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

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.

They are not the same and your ignorance doesn't make that true.

And I never claimed god existed. Nor did I make a personal argument it did.

I am an agnostic. With a leaning towards Spinozaism

originally posted by: Invision123
god is cool, just beyond our comprehension at the moment perhaps.

Eat apples.

Beyond demonstration at all it seems.

I'm under the impression that science is trying to describe the machinations of "God" in physical terms whereas religion is describing "God" in spiritual terms, though religion is a bastatdization of true spirituality.

Both scientists and preachers are explaining the same exact thing except in different terms much like there are many languages that can describe the same event.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

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.

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.

I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.

You could but then you would have to answer to the big bang evidence.

Duh, the hiccup.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.

a reply to: luthier

Okay, I'll leave you to it but we agree that all you have is philosophical speculation, and that ain't good enough for me to believe in gods fella, not by a long shot.
If you don't actually believe in any gods why have you been on and on in my thread trying to argue against my statement that there is no verifiable evidence to support the claims?
Do you just argue for the sake of it? There is nothing testable, repeatable, or in any way verifiable to support claims of gods, goblins, or ghosts. Why even try to argue against that assertion?
Bring your empirical evidence to the table in my thread and we'll talk, otherwise I'll leave you to 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
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.

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.

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.

I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.

You could but then you would have to answer to the big bang evidence.

Duh, the hiccup.

Why a dragon? Why not a mathematician?

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.

if i say that bigfoot exists, then before it is accepted, i would need to present some pretty compelling evidence. Preferably an actual Bigfoot. That evidence would then be studied by scientists and its validity evaluated.

You cannot claim that things exist without presenting suitable and compelling evidence for that claim.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I took a picture of god if you believe me, see my latest thread.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

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.

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.

I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.

You could but then you would have to answer to the big bang evidence.

Duh, the hiccup.

Why a dragon? Why not a mathematician?

Or a ham sandwich. The claim is not the issue. It is the reasoning behind making that claim.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Okay, I'll leave you to it but we agree that all you have is philosophical speculation, and that ain't good enough for me to believe in gods fella, not by a long shot.
If you don't actually believe in any gods why have you been on and on in my thread trying to argue against my statement that there is no verifiable evidence to support the claims?
Do you just argue for the sake of it? There is nothing testable, repeatable, or in any way verifiable to support claims of gods, goblins, or ghosts. Why even try to argue against that assertion?
Bring your empirical evidence to the table in my thread and we'll talk, otherwise I'll leave you to it.

Cool it's not good enough for me to believe in God's either..

Empercism in my opinion is not the only tool of refinement. But then again I am exposed to other forms of reason and don't call everything I don't understand lame.

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

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.

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.

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.

I can make any claim i want about my dragon. I can say he breathed out the universe in a single hiccup.

You could but then you would have to answer to the big bang evidence.

Duh, the hiccup.

Why a dragon? Why not a mathematician?

Or a ham sandwich. The claim is not the issue. It is the reasoning behind making that claim.

What is the reason of asking what is the cosmological reality?

It seems you don't know the history of the arguments or who has made them..

There is a problem of infinite regress that people who claim the god argument is convincing solves.

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.

if i say that bigfoot exists, then before it is accepted, i would need to present some pretty compelling evidence. Preferably an actual Bigfoot. That evidence would then be studied by scientists and its validity evaluated.

You cannot claim that things exist without presenting suitable and compelling evidence for that claim.

Bigfoot is not a metaphysical, cosmological claim. It's biological and verifiable.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science

Man created God in his own image

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.

Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.

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: 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.

This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.

Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.

What is love?

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.

if i say that bigfoot exists, then before it is accepted, i would need to present some pretty compelling evidence. Preferably an actual Bigfoot. That evidence would then be studied by scientists and its validity evaluated.

You cannot claim that things exist without presenting suitable and compelling evidence for that claim.

Bigfoot is not a metaphysical, cosmological claim. It's biological and verifiable.

Again, the size of the claim is inconsequential. The reasoning for making the claim is the priority. Especially when making a claim that is purposefully unverifiable.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science

Man created God in his own image

Animism? Pantheism?

originally posted by: luthier

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: 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.

This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.

Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.

What is love?

Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more

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.

if i say that bigfoot exists, then before it is accepted, i would need to present some pretty compelling evidence. Preferably an actual Bigfoot. That evidence would then be studied by scientists and its validity evaluated.

You cannot claim that things exist without presenting suitable and compelling evidence for that claim.

Bigfoot is not a metaphysical, cosmological claim. It's biological and verifiable.

Again, the size of the claim is inconsequential. The reasoning for making the claim is the priority. Especially when making a claim that is purposefully unverifiable.

That is an opinion.

This is what cosmology is to the people who work in the field.

Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested.