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

originally posted by: luthier

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.

Name one thing that cosmologists claim that they do not have a valid reason to propose? Do not ignore this question.

originally posted by: luthier
But I am sure you would pretend to be an expert there as well.

More personal attacks...from a bachelor of philosophy, you couldn't make it up lol

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. Perhaps you should study some philosophy or refresh.

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.

His Dragon breathed out the Big Bang.

Not a fan of circular logic?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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?

This didn't deserve being lost at the bottom of the last page 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).

but we can calculate the probability of those claims. By evaluating the available evidence. If that evidence is nothing, then that probability is extremely low.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

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.

Name one thing that cosmologists claim that they do not have a valid reason to propose? Do not ignore this question.

I never made that argument..it's a strawman.

a reply to: luthier

It's calling him a liar, andthat seems like an attack to me.
You need to chill out mate.

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).

but we can calculate the probability of those claims. By evaluating the available evidence. If that evidence is nothing, then that probability is extremely low.

Then do it

originally posted by: luthier

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).

but we can calculate the probability of those claims. By evaluating the available evidence. If that evidence is nothing, then that probability is extremely low.

Then do it

I literally just did. There have been about 7 recent threads about this and as of yet, there has been no evidence for the existence of gods. It’s an easy problem to solve.

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.

I'll take this one on - from a psychological perspective - a 'god' is whatever you believe will make the world behave the way you want the world to behave. More simply, whatever you put your trust and faith in is your 'god'.

Personally I've adopted several - traffic, technology, money. A ultimate 'creator' god. No - we make them up as we need them. I'd say Mammon has the most followers in contemporary society.

originally posted by: luthier

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.

Biased assesments.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

It's calling him a liar, andthat seems like an attack to me.
You need to chill out mate.

Says the guy constantly actually using personal attacks.

But yes he is pretending to understand philosophy by debasing 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?

Don't mix up Ultimate (non-dualistic) reality with Relative (dualistic) Reality. For all I know there are more then two viewpoints - I think the failure of both science and religion in the 21st century to answer real world problems points to something else entirely.

a reply to: luthier

I'm kinda with him on that though dude, sorry.
Philosophy is questions with answers you can't even really show evidence for...at my uni the whole science department mocked it's BSc status and not Ba, sorry again.

originally posted by: luthier
There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology.

You said that right here actually. And then you ignored my rebuttal

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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?

Don't mix up Ultimate (non-dualistic) reality with Relative (dualistic) Reality. For all I know there are more then two viewpoints - I think the failure of both science and religion in the 21st century to answer real world problems points to something else entirely.

I only brought that up to show the absurdity of most philosophical positions. I am pretty sure that I exist

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.

No you are measuring the effects of Attraction/Aversion and extrapolating the underlying emotion. You cannot directly measure a persons sense of emotion.

There is the objective measurement then there is the subjective experience. Emotion is SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology.

You said that right here actually. And then you ignored my rebuttal

Correct. That isn't the same thing you asked now is it?

So we have verified the 10th dimension? We have evidence it exists?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I'm kinda with him on that though dude, sorry.
Philosophy is questions with answers you can't even really show evidence for...at my uni the whole science department mocked it's BSc status and not Ba, sorry again.

What does that Ave to do with anything?

Do you think Michio Kaku cares? Are you thankful he also believes in philosophy and is a philosopher? I am.

I have 2 degrees. My wife is literally a research professor. She has 2 PhD's. The only reason I even have time to bs on ats is we have 2 young kids and she makes an incredible amount of money.

She never makes fun of philosophy and is an actual scientist.


If you don't like it. Cool. But your entire purpose here is simply toock something you don't like or understand seems ignorant to me.