Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN
edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?
You now know the fact..
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 341. (Read 845572 times)
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?
Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?
Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups
Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?
Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups
By proving its inverse true.
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?
I use the words that I do because they serve a specific purpose(s), namely consistency and poignancy.
I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?
Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?
Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups
Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?
Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups
Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:
Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
Quote
In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).
Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.png
Christopher Hitchens comes up short on this issue for he fails to consider logical falsification.
Hitchens was wrong, and if he were still alive I'd love for him to provide physical evidence for support of his statement (rather than the logical basis he would undoubtedly defer to).
Edit: By the way, I'm a huge fan of Hitchens with respect to his political commentary and his anti-dogmatic stance about religion.
Edit 2: Yet, based upon the quote, do you think Hitchens would dismiss, then, the non-empirical assumptions of science? Science (well, at least classical physics) depends upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe, an assumption for which there is not, nor could there ever be, any physical evidence. Empirical falsification of this assumption would require empirical data collected via observation in a Universe totally void of observers, leading to an irreconcilable contradiction. Logical falsification of a Postivistic Universe is amazingly simple.
Lets pretend for a moment that the sky above reflects that which is below, in this case, show me earth above, without pointing to the ball you stand on..
BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
The product of intelligent design is a mental construct.
If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true.
And for at least 500 years, advanced freemasons have known that the universe is mental. Thanks in part to the emerald tablets of Thoth
Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:
Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
Quote
In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).
Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.png
BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
The product of intelligent design is a mental construct.
If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true.
It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.
There are different kinds of falsifiability. Empirical falsifiability is only one of them. Logical falsifiability is another.
It is impossible to empirically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe wielded by science.
However, it is possible to logically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe by proving its inverse to be logically true (i.e. we do not live in a Positivistic Universe).
Similarly, claims that intelligent design is not empirically falsifiable are true, but insignificant. Intelligent design can be proven true by proving its inverse false, or could be falsified if its inverse were proven logically true.
BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..
It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.
You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.
Yes, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to the consideration that I was making.
That consideration is this: A person who believes that a lack of empirical evidence for intelligent design is valid enough to discredit it invokes a contradiction in that the same person is unwilling to apply the same scrutiny as he does with regards to intelligent design to the empirically unfalsifiable assertion of the method which he claims supports his belief.
So, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant because the point I'm emphasizing is an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who deny a belief in the existence of intelligent design based upon a lack of physical evidence.
You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.
Edit: Oh look, it's intelligent snow. Snow is intelligent in that it can produce trillions of fragments of frozen water, fragments that are symetrical, and who's points can be counted, so yes, snow is an intelligent design.. without the brain to know so.
Edit: Oh look, it's intelligent snow. Snow is intelligent in that it can produce trillions of fragments of frozen water, fragments that are symetrical, and who's points can be counted, so yes, snow is an intelligent design.. without the brain to know so.
To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?
...That's not what I said.
To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?
Which god did science prove exists?
SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
LOL! SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.
Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:
Quote
In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).
Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.
But it is less than nothing when compared with the glory of eternity that I will be raised to in the resurrection.
Why live a highly suspect wishful thinking lie promoted by questionable snakeoil salesman? Why not admit your the same as everyone else and haven't the foggiest idea what will happen when you die?
I know what happens when we die: We experience life as it was before we were conceived.
Which god did science prove exists?
SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
LOL! SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.
Which god did science prove exists?
SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
LOL! SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck!
I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.
Jump to: