Total Posts:208|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'm starting to think I'm becoming agnostic

dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Willows
Posts: 2,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

I don't think that finding dark matter (or not) alone should be a major influence in questioning one's lack of belief.
The facts so far are that life and the universe were not created. How matter or existence came to be is still undecided so no atheist cannot rightly claim 100% impossibility of there being a creator. Its just that given the facts we already know about life in particular, the likelihood of any creator is improbable.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Incidentally, can someone remind Ethan, The Christian, that as the above quote again shows, light is a morsel of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, *not* the other way around?

Obliged.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 1:37:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

agnosticism is not knowing that a god is real.
i think the word you are looking for is skeptic.
you are becoming skeptical about the existence of dark matter.
the same way that i am skeptical about the existence of big-foot.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

Yeah, that's the general scientific consensus. Same with the multiverse and string theory.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:58:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:34:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

I don't think that finding dark matter (or not) alone should be a major influence in questioning one's lack of belief.

Why not? When it comes to God, atheists often say that they don't believe in God because they've never observed God... So why can't I say the same thing about dark matter?

The facts so far are that life and the universe were not created

Which facts are those?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..

If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:37:05 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

agnosticism is not knowing that a god is real.
i think the word you are looking for is skeptic.

I stand corrected.

you are becoming skeptical about the existence of dark matter.
the same way that i am skeptical about the existence of big-foot.

I beginning to think neither of them exist.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:07:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:15:55 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

Yeah, that's the general scientific consensus. Same with the multiverse and string theory.

I agree.

The last two are pure guesses with zero evidence to support their existence.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:05:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:37:05 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

agnosticism is not knowing that a god is real.
i think the word you are looking for is skeptic.

I stand corrected.

you are becoming skeptical about the existence of dark matter.
the same way that i am skeptical about the existence of big-foot.

I beginning to think neither of them exist.

This was 1 of my thread titles. Nice
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:08:44 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:05:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:37:05 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

agnosticism is not knowing that a god is real.
i think the word you are looking for is skeptic.

I stand corrected.

you are becoming skeptical about the existence of dark matter.
the same way that i am skeptical about the existence of big-foot.

I beginning to think neither of them exist.

This was 1 of my thread titles. Nice

Accidental plagiarism. My mistake.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:11:40 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:08:44 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:05:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:37:05 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

agnosticism is not knowing that a god is real.
i think the word you are looking for is skeptic.

I stand corrected.

you are becoming skeptical about the existence of dark matter.
the same way that i am skeptical about the existence of big-foot.

I beginning to think neither of them exist.

This was 1 of my thread titles. Nice

Accidental plagiarism. My mistake.

It reminds me of cool runnings . When he says , I'm feeling very Olympic today.
Probably because of my dyslexia.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:29:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:21:34 PM, vi_spex wrote:
information is the opposite of matter, nothing and something

Post 66 . What's the deal with that?
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:31:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Except that a) those philosophic arguments have been exposed for the folly that they are, b) the dark matter hypothesis has to stand against the empirical data, i. e., the hypothesis is at least partially falsifiable, unlike God, which is neither falsifiable, nor sustained by empirical data.

Oh, and I almost forgot.
If scientists do detect dark matter in the future, please feel free to start the appropriate thread.
Deal?


Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..

In the padded Catholic echo-chamber, that is.
vi_spex
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:32:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
false is the opposite of true, matter is true

everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Except that a) those philosophic arguments have been exposed for the folly that they are,

Except they haven't.

b) the dark matter hypothesis has to stand against the empirical data, i. e., the hypothesis is at least partially falsifiable, unlike God, which is neither falsifiable, nor sustained by empirical data.

What would you count as empirical data for God?

Oh, and I almost forgot.
If scientists do detect dark matter in the future, please feel free to start the appropriate thread.
Deal?


Sure, I'm not closed minded like atheists.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..

In the padded Catholic echo-chamber, that is.

Got an example of a doctrine that has been proven wrong?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.

Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:53:20 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Except that a) those philosophic arguments have been exposed for the folly that they are,

Except they haven't.

b) the dark matter hypothesis has to stand against the empirical data, i. e., the hypothesis is at least partially falsifiable, unlike God, which is neither falsifiable, nor sustained by empirical data.


What would you count as empirical data for God?

Oh, and I almost forgot.
If scientists do detect dark matter in the future, please feel free to start the appropriate thread.
Deal?


Sure, I'm not closed minded like atheists.

Says the apologist of a dogma-centric organization.


Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..

