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

a reply to: HiddenWaters

Cave paintings, pottery, aboriginal stories, anthropological observation of apes.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

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.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with... something not created by humans...there's some pretty solid evidence beings and such in the ancient cave drawings you mentioned were influenced by psylociban,
Mescalin, and other hallucinogens found in plants shamans used to eat. Personally, i've talked to beings while high as # and my own beliefs in god stem from something to do with that. But I would never debate this because it's pointless...it's all just my own subjective beliefs.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

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.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

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.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

Missed the rest of my post there methinks...

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

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.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

Missed the rest of my post there methinks...

I think you missed my op where I said this belongs in philosphy.

Have you read the stoned ape theory?

a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

originally posted by: luthier
Hitchens himself lost a debate to Craig.

Lol. No he didn’t.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I have stated it several times. That doesn't mean I don't think the argument is valid. This is where people get these binary modes of thought that aren't real. When you can't completely destroy an argument it has withstood a logical treatment. It comes down to if you find it compelling enough to believe.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
Hitchens himself lost a debate to Craig.

Lol. No he didn’t.

He did actually. And you can read academic assements.

originally posted by: luthier
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]

No, i’m not really a fan of either. I am a fan of their verifiable work, but neither of those guys would have been very much fun at parties.

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

I'm not sure either, but guessing a total devils advocate philosophical discussion about gods. I can dig that.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
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]

No, i’m not really a fan of either. I am a fan of there verifiable work, but neither of those guys would have been very much fun at parties.

Apparently kant was quite a party animal.

Umm, well, humans make art, your still not giving me evidence of god before writing. They recorded their experience, if some other fine eistien came in and gave it more than they implied, so be it. There is still not god before we wrote words. reply to: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Umm, well, humans make art, your still not giving me evidence of god before writing. They recorded their experience, if some other fine eistien came in and gave it more than they implied, so be it. There is still not god before we wrote words. reply to: luthier

Well that is an opinion that people who study history, anthropology and art disagree with.

You may as well say history doesn't exist at all before the written word. There is no proof.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

Why are you acting like an expert in a field you don't know anything about and are calling word games?

Of you have that personal belief cool. However there is an entire field of study, probably the oldest, that disagrees with your opinion.

Evidence is not required. There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology. That doesn't make it faith.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

Why are you acting like an expert in a field you don't know anything about and are calling word games?

Of you have that personal belief cool. However there is an entire field of study, probably the oldest, that disagrees with your opinion.

Evidence is not required. There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology. That doesn't make it faith.

are you saying there are not valid reasons to propose what cosmologists claim?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

Why are you acting like an expert in a field you don't know anything about and are calling word games?

Of you have that personal belief cool. However there is an entire field of study, probably the oldest, that disagrees with your opinion.

Evidence is not required. There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology. That doesn't make it faith.

are you saying there are not valid reasons to propose what cosmologists claim?

I am saying their is no evidence that can be recreated or falsified.