Where are you pro lifers on this one

[DMC]

https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-...-and-examples/


1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/cir stances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.

I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.

As far as reasons go, this is an especially ty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.

Exactly. Like the observation "it would be like throwing a scrabble game into the air and it coming down forming the dictionary"

Anything it forms has the same odds as anything else it forms. We only say "dictionary" because it's a known sequence of letters but any sequence has the same odds. What those who argue for god do is commit post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, because we are here therefore we were put here.

[RandomGuy]

i
any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.

"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.

faith is the belief in something without evidence.

We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.

We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.

Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.

Why are you trying to do that here?

[DMC]

"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.

faith is the belief in something without evidence.

We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.

We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.

Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.

Why are you trying to do that here?

Because he's the one.

[RandomGuy]

Exactly. Like the observation "it would be like throwing a scrabble game into the air and it coming down forming the dictionary"

Anything it forms has the same odds as anything else it forms. We only say "dictionary" because it's a known sequence of letters but any sequence has the same odds. What those who argue for god do is commit post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, because we are here therefore we were put here.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

[RandomGuy]

Im a ty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
Tell me what science has to say about God?

No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
Does this upset you?

Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.

Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.

Read up on sociopathy. One aspect is a fragile ego.

[Neo.]

https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-...-and-examples/


1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/cir stances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.

and you do?

I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.

prove it

As far as reasons go, this is an especially ty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.

literally the same can be said for your argument for the exact same reasons. funny how that works.

[Neo.]

Adding the god makes it more complicated, not less. You cannot explain the origins of the god, so likely you just accept this god always existed. But then there becomes a paradox. If you try to explain the origins of the god, then you have to explain the origins of the origins. Infinite regress begins. God of the gaps (I don't know so I will say god did it to feel better about not knowing) is a fleeting god, getting smaller the more we learn.

you're welcome to give an actual factual explanation of how the big bang started. id love to see the proof.

Except scientists don't live to believe in a theory. They live to disprove it. What religion espouses doubt as a core tenet? What religion has falsifiable god claims?

if the goal is to disprove a theory, then why raise one to begin with (much less present it as a fact without any basis to claim it as a fact)?

[Neo.]

"theories" do not mean the same thing in science as you are using here. theories in science ONLY get to be theories IF there is evidence to support them.

faith is the belief in something without evidence.

We have no evidence that some sort of god exists or is even possible.

We have evidence supporting the scientific theory of the big bang through observation of the physical universe.

so show me the factual absolute evidence that the universe was started through an element smaller than an atom exploding into the entire universe, and that it happened entirely on its own, that there was absolutely no other force, being or reasoning behind it.

Equating something that actually has evidence for it to something that does not doesn't really make sense to me.

Why are you trying to do that here?

then show me the proof. not theories, not guesses, not cir stantial evidence, not reasoning that supports a theory. i want absolute undeniable facts that your "theory" was how the universe came about, since that's apparently what you want to see in order to believe in a higher being.

[spurraider21]

if you're going to argue that its unlikely that the universe was perfectly tailored to end up the way it is now, and that therefore it is more likely that there is a god.... then you'd have to grapple with how unlikely it is that whatever version of God came to be was also perfectly tailored to decide to make the universe exactly as it is.

what if god didnt care to make anything and was just lazy. what if god decided not to make humans. you are also presupposing a perfectly tailored god for your worldview, which is as much of a stretch as the perfectly tailored universe argument

[ElNono]

if the goal is to disprove a theory, then why raise one to begin with (much less present it as a fact without any basis to claim it as a fact)?

1) Because you can infer some things without being able to test them at the moment. Over time, we've been able to improve our tech to actually do test them, and then either confirm or refute the theory.

2) No theory in science is considered or presented as a fact. That's reserved to scientific laws, which are testable. You should really get familiar with the scientific method if you're interested in arguing about this.

[spurraider21]

scientific law is a statement of what is observable and predictable...often times in physics, this refers to things that can be boiled down into a mathematical expression. ie newton's laws of motion. we know exactly how objects will act when force is applied onto them (when factoring all variables including friction, etc).

a theory is our attempt to explain those phenomena. for a theoretical model to remain a working/viable one, it has to be consistent with all of the available evidence.

basically... a law is a "what" and the theory is the "why" or "how"

i dont know that a theory can necessarily be proven, though with the right technology, you can verify predictions that come from its model... ie how we were able to detect gravitational waves nearly a century after they were predicted as part of einstein's theory of general relativity. very similarly, the detection of the cosmic microwave background ended up verifying some of the claims/predictions of the big bang theory

when testable predictions of a theory (particularly those which appear to be exclusive to that particular explanation) are verified, its usually a good indicator that the theory is robust

[Neo.]

if you're going to argue that its unlikely that the universe was perfectly tailored to end up the way it is now, and that therefore it is more likely that there is a god.... then you'd have to grapple with how unlikely it is that whatever version of God came to be was also perfectly tailored to decide to make the universe exactly as it is.

what if god didnt care to make anything and was just lazy. what if god decided not to make humans. you are also presupposing a perfectly tailored god for your worldview, which is as much of a stretch as the perfectly tailored universe argument

im not making an argument for one side or the other at this time

those who believe solely in science in short accuse those who believe in god as having no basis because of no fact and limited knowledge (you can use all the fancy lingo you want, but thats what it boils down to) my point is that the other side is doing the exact same thing, whether they want to admit it or not.