In the padded Catholic echo-chamber, that is.

Got an example of a doctrine that has been proven wrong?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.
Not one religious claim has EVER been proven.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:59:03 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:53:20 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Except that a) those philosophic arguments have been exposed for the folly that they are,

Except they haven't.

b) the dark matter hypothesis has to stand against the empirical data, i. e., the hypothesis is at least partially falsifiable, unlike God, which is neither falsifiable, nor sustained by empirical data.


What would you count as empirical data for God?

Oh, and I almost forgot.
If scientists do detect dark matter in the future, please feel free to start the appropriate thread.
Deal?


Sure, I'm not closed minded like atheists.

Says the apologist of a dogma-centric organization.


An apologist is simply someone who defends something. And of a dogma is right, it should be defended, right?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?

If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:26:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?


Why do goddists refuse to say they could ever be wrong, when they have never produced one shred of evidence for their claims.

Scientists ARE agnostic about their hypotheses until sufficent evidence to either prove or disprove them is obtained. There is then the procedure of peer review to be gone through.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:26:52 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?


Why do goddists refuse to say they could ever be wrong, when they have never produced one shred of evidence for their claims.


Philosophical arguments produce logical conclusions that God exists.

Scientists ARE agnostic about their hypotheses until sufficent evidence to either prove or disprove them is obtained. There is then the procedure of peer review to be gone through.

Thanks for the concession.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...
Then you must be agnostic regarding the planets orbiting Alpha Centauri A/Alpha Centauri B/Proxima Centauri.
What say you regarding the existence of Guatemalan bearded lizard?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?



I think you need to brush on epistemology, scientific method, and the concept of absence of absolute truth within the context of science.

Oh, one tiny insignificant tithing:
Science works.

Like Dawkins says, planes fly, computers compute, vaccines heal, The fruits of science are abundant evidence of the validity of its method. As for the fruits of, say, Catholicism, I've heard reports of scores of young children molested.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..


Saint Christopher.
Ya gotta love it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:36:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:32:02 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?



I think you need to brush on epistemology, scientific method, and the concept of absence of absolute truth within the context of science.

Oh, one tiny insignificant tithing:
Science works.

Like Dawkins says, planes fly, computers compute, vaccines heal, The fruits of science are abundant evidence of the validity of its method. As for the fruits of, say, Catholicism, I've heard reports of scores of young children molested.

Concerning the Catholic Church, those who molest children are going AGAINST church teachings... while those who follow Her teachings have made the Catholic Church the largest charitable organization in the world.

As for science, I've seen atomic bombs killing innocent people.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:37:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:31:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:26:52 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:17:42 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:01:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:55:11 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:49:37 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:03:43 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:36:06 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/23/2016 1:18:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
... about the existence of dark matter.

Since our best scientists STILL cannot observe dark matter (despite our best efforts), I'm agnostic when it comes to dark matter. I guess you could say I lack belief.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

You couldn't cut it as a stand up comedian?
Decided to test drive your routines here on the forum?

BURN!

(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"
Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter comprising approximately 27% of the mass and energy in the observable universe[1] that is not accounted for by dark energy, baryonic matter (ordinary matter), and neutrinos.[2] The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
"

What about the adjective "hypothetical" don't you get? The physicists didn't pull it out of their rear end. They have sound theoretical reasons related to the shortcomings in the Standard Model to posit the concept.

Oh I get it now... kind of like how philosophers have hypothetical arguments for the existence of God. Roger that.

Guess what? If it turns out they were wrong all along, they will admit it and change the theoretical framework accordingly and try again. How refreshingly different and honest when compared with what the Catholic Church does.

Except unlike thousands of scientists over the millennia, the Catholic Church has never had a single doctrine proven wrong..



Or right.


Which one could say about scientists. The difference is that they've made claims that they consider wrong now.

Millions, if not billions, of scientific findings are proven correct every day.

How can scientists have it both ways? They're constantly saying that they're willing to change their hypotheses, if proven wrong... So how can they say they're right about anything while admitting they could be wrong? Aren't they really agnostic about their own hypotheses?


Why do goddists refuse to say they could ever be wrong, when they have never produced one shred of evidence for their claims.


Philosophical arguments produce logical conclusions that God exists.

Philosophical arguments can prove the existence of anything.No religious claim has ever been proven with physical evidence.

Scientists ARE agnostic about their hypotheses until sufficent evidence to either prove or disprove them is obtained. There is then the procedure of peer review to be gone through.


Thanks for the concession.

More than happy to correct your misaprehension.