Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific Arguments Against God

tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:39:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?

REASONS
Definition - Random
Russell's teapot - hardly valid in a debate where the BoP is shared

*'Tis for deb8 tips, people*
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:39:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?

REASONS
Definition - Random
Russell's teapot - hardly valid in a debate where the BoP is shared

*'Tis for deb8 tips, people*

In science, what might be considered analogous to the BoP would not be shared here.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:42:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:39:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?

REASONS
Definition - Random
Russell's teapot - hardly valid in a debate where the BoP is shared

*'Tis for deb8 tips, people*

In science, what might be considered analogous to the BoP would not be shared here.

Aye, I answered the Russell's teapot thing. Look at it from a scientific debate perspective, people!!!
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:39:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?

REASONS
Definition - Random
Russell's teapot - hardly valid in a debate where the BoP is shared

*'Tis for deb8 tips, people*

Debate tip: don't accept BoP in a debate when it's irrational to do so.

Anyway, if you have made such a mistake, then you have to get a testable definition of god in order to have scientific evidence and a scientific argument against its existence. That's how we infer that things don't exist: p1) if x, then y p2) no y c) therefore maybe no x. The definition you've provided is untestable. Get a better definition.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:43:00 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:42:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:39:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:33:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Why should anyone provide an argument against the existence of something when there isn't sufficient argument for its existence in the first place? To be clearer, science doesn't really work in the way you're trying to make it operate. We don't say "how can I show this thing doesn't exist?" Instead, we say "this observed phenomenon is worthy of investigation. What do I want to know about it and how can I investigate for answers?"

So what proper application of science would support the claim of existence of the god you've defined? Furthermore, why did you define the god in that way?

REASONS
Definition - Random
Russell's teapot - hardly valid in a debate where the BoP is shared

*'Tis for deb8 tips, people*

In science, what might be considered analogous to the BoP would not be shared here.

Aye, I answered the Russell's teapot thing. Look at it from a scientific debate perspective, people!!!

How is it a scientific debate?

My point was that your answer to the Russell's teapot point is not valid in a scientific context.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism. For clarity, there's no intrinsic relationship between a Deistic creator and the great world religions, beyond the confusion of using the same name.

However, I don't think there's a scientific objection to Deism since everything it claims is by definition extranatural.

On the other hand if you're talking about the theological versions of God, then they generally have natural as well as extranatural claims, and the former are subject to scientific scrutiny and debunking.

Moreover, belief in theology is better explained by psychology and sociology than by the existence of gods themselves.

So despite many people wishing that science and theology didn't contend, there can be scientific opposition to theological claims.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism. For clarity, there's no intrinsic relationship between a Deistic creator and the great world religions, beyond the confusion of using the same name.

However, I don't think there's a scientific objection to Deism since everything it claims is by definition extranatural.

On the other hand if you're talking about the theological versions of God, then they generally have natural as well as extranatural claims, and the former are subject to scientific scrutiny and debunking.

Moreover, belief in theology is better explained by psychology and sociology than by the existence of gods themselves.

So despite many people wishing that science and theology didn't contend, there can be scientific opposition to theological claims.

Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention. I knew it was a God of deism all along ... attempting to defend a Hitchens-like "a-deism".
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.

Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.

Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 9:46:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.

Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.

Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.

Making the universe and establishing the physical laws (modern Deist god), seems like a interaction with natural phenomena as a result.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 10:04:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

1.) It doesn't solve any problem also that cannot be solved by a simpler solution. (IE: Violates occams razor).

2.) There is no evididence to show that a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe could exist; no indirect measurements that determine possibility of existance, and no process or influence on the universe can be inferred from any data. (No direct, indirect, or inferred scientific evidence for even the possibility of such an entity to exist).
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 4:19:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

All the valid scientific arguments are against the Bible or religion not god.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 3:13:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

The universe is all existing matter and space as a whole. You can't have any matter and space outside all matter and space, purely logically.