1) Because you can infer some things without being able to test them at the moment. Over time, we've been able to improve our tech to actually do test them, and then either confirm or refute the theory.

2) No theory in science is considered or presented as a fact. That's reserved to scientific laws, which are testable. You should really get familiar with the scientific method if you're interested in arguing about this.

so then how did the universe come about? what do you believe?

[spurraider21]

im not making an argument for one side or the other at this time

those who believe solely in science in short accuse those who believe in god as having no basis because of no fact and limited knowledge. my point is that the other side is doing the exact same thing, whether they want to admit it or not.

i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.

on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way. its an unjustified confidence imo

[Neo.]

scientific law is a statement of what is observable and predictable...often times in physics, this refers to things that can be boiled down into a mathematical expression. ie newton's laws of motion. we know exactly how objects will act when force is applied onto them (when factoring all variables including friction, etc).

a theory is our attempt to explain those phenomena. for a theoretical model to remain a working/viable one, it has to be consistent with all of the available evidence.

basically... a law is a "what" and the theory is the "why" or "how"

i dont know that a theory can necessarily be proven, though with the right technology, you can verify predictions that come from its model... ie how we were able to detect gravitational waves nearly a century after they were predicted as part of einstein's theory of general relativity. very similarly, the detection of the cosmic microwave background ended up verifying some of the claims/predictions of the big bang theory

when testable predictions of a theory (particularly those which appear to be exclusive to that particular explanation) are verified, its usually a good indicator that the theory is robust

so basically, theres an equal amount of actual hard factual proof that there isnt a god to the amount of proof that there is a god. got it

[ElNono]

so then how did the universe come about? what do you believe?

We don't know with certainty just yet.

And this isn't an argument based on faith or "what do you believe", it's based on what we know so far, which is good enough to have competing, sometimes overlapping theories, but not enough to test all their claims.

[Neo.]

i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.

yeah thats completely untrue, as there are plenty who present theories such as the big bang and evolution as an absolute fact. maybe you personally dont push such an agenda, but plenty do.

on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way.

so basically the difference is one uses science to try to give proof, and the other uses a history book to try to give proof. either way, neither side is able to provide undeniable proof, and are in the same boat.

[spurraider21]

so basically, theres an equal amount of actual hard factual proof that there isnt a god to the amount of proof that there is a god. got it

well yeah. by definition, god is supernatural... so there would be no hard evidence for a god, just as there would be no hard evidence against a god. its an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion.

scientists arent out there actively trying to disprove god. that's not their mission. they're out there trying to answer questions about nature/reality.

now you can have evidence against specific god claims... like looking back at some of the claims within the bible re: creation of humans/animals, or noah's ark, etc. but the general concept of A god being the "prime mover" of the universe? yeah, there's no way to prove or disprove that. that's more of a philosophical argument than anything.

[Neo.]

We don't know with certainty just yet.

And this isn't an argument based on faith or "what do you believe", it's based on what we know so far, which is good enough to have competing, sometimes overlapping theories, but not enough to test all their claims.

got it

[ElNono]

i think the difference is that the "other side" just says "i dont know" instead of inventing an answer... ie what exactly caused the big bang? we dont know. and thats where we are until some guys a lot smarter than us figure it out and are able to verify that answer down the line.

on the other hand, theists just assert a catch-all answer that requires no testability and cant be proven or disproven either way. its an unjustified confidence imo

Exactly. That's the god of gaps fallacy. Anything we can't explain, must be god. "don't know" is an unacceptable position, somehow, which is patently false.

Plus, it's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. In other words, you have to present tests to prove it, but logically, that also presents other tests to disprove it.

There's no such thing with deities. It's neither testable nor falsifiable. You either buy into the whole thing on faith, or you don't. As such, it's not science.

[Neo.]

well yeah. by definition, god is supernatural... so there would be no hard evidence for a god, just as there would be no hard evidence against a god. its an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion.

fair enough

scientists arent out there actively trying to disprove god. that's not their mission. they're out there trying to answer questions about nature/reality.

some arent. plenty are.

now you can have evidence against specific god claims... like looking back at some of the claims within the bible re: creation of humans/animals, or noah's ark, etc

what evidence absolutely disproves such things?

but the general concept of A god being the "prime mover" of the universe? yeah, there's no way to prove or disprove that. that's more of a philosophical argument than anything.

again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air.

