Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2017, 03:39 AM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(17-05-2017 03:00 AM)ColdComfort Wrote:  I made no claim that the arguments you are referring to are valid. I said you were wrong in claiming that the argument used 'cause' in the sense of a regress into the past. I think you know that. Grasshopper pointed it out. I know when I'm being baited into a long fight that will go no where.

For FUCK'S sake. So now I'm the bad guy for trying to get you to explain?

I'm not baiting you, you twit. I genuinely want to know what you see that I don't. You keep saying "You're wrong but I won't tell you why" - can you see how stupid and frustrating it is?

So if the cause referring to time is wrong, what is RIGHT according to you?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
17-05-2017, 03:10 PM
Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(16-05-2017 04:45 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher.

Therein lies your problem, I think. The thread is about scientists having "proved" the existence of god. You respond with philosophy and not science. Besides which, scientists don't "prove" anything. Any conclusion a scientist may reached is provisional and is subject to being modified or discarded if future evidence contradicts that conclusion.

That is the essential difference between religion and science. Scientific theories may be modified when new evidence is uncovered. When religious ideas are challenged because of new evidence, it is the new evidence which must be modified so that the religious belief may be maintained.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rachel's post
17-05-2017, 04:09 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(17-05-2017 03:10 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 04:45 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher.

Therein lies your problem, I think. The thread is about scientists having "proved" the existence of god. You respond with philosophy and not science. Besides which, scientists don't "prove" anything. Any conclusion a scientist may reached is provisional and is subject to being modified or discarded if future evidence contradicts that conclusion.

That is the essential difference between religion and science. Scientific theories may be modified when new evidence is uncovered. When religious ideas are challenged because of new evidence, it is the new evidence which must be modified so that the religious belief may be maintained.

The original article was the furthest thing from science you could imagine. Basically one clown with no credentials pooh poohing atheism. And published in a respectable magazine nogal.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
17-05-2017, 07:28 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(17-05-2017 04:09 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-05-2017 03:10 PM)Rachel Wrote:  Therein lies your problem, I think. The thread is about scientists having "proved" the existence of god. You respond with philosophy and not science. Besides which, scientists don't "prove" anything. Any conclusion a scientist may reached is provisional and is subject to being modified or discarded if future evidence contradicts that conclusion.

That is the essential difference between religion and science. Scientific theories may be modified when new evidence is uncovered. When religious ideas are challenged because of new evidence, it is the new evidence which must be modified so that the religious belief may be maintained.

The original article was the furthest thing from science you could imagine. Basically one clown with no credentials pooh poohing atheism. And published in a respectable magazine nogal.

"The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century. According to a Pew survey, the percent of Americans having no religious affiliation reached 23 percent in 2014. Among such “nones,” 33 percent said that they do not believe in God—an 11 percent increase since only 2007."

I never even read the original article until now. What a pile of crap. How do you get that the question of god's existence is heating up, if unbelief is rising ? And this from a social scientist. Scary. The last sentence is a laugh. The persistence of Christianity (35,000 sects) is somehow evidence for a god. If persistence is the norm, there are others that have been around a LOT longer. He also made the mistake of saying Christianity flows from Judaism. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2017, 07:42 AM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article

Scientists prove god exists? No they didn't. As someone sitting in an office on a university campus in a science department, this place would be lousy with this subject if it were even remotely close to being true that science had proved the existence of a god.

I'll believe it when I see the evidence and data published in an actual scientific journal that has withstood peer review and replication.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
20-05-2017, 10:07 AM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
Proving a god's existence would simultaneously prove it isn't supernatural. To the religious if it isn't supernatural it isn't a god. Anyone religious looking to science to validate their faith as already abandoned faith, and further cemented science's supremacy. Genuine science never seeks a god in the first place; the claim that science has "found" a god is an oxymoron.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Airportkid's post
20-05-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(20-05-2017 10:07 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  Proving a god's existence would simultaneously prove it isn't supernatural. To the religious if it isn't supernatural it isn't a god. Anyone religious looking to science to validate their faith as already abandoned faith, and further cemented science's supremacy. Genuine science never seeks a god in the first place; the claim that science has "found" a god is an oxymoron.

This is such an excellent point.
"Proving a god's existence would simultaneously prove it isn't supernatural. "

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
20-05-2017, 02:55 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(20-05-2017 02:46 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(20-05-2017 10:07 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  Proving a god's existence would simultaneously prove it isn't supernatural. To the religious if it isn't supernatural it isn't a god. Anyone religious looking to science to validate their faith as already abandoned faith, and further cemented science's supremacy. Genuine science never seeks a god in the first place; the claim that science has "found" a god is an oxymoron.

This is such an excellent point.
"Proving a god's existence would simultaneously prove it isn't supernatural. "
Indeed ^^^^

That which can be proven is natural, not supernatural. That which in fact can be observed by creatures of the natural world such as ourselves is not supernatural, but part of nature.

The illogical and useless notion of a being outside of the natural order, beyond space and time, is a superficial deepity which in fact is a non-sequitur right out of the gate. And anyone who thinks you can prove a supernatural being or realm had best be careful what they ask for, as they have clearly not thought through their own beliefs and the implications of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
27-05-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: Newsweek - Scientists Prove God Exists?
(17-05-2017 03:10 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(16-05-2017 04:45 PM)ColdComfort Wrote:  Because I am not capable of writing an explanation nearly as good as the one I cited. It's written by a professional philosopher.

Therein lies your problem, I think. The thread is about scientists having "proved" the existence of god. You respond with philosophy and not science. Besides which, scientists don't "prove" anything. Any conclusion a scientist may reached is provisional and is subject to being modified or discarded if future evidence contradicts that conclusion.

That is the essential difference between religion and science. Scientific theories may be modified when new evidence is uncovered. When religious ideas are challenged because of new evidence, it is the new evidence which must be modified so that the religious belief may be maintained.

Yep. Old saying:

In Science, if new evidence is contrary to established theory, the theory is revised.
In Religion, if new evidence is contrary to established dogma, the evidence is revised.

Disappointing theists since 1968
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like A. Secular Human's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: