correct. Scientifically, we know that there has to be a cause for every effect. So, we know(assuming Big Bang again) there has to have been something to cause the Big Bang. We don't know what it is, but the idea of God is one possible explanation.

Wonderful, so there is a relatively logical argument for deism. How do you support this personal god nonsense?

A personal God also could be an explanation for the cause.

Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of in science, so there is more scientific support for God than unicorns.

An impersonal god can explain things in science, and is a relatively good explanation considering some things we don't know. You have no reason to believe in a personal god, in the same way you have no reason to believe in unicorns.

I do have reasons to believe in a personal God. You have no foundation to say that I don't. For you to say that I don't have reason, is for you to claim that you know everything I know and everything I have experienced in my life. So, I ask you to back up that claim by telling me what my favorite color is.

A personal God could explain the cause just as an impersonal god could.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:26:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 7:14:33 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:47:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:44:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

The part that says that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Prove that unicorns do not exist according to science.

At least the concept of God explains something that is currently under question. IE it is a potential explanation. Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of.

No, deism can explain things we don't know. How do you rationally jump from that to a personal god?

What are you going on about? A personal God is a possible explanation that fulfills the need for a cause. I didn't say anything specifically about Deism.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 7:24:39 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 7:13:07 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:41:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:00:06 PM, Physik wrote:
Are you kidding me?

I suppose I wasn't being exceedingly clear, but when I said evidence, I was implying lack of thereof.

So, you can show me a formula to show the probability of God, scientifically, I presume?

Probably. But it suffices to say that, given the evidence, the probability of a personal god only exists because it can't be disproved. As such, it is a remote, remote possibility, and is in the same category as unicorns.

Actually, I beg to differ as it can fulfill the requirement for a cause that we haven't found yet. Unicorns can't.

In other words, any possible explanation is more likely to be correct than a non-possible explanation.

Deism is a reasonable explanation, a personal god is not.

Let's start with the concept of deism, which is essentially that the universe what created by an impersonal supernatural force or creator. This 'god' does not suspend natural laws to create supernatural events, and does not intervene in human affairs.

Of all religious ideas, this one is perhaps the most plausible. Currently, we don't know what initiated the big bang, or what came before that, and so on.

Correct, there is nothing that science has ever learned that makes is even slightly more likely that there isn't a creator.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is nothing religion has ever put forward to make it slightly more likely that there is a creator. Unfortunately, you have the burden of proof.

No, I'm not trying to prove God, but I've presented an argument that makes God in a different category than unicorns.

No you haven't. You have presented an argument that puts deism in a different category than unicorns. Personal god and unicorns are still equally likely.

The irrationality does not arise from the idea that a supernatural force, one that exists outside the laws of said universe, created it. The irrationality arises when one attempts to ascribe said force with the characteristics people associate with a personal god.

You have absolutely no reason to think that, should this supernatural creator of the universe exist, that he cares what we eat, who we sleep with, what we do with our foreskin, etc (pretty bad examples, but you get the idea). The point is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. Combine this with the fact that you have the burden of proof, an examination of the evidence (or absence of), indicates that this scenario is as likely as unicorns.

Actually, I have tremendous reason to believe in a personal God. But, that's subjective, not science.

See, you are not differentiating between subjective and objective matters. Science is objective, religion is subjective. You can't apply science to it in the least.

You're misusing the word objective. I allow for the slight possibility that a personal god exists, in that I accurately approximate it to the likelihood of unicorns.

No, I'm not. God is not currently an objective subject, so there can be no scientific study of God.

First, the word 'currently' has no place when referring to objective reality. Second, the existence of god is an objective question. A personal god either exists, or he does not. No one can, however, proclaim what the objectivity is, as it is unverifiable. What we can do, is decide which is the most likely scenario. Looking at the evidence (or lack of thereof), said scenario is clear.

In other words, it is overwhelmingly likely that a personal god does not objectively exist. We should therefore move forward with the assumption that it does not exist, while maintaining the possibility that evidence of it's existence may appear at a later date.

And of course I can apply scientific method to religion. To say otherwise is to go down the road of "God is supernatural, and as such cannot be verified by natural means." You're perfectly entitled to carry that belief, and long as you understand that such a belief approximates to mythology.

How can you apply the scientific method to religion?

And in a slightly unrelated note, I told you so Gil.

But, I've never tried to claim that I have empirical evidence that God exists, so the burden of proof absolutely isn't on me. It's a personal belief based on subjective experience, nothing more.

Of course it is, because you have made the claim in the first place. You made a claim, you provide the evidence. If you don't have said evidence, or never claim that you did, that does not absolve you of the burden of proof.

If I claim something to be factually true, I have burden of proof. If I claim something as a belief, I don't have burden of proof. I believe in God, there is no burden to prove it.

You believe it to be factually true. You are required to defend it if you proclaim that belief on a public forum.

All of my evidence is subjective, personal. I know I can discuss it with others, but it isn't empirical evidence that can be accepted by science, nor do I claim that it is.

You still have the burden of proof. You have made no reasonable argument to absolve yourself from this.

Besides, your reference to unicorns isn't quite correct. Scientifically, we know that there has to be a cause for every effect. So, we know(assuming Big Bang again) there has to have been something to cause the Big Bang. We don't know what it is, but the idea of God is one possible explanation.

Wonderful, so there is a relatively logical argument for deism. How do you support this personal god nonsense?

A personal God also could be an explanation for the cause.

But what reason is there for that to be proclaimed as opposed to deism? None. The fact the it is remotely possible does not validate it anymore than the remote possibility of unicorns creating the universe.

Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of in science, so there is more scientific support for God than unicorns.

An impersonal god can explain things in science, and is a relatively good explanation considering some things we don't know. You have no reason to believe in a personal god, in the same way you have no reason to believe in unicorns.

I do have reasons to believe in a personal God. You have no foundation to say that I don't. For you to say that I don't have reason, is for you to claim that you know everything I know and everything I have experienced in my life. So, I ask you to back up that claim by telling me what my favorite color is.

I say you don't have a valid reason, a reason that can be verified and confirmed.

Also, purple?

A personal God could explain the cause just as an impersonal god could.

Except for the fact that a personal god is entirely irrational, as you have zero reason to migrate to that from deism.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 7:26:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 7:14:33 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:47:44 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 6:44:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:30:54 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/21/2012 4:28:29 PM, Physik wrote:
@Jaxson.

Science does not make the absolute claim that god does not exist. It merely makes the observation that, given the evidence, the probability of god existing is equivalent to that of unicorns and Russell's teapot.

Also, pseudo-science essentially equals unverifiable, unconfirmed and unfounded claims.

Wait, what part of science says the existence of God is equivalent to that of unicorns?

The part that says that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Prove that unicorns do not exist according to science.

At least the concept of God explains something that is currently under question. IE it is a potential explanation. Unicorns don't explain anything that I know of.

No, deism can explain things we don't know. How do you rationally jump from that to a personal god?

What are you going on about? A personal God is a possible explanation that fulfills the need for a cause. I didn't say anything specifically about Deism.

Because a personal god is the step after deism. The thought process to a personal god is as follows:

1. Universe exists.

2. We need a cause for this existence.

3. A cause could be a force that exists outside natural laws (deism).

4. This force cares about every facet of our lives, suspends natural laws in our favor and intervenes in human affairs.

My point is, you have to reason to go from premise 3 to premise 4.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico