God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

god is cool, just beyond our comprehension at the moment perhaps.

Eat apples.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.

...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.

It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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..

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.

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.

My dragon is not a god.

What is a god (s). A group of scientists with quantum programming? Seems to fit a definition.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.

Philosophy is mind games. The end result of every philosophical debate is to instill a sense of doubt into everything. Nothing is verifiable by philosophy.

It has famously been used to try to instill doubt in even our very existence. Hence the quote “i think, therefor, i am.”

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.

Philosophy is mind games. The end result of every philosophical debate is to instill a sense of doubt into everything. Nothing is verifiable by philosophy.

It has famously been used to try to instill doubt in even our very existence. Hence the quote “i think, therefor, i am.”

This is an opinion.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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..

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.

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.

My dragon is not a god.

What is a god (s). A group of scientists with quantum programming? Seems to fit a definition.

A god is a ficticious character, i can give it any number of contradicting properties.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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..

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.

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.

My dragon is not a god.

What is a god (s). A group of scientists with quantum programming? Seems to fit a definition.

A god is a ficticious character, i can give it any number of contradicting properties.

You just made a claim you cannot prove nor is falsifiable.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.

Philosophy is mind games. The end result of every philosophical debate is to instill a sense of doubt into everything. Nothing is verifiable by philosophy.

It has famously been used to try to instill doubt in even our very existence. Hence the quote “i think, therefor, i am.”

This is an opinion.

Can you prove you exist?

a reply to: Woodcarver

You are a fictitious character, just the way I like it. You seem to be certain you exist.

Prove it.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.

Philosophy is mind games. The end result of every philosophical debate is to instill a sense of doubt into everything. Nothing is verifiable by philosophy.

It has famously been used to try to instill doubt in even our very existence. Hence the quote “i think, therefor, i am.”

This is an opinion.

Can you prove you exist?

I can prove I exist. I constitute my reality through the observations I make through consciousness. If I am observing even a hallucination or a dream I am a conscious observer.

I can not prove to you I exist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You seem to subscribe to empericism philosphical thought. Which is cool. I love John Locke and Newton.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.

...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.

It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...

Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.

Just wait for the silence to meet the emptiness

a reply to: luthier

I'll take empiricism any day over your speculative philosophical reasoning before I believe in your claims of god lol
And if a machine with a sensor of some kind can repeatedly confirm the evidence even better, I'd believe then, but such a thing does not exist, so I don't.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.

...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.

It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...

Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.

This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Empercism is a philosphy.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Empiricism is a philosophical concept. But that is the nature of philosophy an inquiry into truth.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I'll take empiricism any day over your speculative philosophical reasoning before I believe in your claims of god lol
And if a machine with a sensor of some kind can repeatedly confirm the evidence even better, I'd believe then, but such a thing does not exist, so I don't.

Oh and I have never made any claims about God.

a reply to: luthier

Yes yes, but you know exactly what I mean, there is no way to test any gods existence so I don't believe.
You can jibber jabber speculative philosophical argument all day but you have nothing to verify any god claims, same as goblins and ghosts.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.

...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.

It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...

Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.

This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.

My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.

Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.