- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2012,23:39) I do have an idea about whether there is a god or not.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for being honest.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2012,23:39) That idea is that since no god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for his god claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the god believer is deluded, and no gods really exist. That's not a faith-based belief that I hold because it is not based in evidence, it is a scientific conclusion based in the fact that there is no evidence.
Let's swap the word 'God' for 'alien life'.That idea is that since an alien life believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for this alien life claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the alien life believer is deluded, and no alien life really exist.
Okay people please feel free to show what else Stu doesn't believe in given his amazing robust thought process.
Now let's assume that Stu wrote his post in 1960.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2012,23:39) That idea is that since no god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for his god claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the god believer is deluded, and no gods really exist. That's not a faith-based belief that I hold because it is not based in evidence, it is a scientific conclusion based in the fact that there is no evidence.
Let's swap the word 'God' for 'black holes'.That idea is that since a believer in black holes has ever produced unambiguous evidence for black holes, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that a believer in black holes is deluded, and no black holes really exist.
Okay, so they are deluded up until the time that we actually recently observed a black hole.
So the result of Stu's robust thought process means deluded in 1960 and correct in 2012. Nice one Stu.
Any other examples using Stu's thought process that people might want to add to demonstrate his weakness in how he comes to conclusions?
The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma?
Wm
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2012,07:41) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2012,23:39) That idea is that since no god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for his god claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the god believer is deluded, and no gods really exist. That's not a faith-based belief that I hold because it is not based in evidence, it is a scientific conclusion based in the fact that there is no evidence.
Let's swap the word 'God' for 'alien life'.That idea is that since an alien life believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for this alien life claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the alien life believer is deluded, and no alien life really exist.
Okay people please feel free to show what else Stu doesn't believe in given his amazing robust thought process.
So when people make earnest claims that aliens do exist and they can tell you what aliens do and don't do, you are prepared to have an open mind and accept that people might have such knowledge genuinely?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2012,07:56) Now let's assume that Stu wrote his post in 1960. Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2012,23:39) That idea is that since no god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for his god claim, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that the god believer is deluded, and no gods really exist. That's not a faith-based belief that I hold because it is not based in evidence, it is a scientific conclusion based in the fact that there is no evidence.
Let's swap the word 'God' for 'black holes'.That idea is that since a believer in black holes has ever produced unambiguous evidence for black holes, therefore it is a valid provisional conclusion that a believer in black holes is deluded, and no black holes really exist.
Okay, so they are deluded up until the time that we actually recently observed a black hole.
So the result of Stu's robust thought process means deluded in 1960 and correct in 2012. Nice one Stu.
Any other examples using Stu's thought process that people might want to add to demonstrate his weakness in how he comes to conclusions?
You don't seem to be familiar with the longstanding body of unambiguous evidence in support of black holes.Scientific theories make predictions which sometimes can't be tested until the technology has become available. We knew we had to make a Large Hadron Collider to confirm the existence of the originally proposed Higgs Boson.
Now tell me the god version of this. What unambiguous evidence leads to what principle that leads to what anticipated technological advance that would confirm a god claim?
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2012,12:41) The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma? Wm
Are you suggesting that the creation myth of Genesis is right?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 11 2012,18:11) Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2012,12:41) The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma? Wm
Are you suggesting that the creation myth of Genesis is right?Stuart
Religion is based on stolen science. WIPE ALL RECORDS OF LIFE ON EARTH TO SUPPORT Adam Claim to being the first Human being created.They don't seem to Understand the difference between religion an Politics. which is zero!
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2012,12:41) The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma? Wm
I don”t think religion has any comppetion with science. Unless you feel its feeling the way to?Thats the bottom Line. It confuses the Living Daylights out of the Natural.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 11 2012,15:11) Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2012,12:41) The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma? Wm
Are you suggesting that the creation myth of Genesis is right?Stuart
Stu,
No, I'm flat out stating that creation is a fact. Science does not conflict with scripture, interpretations and theories do.Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 12 2012,00:01) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 11 2012,15:11) Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 11 2012,12:41) The “evidence” hasn't changed since creation, why are “scientific conclusions” always changing… I assume you'll respond that new evidence bought science to an improved conclusion. Do you really think that the small percentage of knowledge that we possess, justifies such arrogance in scientific dogma? Wm
Are you suggesting that the creation myth of Genesis is right?Stuart
Stu,
No, I'm flat out stating that creation is a fact. Science does not conflict with scripture, interpretations and theories do.Wm
The only way to make the creation myth stories compatible with science is to interpret them right out of shape.Stuart
The only way to keep the creation stories from being compatible with science, is to interpret them right out of shape.
Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 12 2012,15:09) The only way to keep the creation stories from being compatible with science, is to interpret them right out of shape. Wm
You don't know what you're talking about, do you.Stuart
Evidently so,
Do you really believe we possess any significant portion of all the knowledge in the universe? Science takes scattered facts, to create theories but then forgets that they're only theories and begins building further “facts” (theories) on top of other “facts” (theories).
My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 14 2012,00:21) Evidently so, Do you really believe we possess any significant portion of all the knowledge in the universe? Science takes scattered facts, to create theories but then forgets that they're only theories and begins building further “facts” (theories) on top of other “facts” (theories).
My opinion – Wm
sounds Like How the bible was eventually written…I think you might Have stumbled on the Major human trait!
Charity,
I agree that it is a major trait of man, and interpretations of scriptures have followed the same pattern through-out history. However the scriptures have proven to remain virtually unchanged for thousands of years.My opinion – Wm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