You can't have existence with non-existence at the same time, in other words.
You can call me Mark if you like.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 6:27:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 9:46:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe
That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.
Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.
Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.
Making the universe and establishing the physical laws (modern Deist god), seems like a interaction with natural phenomena as a result.
An interaction with what, Mhykiel? (Sorry -- thought I'd already posted this reply.)
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 3:52:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Also, the Laws of Thermodynamics imply that a God wouldn't be able to create or destroy matter, so he'd have to be material and couldn't conjure matter out of nowhere.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:29:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 3:52:54 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Also, the Laws of Thermodynamics imply that a God wouldn't be able to create or destroy matter, so he'd have to be material and couldn't conjure matter out of nowhere.

This Law, only applies to closed systems. And is only considered Law in that no observation of scientist has been contrary to it.

It does not apply tot he universe as a WHOLE is the universe is something other than a closed system. And does not apply to the WHOLE universe in that the universe could be created from nothing.

The idea that at the big bang there could have been more matter or energy is not new. Stephen hawking said so.. http://www.hawking.org.uk...

You seem to be performing a Fallacy of composition. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:31:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 3:13:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

The universe is all existing matter and space as a whole. You can't have any matter and space outside all matter and space, purely logically.

You can't have existence with non-existence at the same time, in other words.

To explain the universe as we see it, with our current understanding of things, and likely even in the future better understanding of things, we have to accept there is more to just this universe to explain this universes existence.

You can extend you vague definition to then including the multiverse, or you could extend it to include the domain of God.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 9:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 6:27:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 9:46:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe
That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.
Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.
Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.
Making the universe and establishing the physical laws (modern Deist god), seems like a interaction with natural phenomena as a result.
An interaction with what, Mhykiel? (Sorry -- thought I'd already posted this reply.)

If we say the action of a deity was to create the universe then the physical evidence of that interaction would be the universe.

If a deity is said to do anything, there would be some physical evidence. Whether we could discern that evidence is another question entirely.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 11:53:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 9:33:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/30/2015 6:27:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 9:46:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe
That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.
Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.
Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.
Making the universe and establishing the physical laws (modern Deist god), seems like a interaction with natural phenomena as a result.
An interaction with what, Mhykiel? (Sorry -- thought I'd already posted this reply.)
If we say the action of a deity was to create the universe then the physical evidence of that interaction would be the universe.

That's action -- "doing something"; not interaction -- "doing something to or with another thing". Note how your own expression naturally changed the verb.

By contrast, creating a Noahide flood would be interaction.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:01:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 11:53:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/2/2015 9:33:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/30/2015 6:27:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 9:46:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:50:23 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 11:11:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:44:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe
That's not the god of theology, Tejas; it's the god of Deism.
Yep, it's a God of deism. That's my intention.
Then it's not a natural phenomenon; nor does it interact with natural phenomena. So science can't really talk about it.
Some branches of philosophy can, but not science.
Making the universe and establishing the physical laws (modern Deist god), seems like a interaction with natural phenomena as a result.
An interaction with what, Mhykiel? (Sorry -- thought I'd already posted this reply.)
If we say the action of a deity was to create the universe then the physical evidence of that interaction would be the universe.

That's action -- "doing something"; not interaction -- "doing something to or with another thing". Note how your own expression naturally changed the verb.


notice how the definition of action -"doing something" is INSIDE the word interaction -"doing something to or with another thing"

notice my sentence and see if you can follow along...

If we say the action ((doing something)) of a deity was to [create the universe] ((notice create is the action and the universe is the other thing)) then the physical evidence of that interaction ((doing something (create) to or with another thing (universe))) would be the universe.

So I spoke English in my sentence and used the words appropriately.

By contrast, creating a Noahide flood would be interaction.

Notice how your expression uses the same meanings as I did.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:20:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 12:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we say the action ((doing something)) of a deity was to [create the universe] ((notice create is the action and the universe is the other thing)) then the physical evidence of that interaction ((doing something (create) to or with another thing (universe))) would be the universe.
The word 'interaction' dates from 1812, and comes from the roots inter- and -action, with Inter- meaning 'among, between', as in 'intersection' -- a mutual crossing of roads, and 'interregnum' -- a gap in rule.

One can interact with things that exist; not with things that don't yet exist. Consequently, creation from nothing might be the product of action, but not interaction; and certainly, it doesn't offer the same kind of evidence as creation from components, in which the inputs and byproducts allow physical examination of the process.

You shouldn't need this explained, Mhykiel. This sort of objection is not informed, not constructive, and reveals you to be contrarian rather than pedantic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:28:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 12:20:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2015 12:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we say the action ((doing something)) of a deity was to [create the universe] ((notice create is the action and the universe is the other thing)) then the physical evidence of that interaction ((doing something (create) to or with another thing (universe))) would be the universe.
The word 'interaction' dates from 1812, and comes from the roots inter- and -action, with Inter- meaning 'among, between', as in 'intersection' -- a mutual crossing of roads, and 'interregnum' -- a gap in rule.

One can interact with things that exist; not with things that don't yet exist. Consequently, creation from nothing might be the product of action, but not interaction; and certainly, it doesn't offer the same kind of evidence as creation from components, in which the inputs and byproducts allow physical examination of the process.

Be weary of committing an Etymological Fallacy Ruv- http://grammar.about.com...

It does not matter if the action is creation of something from nothing. The interaction would be the intersection of the creator and the creation.


You shouldn't need this explained, Mhykiel. This sort of objection is not informed, not constructive, and reveals you to be contrarian rather than pedantic.

The point is such actions attributed to a deity would imply the a physical result, and an investigation of the physical could in possibility lead to a God conclusion.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:37:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 12:28:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2015 12:20:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2015 12:01:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
If we say the action ((doing something)) of a deity was to [create the universe] ((notice create is the action and the universe is the other thing)) then the physical evidence of that interaction ((doing something (create) to or with another thing (universe))) would be the universe.
The word 'interaction' dates from 1812, and comes from the roots inter- and -action, with Inter- meaning 'among, between', as in 'intersection' -- a mutual crossing of roads, and 'interregnum' -- a gap in rule.
One can interact with things that exist; not with things that don't yet exist. Consequently, creation from nothing might be the product of action, but not interaction; and certainly, it doesn't offer the same kind of evidence as creation from components, in which the inputs and byproducts allow physical examination of the process.
Be weary of committing an Etymological Fallacy Ruv- http://grammar.about.com...
Etymology doesn't entail fallacy if it's explaining a current definition, old chap. :)

It does not matter if the action is creation of something from nothing. The interaction would be the intersection of the creator and the creation.
Q: In a contrarian mood, both Mhykiel and Humpty Dumpty like words to mean whatever they want. So how can you tell them apart?
A: Eggs do not contain nuts.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 5:33:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 1:20:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Can people please present some valid scientific arguments against the existence of God?

God - a transcendental, sentient external cause of the universe

Scientific methodology doesn't work to demonstrate the inexistence of something in an absolute* way. It is assumed that something does not exist until the contrary is proven.

With absolute I mean "something does nos exist" and that's it. That's something science can not test. However, it can test things as "8 million red cells do not exist in your blood, but 7.5 million do".
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 5:35:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Agreed, people. Unless x is proven, science assumes x is wrong.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 5:35:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
Agreed, people. Unless x is proven, science assumes x is wrong.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Albert Einstein
400spartans
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 12:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 5:35:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
Agreed, people. Unless x is proven, science assumes x is wrong.

Unless x is proven to exist, everyone who knows what BOP is assumes x doesn't exist.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 1:33:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I cannot disprove the existence of God.

Just as no believer can prove his existence.

But I can say that there is absolutely not one shred of proof for God. Or even a good argument. And that in science circles, anyone with an idea that was so bereft of proof or even suggestion would be shot down in short order in peer reviews.

His idea would not even get to the "hypothesis" stage. Let alone the "theory" level.

I can also say that anyone can make a claim for ANY supernatural entity that, no matter how outlandish or implausible, is impossible to DIS-prove.

My favorite example of thus dilemna--well, it is a dilemna for us Agnostics!--is Carl Sagan's famous parable about the "Dragon in my Garage."

Check it out here.............http://www.godlessgeeks.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:04:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass