Yes I agree. God exists.
This makes me very happy.
Now that you understand that God exists, please start formulating some theories that we can use to prove some of His attributes.
Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 202. (Read 901515 times)
Yes I agree. God exists.
This makes me very happy.
Now that you understand that God exists, please start formulating some theories that we can use to prove some of His attributes.
Not really hate it, it's just there are some practices and attitudes of this guys that are confusing and to no jive with what it should present
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
1. Cause and effect; - you don't have cause for God. 1st down, two to go.
2. Complex universe; - yes it is, so are other universes. 2nd down, one to go.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.
1. God exists outside of the area where cause and affect apply to Him. Cause and effect are creations of His that apply to this universe. They help us to see for a fact that He exists.
2. If there are other universes, they are completely different than ours. If they weren't, they would simply be extensions of ours. If other universes exist, they were created by God, and in their own way lend credence to God in the same way that our complex universe does.
3. Evolution is not fact. Cause and effect says that things were programmed. Therefore, complex things that came from simple things were programmed by Something even more complex than it all. Because of this, complex doesn't really come from simple.
How retarded can you get? Keep on showing us.
1. You are proving that he exist and you are assuming he exist (outside of our universe) and rules of your proof do not apply to him. Does this make sense to you?
2. You are not getting it. Complexity of OUR universe has no correlation on the existence of God. You assumed there is a correlation.
Now you are not getting it. Nowhere in our understanding or knowledge of the things of the universe do we find greater complexity coming from lesser complexity. We might have some ideas that this happens. We are looking hard for this to have happened. But we don't have any proof that it has happened.A grain of sand is complex in its atomic makeup. A human being is far more complex in his atomic makeup. Thus, a human being could never come from a grain of sand without something even more complex than both making it so. This alone means that evolution is not true, but that God is true. When you add cause and effect to the whole thing, we see that God is true by the cause and effect action that has produced us thousands of years after the beginning.
3. It is pretty close to a fact. Physical evidence is overwhelming. DNA testing makes it practically a fact.
Again, you are injecting God creation into proving that he exists with your 'programming' argument.
What are you talking about? Whatever it is that you are talking about, if it is pretty close to fact, it is NOT fact. Only if it is fact is it fact. If DNA testing makes it practically a fact, that means that DNA testing doesn't quite make it fact. This means that whatever it is that you are talking about hasn't been shown to be fact by DNA testing.Again, you are injecting God creation into proving that he exists with your 'programming' argument.
Since God has been proven by science, we can see that whatever facts there are come from God.
You have to start with an assumption that he does not exist, AND then reason based on the evidence that he exist.
When you start, you start without science. Then, you start to invent science. You see that your inventing is slightly more complex than if you hadn't invented. Then you realize that the world around you is way more complex than your inventing. Then you realize that God must exist to make the complexity that is way beyond what you can invent. Then you expand your science to the point where even it proves that God exists.This is the thing that has happened in modern science. Modern scientists, for their own reasons, don't like the idea of God. That's why they are promoting inconclusive theories to be truth. They are hoping that if they can make their inconclusive theroies to be accepted enough, God will simply go away.
Things don't work like that. Scientific law has proven God exists. When more of the theories are proven to be laws, they will prove more things about God. If they don't, they will either remain inconclusive theories, or they will be dropped even as theories.
Not assume that he exist and look for evidence that he created the world to prove that he exist. Your efforts are pointless because you already assumed he exists before you even started your 'proof'.
int godExist = false;
if (!godExist) {
// oh shit he does exist
// repent, give all your money to church etc.
} else {
// yeah, I was right, I could not find any evidence for his existence
// burn the Quran, light it with the bible.
}
int godExist = false;
if (!godExist) {
// oh shit he does exist
// repent, give all your money to church etc.
} else {
// yeah, I was right, I could not find any evidence for his existence
// burn the Quran, light it with the bible.
}
There is no assumption in the scientific facts/laws that prove God exists. People who understand that God exists might have all kinds of assumptions about His character. But there aren't any assumptions about the fact of His existence. That God exists is fact... not assumption. Sounds to me like you are assuming that God doesn't exist after science has proven that He does exist. You don't make any sense.
Madeline Albright (former secretary of state) says that there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary...
This is the type of shit that pisses me off... Using religion to push crazy bullshit someone pulled out of their ass
This is the type of shit that pisses me off... Using religion to push crazy bullshit someone pulled out of their ass
I agree with you on this one. Look at Iowa. Cruz only won because of religion. All they could talk about was the Angelic voters. And he praised god more then any other time knowing that the state can be won by religious voters.
Madeline Albright (former secretary of state) says that there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary...
This is the type of shit that pisses me off... Using religion to push crazy bullshit someone pulled out of their ass
This is the type of shit that pisses me off... Using religion to push crazy bullshit someone pulled out of their ass
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
1. Cause and effect; - you don't have cause for God. 1st down, two to go.
2. Complex universe; - yes it is, so are other universes. 2nd down, one to go.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.
1. God exists outside of the area where cause and affect apply to Him. Cause and effect are creations of His that apply to this universe. They help us to see for a fact that He exists.
2. If there are other universes, they are completely different than ours. If they weren't, they would simply be extensions of ours. If other universes exist, they were created by God, and in their own way lend credence to God in the same way that our complex universe does.
3. Evolution is not fact. Cause and effect says that things were programmed. Therefore, complex things that came from simple things were programmed by Something even more complex than it all. Because of this, complex doesn't really come from simple.
How retarded can you get? Keep on showing us.
1. You are proving that he exist and you are assuming he exist (outside of our universe) and rules of your proof do not apply to him. Does this make sense to you?
2. You are not getting it. Complexity of OUR universe has no correlation on the existence of God. You assumed there is a correlation.
3. It is pretty close to a fact. Physical evidence is overwhelming. DNA testing makes it practically a fact.
Again, you are injecting God creation into proving that he exists with your 'programming' argument.
You have to start with an assumption that he does not exist, AND then reason based on the evidence that he exist.
Not assume that he exist and look for evidence that he created the world to prove that he exist. Your efforts are pointless because you already assumed he exists before you even started your 'proof'.
int godExist = false;
if (!godExist) {
// oh shit he does exist
// repent, give all your money to church etc.
} else {
// yeah, I was right, I could not find any evidence for his existence
// burn the Quran, light it with the bible.
}
The highlighted red above is about right. Religion like anything else now a days is a business not something to believe in. The last time i went to church all I could hear was donate donate donate. Mormons seems to be the worst when it comes to taking money. Most places they do not even have a church. They set up in a hotel or something like that and still collect money.
Religion is a business anymore. The ones with the worst attitudes are the Caholics. I just love when they talk about not judging other and the first time someone does something wrong they are the first to judge. They always seem to be so contradictive. If anyone wants atheists to believe give them proof. And I dont mean a book either. Or artifacts that could have belonged to anyone back in the day.
Know what is funny about alot of this? There were old inscriptions found on cave walls, writings in some of the first books, clay tablets that had inscriptions on them. These objects were found all over the world from all different cultures and sometimes thousands of years apart. Do you know what all of they pictured and inscribed about?
Aliens. They all pictured UFO shaped objects and people will long bodies. Maybe these are the gods everyone is talking about. There is more proof that Aliens exist then there is that god exists. Yet everyone looks to a god that may be something that most people do not believe in.
What if all you Christians found out that it all was a lie? What would you all do then? Turn what they call Evil?
... And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?
My guess is BADecker thinks Jesus and Moses will drop down from heaven and Mohammed will fly down on his white horse and the three will do the Armageddon thing.
My money is Mohammed. He will chop Moses head off in no time and make Jesus his bitch.
The two will live happily forever, fucking each other five times a day (in the direction of Mecca of course).
Long before entropy will have come close to being complete, Jesus will come with His Heavenly Hosts, send the devil and Mohammad to Hell, and you along with them if you will not turn and accept Jesus as your Savior.
See I was right. I can read his tiny brain like an open book.
What is really amazing is that somebody as intelligent as you can be so right about me and so wrong about God.
... And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?
My guess is BADecker thinks Jesus and Moses will drop down from heaven and Mohammed will fly down on his white horse and the three will do the Armageddon thing.
My money is Mohammed. He will chop Moses head off in no time and make Jesus his bitch.
The two will live happily forever, fucking each other five times a day (in the direction of Mecca of course).
Long before entropy will have come close to being complete, Jesus will come with His Heavenly Hosts, send the devil and Mohammad to Hell, and you along with them if you will not turn and accept Jesus as your Savior.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
So what's the cause of God? And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?
God is outside of the operation of cause and effect, except where He wants to be within it.
Nobody knows what might happen in the case of 100% entropy. Nobody knows if such a thing could ever exist. It's like absolute zero. We can conceive of the idea of absolute zero, but we have never reached such coldness, and we don't know if anything could actually get there.
Why do you ask me these questions? Go back to school and ask your teachers. Or Google it.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.
It's impossible to make him understand! Though it's so easy to see that life forms evolve into things more complex! And so are also stars or planets. Not only life.
It's impossible to make him understand that entropy is linked to order and energy, not to complexity. That those two notions are NOT correlated.
How dense are you, anyway?
Cause and effect is law. Evolution is barely theory. Law trumps theory, because law is fact while theory is not necessarily fact, and may only be fiction.
Cause and effect is programming. Programming means that greater complexity brought lesser complexity into happening, even if it was through even lesser complexity.
The fact that entropy has to do with order and energy doesn't have anything to do with the fact that entropy is a reduction in complexity.
You need to get back to your studies.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
1. Cause and effect; - you don't have cause for God. 1st down, two to go.
2. Complex universe; - yes it is, so are other universes. 2nd down, one to go.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.
1. God exists outside of the area where cause and affect apply to Him. Cause and effect are creations of His that apply to this universe. They help us to see for a fact that He exists.
2. If there are other universes, they are completely different than ours. If they weren't, they would simply be extensions of ours. If other universes exist, they were created by God, and in their own way lend credence to God in the same way that our complex universe does.
3. Evolution is not fact. Cause and effect says that things were programmed. Therefore, complex things that came from simple things were programmed by Something even more complex than it all. Because of this, complex doesn't really come from simple.
How retarded can you get? Keep on showing us.
Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses
What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...
You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...
Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...
Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion
When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!
If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit
Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.
Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.
Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.
There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.
You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.
Science has always been about consensus... you still do not understand what "theory" means in science...
Everything in science starts out as a hypothesis... including evolution... the hypothesis was evolution by the process of natural selection... this was debated, analyzed, reworded, etc for 300 years... it is currently accepted by 99% of scientists... making it the consensus theory of how humans evolved
A theory will never become a law because the two are not in the same category of things... you cannot have a "law of evolution" because the theory of evolution is too encompassing... a law can only be one specific aspect, while evolution covers 100+ aspects...
We already refer to certain aspects of the theory of evolution as laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
1) Law of Segregation (the "First Law")
2) Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law")
3) Law of Dominance (the "Third Law")
These are 3 of the laws guiding the genetic branch of evolution theory... evolution is a fact, it has been proven
To compare, The Big Bang Theory that you mentioned, is less of a fact, more hypothesis... it is regarded as a theory because it is the best explanation of events that anyone on this planet has come up with... it could certainly be proven incorrect, and the chances of that are fairly high... unlike evolution, which has been proven to be a true and factual representation of events (as well as anything can be proven in science)
For contrast, Intelligent Design is not a theory... it is a hypothesis... it presents no facts that can be tested, and the hypothesis is not falsifiable... no scientists accept the hypothesis as a theory... it is not even considered science, but pseudoscience...
Quote
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.
Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.
Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
P.S. Please quit babbling nonsense about Hitler and Germans, you already lost as I explained above
You are so wrong in much of this. Theory is simply an attempt to make sense out of something. It is not law. It is possibility. In some cases it might be very probable. But it has not been proven. That's why it is theory and not law. When it is not law, it is not necessarily truth and fact. If it were truth and fact, it would be law. Keep on guessing about the theories until they are proven to be laws, or proven that they cannot even be theories.
People talk about all kinds of things in these threads. When I make a good point using referrence to Hitler, why do you call it babbling?
I never realized how weird some of you guys became. You would rather use consensus of non-facts than use facts. What happened when you were kids? Were the superheros in the comic books really real for you? Some of you are simply crazy.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
Again we're coming back to that...
How are those three laws proven for you?
Why those particular aspects of science seem true for you?
Because those laws are proven with less precision than quantum physics right now...
These three laws are and have been proven for me just like they have for you. They are proven by science. And the fact that they have been proven is that they are called laws, not theories.
Quantum anything is theory. This means that it has not been proven. This means that it is not law.
Google it.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
So what's the cause of God? And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.
It's impossible to make him understand! Though it's so easy to see that life forms evolve into things more complex! And so are also stars or planets. Not only life.
It's impossible to make him understand that entropy is linked to order and energy, not to complexity. That those two notions are NOT correlated.
Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses
What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...
You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...
Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...
Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion
When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!
If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit
Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.
Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.
Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.
There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.
You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.
Science has always been about consensus... you still do not understand what "theory" means in science...
Everything in science starts out as a hypothesis... including evolution... the hypothesis was evolution by the process of natural selection... this was debated, analyzed, reworded, etc for 300 years... it is currently accepted by 99% of scientists... making it the consensus theory of how humans evolved
A theory will never become a law because the two are not in the same category of things... you cannot have a "law of evolution" because the theory of evolution is too encompassing... a law can only be one specific aspect, while evolution covers 100+ aspects...
We already refer to certain aspects of the theory of evolution as laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
1) Law of Segregation (the "First Law")
2) Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law")
3) Law of Dominance (the "Third Law")
These are 3 of the laws guiding the genetic branch of evolution theory... evolution is a fact, it has been proven
To compare, The Big Bang Theory that you mentioned, is less of a fact, more hypothesis... it is regarded as a theory because it is the best explanation of events that anyone on this planet has come up with... it could certainly be proven incorrect, and the chances of that are fairly high... unlike evolution, which has been proven to be a true and factual representation of events (as well as anything can be proven in science)
For contrast, Intelligent Design is not a theory... it is a hypothesis... it presents no facts that can be tested, and the hypothesis is not falsifiable... no scientists accept the hypothesis as a theory... it is not even considered science, but pseudoscience...
Quote
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.
Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.
Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
P.S. Please quit babbling nonsense about Hitler and Germans, you already lost as I explained above
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
Again we're coming back to that...
How are those three laws proven for you?
Why those particular aspects of science seem true for you?
Because those laws are proven with less precision than quantum physics right now...
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses
What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...
You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...
Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...
Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion
When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!
If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit
Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.
Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.
Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.
There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.
You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.
Jump to: