|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief in God is scientific. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't see an illusion of motion either. Maybe my display isn't the best. THere are people who just don't see those kinds of illusions. Wired slightly differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't see an illusion of motion either. Maybe my display isn't the best. THere are people who just don't see those kinds of illusions. Wired slightly differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
divermike1974 in Message 82 writes: You couldn't be more wrong. divermike1974 in Message 86 writes: Yeah i do admit I am wrong... Why oh why do I keep letting myself get sucked into discussions like this. DiverMike, the worst part of this isn't your original position. The worst part is that you were never able to mount a defense, nor even recognize what one might look like. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Argumentum ad populem holds an opinion to be true just because the majority hold it (regardless of WHY they hold it)
Peer review, at least in the ideal, consists of experts examining the methodology and reasoning of a paper,possibly suggesting revisions and the editors of the journal making a decision based on the reviews. A paper which fails to pass peer review can be edited or even submitted unchanged to another journal. I really don't see that much in common between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ossat Member (Idle past 2510 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Because you made the mistake of promoting a hideously bad OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I thought he posed a couple intriguing questions that represented common misconceptions. Exploring them seemed worthwhile, but I didn't think he would just stonewall, evade, then collapse.
Although if history is any guide, he'll retract the concession or say we misunderstood, then continue just as before. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. What would "evidence of chance" look like? Do you ever see scientists talking about "chance"? Why is it always creationists saying it? Could it be a misunderstanding? lol - I just did a Google Scholar search for the word 'chance'... all I got was a bunch of papers written by people that were named Chance
I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God You know how babies are made. New animals come from existing animals. How do you get variety from that process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
If it cant be observed it isn't known, therefore not in the known universe.
That's good to know. When was the last time a god was observed scientifically?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The man has not only admitted that he was wrong, but has confessed that he was driven soley by his religious zeal to post what was essentially gibberish.
What more do you want from him. Time to take your foot (feet) off of his throat and let him up. Perhaps he'll be better prepared next time. You do want him to post again, don't you? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
divermike1974 writes: I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God. Okay. We do know that computers aren't always right.Powerful computers can be strictly programmed to do things in a rigorous manner... confidently leading to correct results. Powerful computers can also be programmed to do things in a poor manner... leading to unreliable results. We know this from the past experience of human history. Science is a strict method of programming our brains in order to confidently lead us to correct results.Belief is a different method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results. Again, we know this from the past experience of human history. "Belief in God is scientific" is a Belief (obviously). Therefore, it uses the method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results.Therefore, the statement is unreliable. Using the method of belief, our human brains have led us to many, many unreliable results like "Apollo pulls the sun around the Earth" or "the entire planet was covered in a worldwide flood that killed most of mankind." Using the method of science, our human brains have led us to many, many correct results like "the Earth actually orbits the Sun" or "there's never been a worldwide flood during the history of mankind." I agree that the human brain is kind of like a powerful computer.However, you still need to program computers correctly in order to be confident in the reliability of your results. How do you program your brain? Science tells me that the only evidence that should be "classed as scientific evidence" for the existence of anything (including God) would be the sort of evidence that results after using the method of science. Using the method of Belief in order to classify anything as "scientific evidence" doesn't even make linguistic sense. Let alone common sense or practical sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
divermike1974 writes: Yeah i do admit I am wrong it was never my intention to say I was right and everyone wrong Nice! You've edited your programming! Good job
its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief can't be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you can't Sort of. Belief can easily be factored into the scientific method, and it has many, many times.It's just that the result, after going through the scientific method, is unreliable and inconclusive. Therefore the scientific method tells us that Belief does not lead us to reliable results. There are no "science police" in the same way there are no "playing tag" police. You're either doing science, by following the method of science, or you're not.You're either playing tag, by following the method of playing tag, or you're not. No one really cares unless you start telling people that you are doing a thing, but it's clear that you're not following the method of that thing. Keep looking, and questioning. Maybe you just don't like science. There's lots of other stuff to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
The people who said the Earth is flat, and all the other stuff about the Earth being the centre of the universe and all that stuff where actually the scientist's of the day, the popular conceptions of those days where propagated by scientists. The scientific method had not been discovered yet, so that is far from true. The scientific revolution came about because relying on beliefs had been shown to be wrong. The whole idea was to leave beliefs behind and instead base your inferences on empirical facts, and test those ideas against empirical facts. The people who proclaimed that the Sun moved about the Earth did not use this method, and were therefore not scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. But are you able to demonstrate that this is true using evidence?
I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God Why would you need faith when there is evidence to look at? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah i do admit iam wrong it was never my intention to say i was right and everyone wrong, merely that its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief cant be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you cant ... Well, there are lots of things practiced by billions of people which aren't science. If it comes to that, there are lots of things people do every day which aren't literature, American football, veterinary medicine, etc.
I would like to thank you for admitting you are part of the majority opinion within this thread and demonstrating so beautifully the effects of the fallacy on the search for truth. If the fallacy you're referring to is the argumentum ad populum, well said.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024