It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier
If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.
We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.
If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier
If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.
We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.
That is only with specific claims about a specific god.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier
If i claim that magical fire breathing dragons exist, is that a philosophical issue? Or a scientific issue?
Did i mention either of those?
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier
If i claim that magical fire breathing dragons exist, is that a philosophical issue? Or a scientific issue?
If your using the Teapot argument or the flying spegetti monster I would say that is philosophy and also has a sound rebuttal.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier
If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.
We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.
That is only with specific claims about a specific god.
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver
You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver
You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup. It makes no difference how absurd the claim is
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver
You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
They are real. To them. But the claim they are real to everyone is false. It's a falacy. Which is what my op says.
It's also false to say a dragon is the same as a designer. Cosmology gets a bit dodgy and requires philosphical inputhe for broader questions. This why say Kaku works with philosphers of time and space in string theory. When you chart new ground there is usually philosphical.reason used to "falsify" some hypothesis.
Now saying god made the earth in 6 days is moat likely falsifiable. You would have to use the argument we are in a simulation or possibly the 10th dimesion etc which of course would refute the bible is real and be counterproductive to a theist.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
originally posted by: Woodcarver
I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver
You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.
They are real. To them. But the claim they are real to everyone is false. It's a falacy. Which is what my op says.
It's also false to say a dragon is the same as a designer. Cosmology gets a bit dodgy and requires philosphical inputhe for broader questions. This why say Kaku works with philosphers of time and space in string theory. When you chart new ground there is usually philosphical.reason used to "falsify" some hypothesis.
Now saying god made the earth in 6 days is moat likely falsifiable. You would have to use the argument we are in a simulation or possibly the 10th dimesion etc which of course would refute the bible is real and be counterproductive to a theist.
My dragon is not a god.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you get tore up by christian apologists then you aren’t a very good debater. The point is that you can use those same arguments to give any claim a sense that it is possible. But possible isn’t the right question. It is about probability.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
Which is fine. It's also why apologists can tear people up with logic. Which really sucks. It's happened to me in a formal debate in college. Once there are rules and a moderaror you can't just assume you won. Which is another thing people don't understand much..
Again this is false. Christian apologists are trained to debate for god. Hitchens himself lost a debate to Craig. It's not about what you think is right. Similar to science it's about limiting falacy, staying on topic, and debating the claims.
I gurantee you would loose a formal debate without serious study and preparation..in fact you may not even understand philosphical debate if you are making the claim I must be a bad debator. For one your dragon would have been dinged by an atheist moderator. Trust me I used the teapot.