It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Invision123
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

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





Perhaps - but Epistemology is more relevant as it applies to both science and spirituality. To everything really.


Epistemology: How do you Know that you Know what you Know?

The role of perception in knowledge It is hard to imagine a world that exists outside of what we can perceive.

In the effort to get through each day without crashing our cars or some other calamity, we make assumptions about the objects in our physical world.

Their continuity, their behaviour. Some of these assumptions are based on our own experience, some on the knowledge imparted by others of their experience, and some on inferences of logic.

Experience, however, comes through the lens of perception. How things look, how they feel, how they sound. Our understanding of, and interaction with, the world comes through particular constructs of the human body – eyes, ears, fingers, etc. Most people intuitively understand the subjectivity of some of our perceptions.


www.fs.blog...
edit on 30-5-2018 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.
i can still predict with great accuracy a full range of emotions, which is good enough to convince me in most cases. Of course knowing that there is always a probability that my predictions are wrong, or that someone is beating the system. I wouldn’t use these techniques on someone in a court room, As the consequences would be too dire to rely on them. But if you think the authorities don’t use these techniques to predict when people are lying and then use their discoveries to manipulate them into confessing, well....idk why not. Lie detector machines have been used for a long time.
edit on 30-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.


Experts in the field. Atheists.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.

See, you got grumpy again, why? And what does your wife have to do with this interaction, quite irrelevant don't you think? Anecdotal evidence n all that lol.
Chill out dude.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier

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.

See, you got grumpy again, why? And what does your wife have to do with this interaction, quite irrelevant don't you think? Anecdotal evidence n all that lol.
Chill out dude.


Why did you bring up your class?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

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

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?
We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.


Again - all you SEE/MEASURE physiologically is ATTRACTION (move toward pleasure) or AVERSION (move away from pain) and a single cell and very simple organisms express the same ACTIONS without the possibility of emotion.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Because I wasn't making any assertions to defend claims of gods.
I was saying how the whole science department didn't think it should have been a BSc degree.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

This is true. But all of those arguments pre-suppose that the end result is god. Just watch WLC debates. That dude is the king of "this is like this... so then god". Every one of those arguments makes a tremendous leap, but disguises itself as if it's not making said leap.

And every one of those arguments can be turned around on itself as well.
edit on 30-5-2018 by okrian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.


Experts in the field. Atheists.
Atheists are wrong about things from time to time as well. That is why science requires valid demonstrations for positive claims.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

Had to study him. He also got people off track and bear then in debates. A lot of atheists don't do well either. They get off on tangents and he ends up winning.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.


Experts in the field. Atheists.
Atheists are wrong about things from time to time as well. That is why science requires valid demonstrations for positive claims.


Sure and why philosophy has its version as well. Since you don't understand this your opinion is off base.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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?
I didn’t say evidence. I said valid reasons to propose



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Because I wasn't making any assertions to defend claims of gods.
I was saying how the whole science department didn't think it should have been a BSc degree.


I have a BA.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Because I wasn't making any assertions to defend claims of gods.
I was saying how the whole science department didn't think it should have been a BSc degree.


I have a BA.
As Philosophy should be



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

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.


And please don't devolve into ad hominem.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.


And please don't devolve into ad hominem.


How is that an ad hominem?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: okrian

Had to study him. He also got people off track and bear then in debates. A lot of atheists don't do well either. They get off on tangents and he ends up winning.



I totally agree. This ends up being a bit of the problem with some of the religious debates, because both parties come with a set bunch of points that they want to get across and don't actually end up engaging with each other all that well. And for some of the atheists that have debated him, they can't get off their own script to address points. But all debates with him mean you will be debating his points, not the other way around.
edit on 30-5-2018 by okrian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

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?
I didn’t say evidence. I said valid reasons to propose


Correct. I said evidence.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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.


Massive Texts? Really?

Mankind created god(s) in his or nature's image way before written language.

Logic, as stated earlier, can be very correct but useless if the premises upon which we build our argument are false which I find often the case in Abrahamic commentaries.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: okrian

Had to study him. He also got people off track and bear then in debates. A lot of atheists don't do well either. They get off on tangents and he ends up winning.



I totally agree. This ends up being a bit of the problem with some other religious debates, because both parties come with a set bunch of points that they want to get across and don't actually end up engaging with each other all that well. And for some of the atheists that have debated him, they can't get off their own script to address points. But all debates with him mean you will be debating his points, not the other way around.


Which always amazed me how often he could win. You already know what the guy was going to say.

The problem. Is they literally train them to debate that specific topic.

I had almost all atheist professors. They hated the guy but respected his chops. They also blasted the same kind of things being said her.

I tried using Russell's teapot and my professor tore me up in a class debate one of the atheists no less.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join