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

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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing about things that niether side can demonstrate. I will take science any day.

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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing with eachother because there is no way to determine what is correct. I will take science any day.

Great that must make you better than me..

Or its just an opinion..

I take both. Because you don't have to choose.

originally posted by: luthier

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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing with eachother because there is no way to determine what is correct. I will take science any day.

Great that must make you better than me..

Or its just an opinion..

I take both. Because you don't have to choose.

I am not better than you. But my arguments are better than yours.

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

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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing with eachother because there is no way to determine what is correct. I will take science any day.

Great that must make you better than me..

Or its just an opinion..

I take both. Because you don't have to choose.

I am not better than you. But my arguments are better than yours.

I am sure you have faith in your belief.

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: 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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing with eachother because there is no way to determine what is correct. I will take science any day.

Great that must make you better than me..

Or its just an opinion..

I take both. Because you don't have to choose.

I am not better than you. But my arguments are better than yours.

I am sure you have faith in your belief.

If it requires faith, i will simply not accept it as valid.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Then perhaps you should be more humble and introspective of your performance.

a reply to: [post=23447178]Woodcarver[/post

No - humankind created both 'god(s)' and science to keep the uncertainty and fear at bay.

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.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing about things that niether side can demonstrate. I will take science any day.

I'm actually with you on that fella

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: [post=23447178]Woodcarver[/post

No - humankind created both 'god(s)' and science to keep the uncertainty and fear at bay.

That is a fair statement.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You both are clueless.

Cosmology like the people who work at CERN or Fermi labs are in contact with philosophers all the time. In fact the best scientists are often both.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

Then perhaps you should be more humble and introspective of your performance.

I have answered everyone of your points and i think i have done a fair job of showing why they are not valid. I know you don’t agree, but you have failed to demonstrate that gods exist. Or that there are valid reasons to accept that claim. Or that somehow, that claim is beyond purview of science.

a reply to: luthier

Clueless lol, okay, Mr Grumpy lol x

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You both are clueless.

Cosmology like the people who work at CERN or Fermi labs are in contact with philosophers all the time. In fact the best scientists are often both.

I’m not saying that philosophy is useless, just that it cannot be used to validate claims that gods exist or not.

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.

...and perhaps they have sufficient antidotal 'proof' for a subjective truth but no one can ever provide objective evidence to the existence of a 'god(s).

Nor can I prove objectively that there isn't a 'god(s)' as I don't have any means to measure the unseen.

We can only verify what we can see - or built instruments to 'see' - or calculate, and that is a limited bit of reality.

There are a lot of, as D. Rumsfeld would say, 'unknown, unknowns' out there.

Agnostic - can't prove the reality of god(s) or no god(s).

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Clueless lol, okay, Mr Grumpy lol x

Resorting to name calling. He’ll be done in a few. Off to grump in his easy chair.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

Then perhaps you should be more humble and introspective of your performance.

I have answered everyone of your points and i think i have done a fair job of showing why they are not valid. I know you don’t agree, but you have failed to demonstrate that gods exist. Or that there are valid reasons to accept that claim. Or that somehow, that claim is beyond purview of science.

I never intended to prove god exists.

The question is philosophical. There really isn't debate about that.

Philosophy does not require emoerical evidence. There is no debate about that.

Sorry if you THINK your opinion is something other than that.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Clueless lol, okay, Mr Grumpy lol x

Resorting to name calling. He’ll be done in a few. Off to grump in his easy chair.

Shake a cane at kids on the lawn lol

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

...and perhaps they have sufficient antidotal 'proof' for a subjective truth but no one can ever provide objective evidence to the existence of a 'god(s).

Nor can I prove objectively that there isn't a 'god(s)' as I don't have any means to measure the unseen.

We can only verify what we can see - or built instruments to 'see' - or calculate, and that is a limited bit of reality.

There are a lot of, as D. Rumsfeld would say, 'unknown, unknowns' out there.

Agnostic - can't prove the reality of god(s) or no god(s).

I can claim that i believe in all kinds of things that are beyond detection. But do i have a valid reason to?

Even with the knowledge that there are definately things in the universe that we don’t know about, it is pointless to start naming what those things are. At least until i have good reason.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

...and perhaps they have sufficient antidotal 'proof' for a subjective truth but no one can ever provide objective evidence to the existence of a 'god(s).

Nor can I prove objectively that there isn't a 'god(s)' as I don't have any means to measure the unseen.

We can only verify what we can see - or built instruments to 'see' - or calculate, and that is a limited bit of reality.

There are a lot of, as D. Rumsfeld would say, 'unknown, unknowns' out there.

Agnostic - can't prove the reality of god(s) or no god(s).

I can claim that i believe in all kinds of things that are beyond detection. But do i have a valid reason to?

Even with the knowledge that there are definately things in the universe that we don’t know about, it is pointless to start naming what those things are. At least until i have good reason.

It's a good thing you don't work in cosmology or theoretical physics.

But I am sure you would pretend to be an expert there as well.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

Then perhaps you should be more humble and introspective of your performance.

I have answered everyone of your points and i think i have done a fair job of showing why they are not valid. I know you don’t agree, but you have failed to demonstrate that gods exist. Or that there are valid reasons to accept that claim. Or that somehow, that claim is beyond purview of science.

I never intended to prove god exists.

The question is philosophical. There really isn't debate about that.

Philosophy does not require emoerical evidence. There is no debate about that.

Sorry if you THINK your opinion is something other than that.

Why does everybody need evidence for every other claim then?

If I say I found a new animal, you would want some evidence. And if I claim that this animal has properties that are beyond belief, then you are going to want to extraordinary evidence.

Why would claims about a God be any different?