Scientific reasoning.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2013, 06:59 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(16-01-2013 10:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mawil.

Quote:An atheist saying god doesn't exist is as incorrect as a believer saying god exists. Neither can prove their opinion

That's what we Agnostics are for Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt


Agnostics: Ignoring the weight of evidence every day.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
A generic god concept with no defined properties is unknowable, but a defined god concept such as a particular rendition of the Christian God is knowable and observable. Claiming that all god concepts are impossible to disprove is itself a false and misleading statement. Tell me what you think God is and we can look at your definition's internal inconsistencies and its inconsistencies with reality together. If your God concept is so malleable that on finding a conflict you're prepared to redefine that concept then I can't disprove it, but if your God concept is both real and relevant and wants people to find it and know it then there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to put it to the test.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
17-01-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(16-01-2013 10:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mawil.

Quote:An atheist saying god doesn't exist is as incorrect as a believer saying god exists. Neither can prove their opinion

That's what we Agnostics are for Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Agnostic atheists, that is.

trolololo

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 06:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2013 10:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mawil.


That's what we Agnostics are for Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt


Agnostics: Ignoring the weight of evidence every day.

I dunno, Chas, the evidence that that the sun goes around the earth was (and still is) fairly weighty but at one time there was no weight at all to any counter-evidence, so at one time all the weight was on the side of the sun going around the earth. People who didn't ignore the weight of the evidence were convinced the sun went around the earth.

The same thing could be said for a flat earth - at one time all the weighty evidence supported the earth being flat.

Right now, all the evidence supports there being no god, but just because all the weight of the evidence is on one side of the debate doesn't always make it right.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(16-01-2013 10:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mawil.

Quote:An atheist saying god doesn't exist is as incorrect as a believer saying god exists. Neither can prove their opinion

That's what we Agnostics are for Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

LOL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 08:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A generic god concept with no defined properties is unknowable, but a defined god concept such as a particular rendition of the Christian God is knowable and observable. Claiming that all god concepts are impossible to disprove is itself a false and misleading statement. Tell me what you think God is and we can look at your definition's internal inconsistencies and its inconsistencies with reality together. If your God concept is so malleable that on finding a conflict you're prepared to redefine that concept then I can't disprove it, but if your God concept is both real and relevant and wants people to find it and know it then there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to put it to the test.

Yes, and I'd like to see firm lines of distinction between augments for and against a god and the concept of a continuing self awareness existence after mortal death. I for one don't see a supreme being having created the all, but I do see the possibly of a continuing existence after mortal death. Or, you had me at, there ain't no god/goddess nor gods. I'm more inclined to believe a natural cause of the universe and any other dimension s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(16-01-2013 04:34 PM)mawil1013 Wrote:  A religious person cannot prove their beliefs. An atheist cannot disprove what a religious person believes?

If you have a scientific frame of mind, you understand that just because you cannot prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true?

An atheist saying god doesn't exist is as incorrect as a believer saying god exists. Neither can prove their opinion.

Actually, if you had a "scientific frame of mind", the opposite should be the case.

If it can't be proven "scientifically", it doesn't exist as far a science is concerned.

If someone comes with an argument that they claim can't be falsified, what is it to science? It's malarkey, Joe Biden, malarkey.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 10:08 AM)mawil1013 Wrote:  
(17-01-2013 08:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A generic god concept with no defined properties is unknowable, but a defined god concept such as a particular rendition of the Christian God is knowable and observable. Claiming that all god concepts are impossible to disprove is itself a false and misleading statement. Tell me what you think God is and we can look at your definition's internal inconsistencies and its inconsistencies with reality together. If your God concept is so malleable that on finding a conflict you're prepared to redefine that concept then I can't disprove it, but if your God concept is both real and relevant and wants people to find it and know it then there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to put it to the test.

Yes, and I'd like to see firm lines of distinction between augments for and against a god and the concept of a continuing self awareness existence after mortal death. I for one don't see a supreme being having created the all, but I do see the possibly of a continuing existence after mortal death. Or, you had me at, there ain't no god/goddess nor gods. I'm more inclined to believe a natural cause of the universe and any other dimension s.


What is your evidence for "continuing self awareness existence after mortal death"?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
"What is your evidence for "continuing self awareness existence after mortal death"?"

I didn't mean to imply there was evidence. I meant that I , personally , do not believe in a supreme being who created all, but do leave room in my mind the possibility of a naturally occurring existence after mortal death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 11:23 AM
RE: Scientific reasoning.
(17-01-2013 11:18 AM)mawil1013 Wrote:  "What is your evidence for "continuing self awareness existence after mortal death"?"

I didn't mean to imply there was evidence. I meant that I , personally , do not believe in a supreme being who created all, but do leave room in my mind the possibility of a naturally occurring existence after mortal death.


Considering that all of the evidence points to consciousness being a property of the brain, how is that possible?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Sociology of science (Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions) Luminon 21 722 19-12-2013 04:45 PM
Last Post: Luminon
  Scientific Paradigms TrainWreck 22 1,277 01-05-2012 07:41 PM
Last Post: GirlyMan
  The scientific method Zat 36 2,155 12-02-2012 09:51 AM
Last Post: Chas
Forum Jump: