Reply With QuoteDo we really need to copy/paste all those times science has been wrong?
This is why science is lost when it comes to spiritual things. Science works if the object is definable - god isn't.
Do we really need to copy/paste all those times science has been wrong?
There you go pushing that burden of proof again. Scientists don't have to prove or disprove . You're the one with the belief structure.
Here's how it goes:
Joe: I think I can run to the end of the block
Fred: No way, you're too fat:
Joe runs to the end of the block, proving it.
In your world...
Joe: I think I can run to the end of the block
Fred: No way, you're too fat:
Joe: Oh yeah? Prove that I can't
The burden of proof is on the proclaimer.
And your point is? Scientist proves other scientist wrong, theory disproven, scientists go on testing.
How about......science has been wrong so many times how can we go with...well according to science..."...????
Bad analogy. I didn't say god existed. I said science is not superior when it comes to the issue or the idea of god.
You just don't get it.
Well one of us doesn't that's for damn sure.
Maybe it's your lack of education.
You have idea how funny that is?
It wasn't a joke. You've demonstrated it repeatedly, and not just in this thread.
Such as..???
It was a good analogy.
You're just stupid.
You're stupider.
The angry name-caller is back rofl.
For a guy who does nothing here but follow you/me around he sure has a big mouth doesn't he?
You clearly have no idea what the Scientific Method is, so the fact that you're trying to argue about science is laughable, tbh....
P.S. You're a got
Looks to me he's been here the whole time rofl.
You're just an angry dumb , dumb .
And a liar.
Keyword think
Science proclaims man Evolved from primate where's the proof?
It's always the same people arguing with Avante, SA210, SBM.
Um, what?
Relevence?
How do you know god is an "absolute mystery"? It would seem to be a pretty solvable mystery to me. We apply standards of evidence to everything else. To think that we should not apply some standard of evidence to claims about god is simply what is known as a "special pleading" logical fallacy.
The burden of proof applies to whomever makes a claim.
"There is a God" is a claim.
"There is no God" is a claim.
Both require proof.
I, however, don't claim that "There is no God". I just have not seen any sound reasoning or sufficient evidence to prove there is a God. I really haven't seen any evidence, actually.
Pretty big claim, means pretty big evidence is required.
It is though, possible that there is a God, to me. I just don't know for certain.
What I am certain about, is that the God of the bible, or the q'uran is bunk, hokum, bull , fairy tales, and/or supers ion.
A version of the "God in the gaps" argument, gotcha.
As I said, it is possible God exists and that we will figure it out someday.
"God does not exist" is not my claim, though.
I will say we have no evidence of such a thing now. In 1750 we had no evidence that a single hand-held device would be capable of projecting our voice tens of thousands of miles. It would have been irrational at that time to think that such a thing existed.
Today we have no evidence that god exists. It is therefore irrational to think such a thing exists.
Now, if you are willing to admit belief in god/God/whatever is irrational, then we might be able to come to an agreement.
??I don't subscribe to that idea of "god" either fwiw. ^
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