[spurraider21]

yeah thats completely untrue, as there are plenty who present theories such as the big bang and evolution as an absolute fact. maybe you personally dont push such an agenda, but plenty do.

well the big bang and evolution have mountains of evidence that support those theories, and at this point are not contradicted by any evidence known to us. it would take something quite extraordinary at this point to cast doubt on those theories.

but if you ask somebody "how did the big bang happen" or "how did the conditions giving rise to the big bang come to be" i think any self respecting physicist would say that they dont know, rather than just asserting "a god made it happen"

so basically the difference is one uses science to try to give proof, and the other uses a history book to try to give proof. either way, neither side is able to provide undeniable proof, and are in the same boat.

a) yeah, one side uses science, the other side uses a book
b) i would dispute the description of it being a "history book"
c) i also wouldnt put those two on the same playing field, because the whole purpose of science is to discover or prove truths about reality and nature, whereas the bible (or holy book of choice) just asserts its claims as fact
d) science has proof of all kinds of things. god is by definition something supernatural that cant be proven or disproven, so its not a subject that science would directly grapple with, just like how science would not seek to answer philosophical questions. science answers questions about nature, and is pretty good at doing so, or at least the best tool we have for doing so

[spurraider21]

fair enough



some arent. plenty are.



what evidence absolutely disproves such things?



again, fair enough. to each their own. i have my personal beliefs, but what doesnt make sense to me is when believers in science want to claim that since theres no factual proof of god, that means he absolutely cannot exist, but then want to tell everyone that its a fact that the universe was not created but came into existence out of thin air.

about to head to the dentist. will check back and respond later. been a fun chat so far

[Neo.]

Exactly. That's the god of gaps fallacy. Anything we can't explain, must be god. "don't know" is an unacceptable position, somehow, which is patently false.

same things happen the other way. anything we cant explain, must be a science to it, can't be god.

Plus, it's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. In other words, you have to present tests to prove it, but logically, that also presents other tests to disprove it.

There's no such thing with deities. It's neither testable nor falsifiable. You either buy into the whole thing on faith, or you don't. As such, it's not science.

same the other way. either you believe a god did it, or you believe theres a scientific explanation. theres no middle ground with most such people.

[Neo.]

well the big bang and evolution have mountains of evidence that support those theories, and at this point are not contradicted by any evidence known to us. it would take something quite extraordinary at this point to cast doubt on those theories.

but still no hard evidence. theists can claim theres plenty of evidence that support their beliefs as well. but since there isn't hard evidence, most people who are focused on science dont care to consider their side either.

but if you ask somebody "how did the big bang happen" or "how did the conditions giving rise to the big bang come to be" i think any self respecting physicist would say that they dont know, rather than just asserting "a god made it happen"


a) yeah, one side uses science, the other side uses a book
b) i would dispute the description of it being a "history book"
c) i also wouldnt put those two on the same playing field, because the whole purpose of science is to discover or prove truths about reality and nature, whereas the bible (or holy book of choice) just asserts its claims as fact
d) science has proof of all kinds of things. god is by definition something supernatural that cant be proven or disproven, so its not a subject that science would directly grapple with, just like how science would not seek to answer philosophical questions. science answers questions about nature, and is pretty good at doing so, or at least the best tool we have for doing so

we can go on and on and its all going to go in circles. either way, im not pushing my personal beliefs at this time. i stated clearly what my point was, that many who believe solely in science do the exact same things theists do (discredit the other side for not having hard evidence) yet dont want to admit it.

regardless in the end, one side is right, and the other is wrong, there is no way around that fact. each person much make their own personal choice on what they choose to believe.


and my very original post in this thread is that i dont personally support killing an unborn human fetus because they were raped or are too young to raise a child. someone replied to me saying that an unborn fetus is not a human according to science, which is bologna.

[ElNono]

same things happen the other way. anything we cant explain, must be a science to it, can't be god.

No, not really. Science has pretty strict rules on what gets considered to be a theory or a scientific law.

Nothing is taken on faith. You have to show how somebody else can reproduce your claims, or falsify them. Otherwise, it's not science.

And the lack of a theory at all makes it unknown, which is a perfectly logical and a fine position.

same the other way. either you believe a god did it, or you believe theres a scientific explanation. theres no middle ground with most such people.

Again, not how it works at all. Whether I believe there's a scientific explanation or not, is faith, not science.

Science is me coming up with a theory that attempts to explain how whatever it is works, and providing tests to have somebody else either reproduce or falsify the claim.

Then that theory is scrutinized based on a number of factors. ie: does it respects scientific laws, like thermodynamics, or can parts of it be tested, etc.

It's still not a 'fact' or a scientific law until all claims are testable and reproducible. That's why general relativity is still a theory, despite the bulk of it's claim have been tested to be correct. There are some additional claims we can't test yet.

Now, if there's people that don't know or understand how the scientific method works, then that's not the fault of neither science nor faith. It's an education problem.