Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 8.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 11:32:13 AM

Quote from: dancupid on April 29, 2014, 11:23:21 AM

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

The 'only' way? Really?

Please derive the quadratic equation with the scientific method, or any other mathematical or logical proof.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 11:27:17 AM

Again with the failure to honestly represent the argument.

Ok, let's try it piece-by-piece then.

What is truth?

Truth is 'that which is' and can be represented abstractly through modeling.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 11:18:45 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 11:12:41 AM

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.

I just did.

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 11:12:41 AM

I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

Good for you. Just don't wheel out your accomplishments and paint them as a retort in future. That is appealing to your own authority, which is fallacious.

1) Where? Please quote your rebuttals to points 1 and 2 respectively.

2) I was appealing to authority because, if you don't concede to the sound reasoning I have provided you with, then you might believe my assertion that I'm knowledgable on the subject by interjecting a fallacy of my own. How delightful that you recognize it as such as it gives me hope you might actually understand why points 1 and 2 are correct.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: dancupid on April 29, 2014, 11:23:21 AM

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

Seriously!?!

We used made-up-shit(tm) to explain why things were the way they were. Thunder was someone's God kicking off, lightning, equally so.

Understand?

The ONLY way we have established factual knowledge in order to properly represent a correct understanding of our Universe is by way of the scientific method.

Everything else is either straight-up made-up-shit(tm) or deep-and-meaningful-navel-gazing-nonsense, which is just philosophical made-up-shit(tm) by another name.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Again with the failure to honestly represent the argument.

Ok, let's try it piece-by-piece then.

What is truth?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 11:11:05 AM

Actually it is equally dishonest for anybody to be basing their argument on empty nonsense such as truth', let alone doing an on-the-fly conversion of it to equal 'God'.

You might as well say "Absolutely fluuuum exists" for all the use your argument is. Much in the same way as you are unable to define 'God', you are also unable to define the truth that you are attempting to smoke'n'mirror us with.

But I'm guessing that you're simply from the tired old school of claiming there must be a 'God' because, otherwise, how would you explain the beauty of a flower, or lurve, or morality. You know, subjective-made-up-shit(tm) that sounds all deep and meaningful but is only ever an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

What? Okay, so then now I know to ignore everything you say because, even if true, it's all 'empty nonsense'.

It not an 'on-the-fly' conversion. I'm not proving God then setting it equal to truth, I'm proving truth and setting it equal to god. If you don't get this, then you should call all Mexicans dishonest for calling truth 'la verdad'.

dancupid

hero member

Activity: 955

Merit: 1002

It's easy to prove God exists - you just need a good definition.

Let God be "the sum off all that exists" - and lo!, God exists by definition.
But such a definition doesn't tell me what to do - should I sacrifice virgins and only eat tofu?

Religion deosn't care about the definition - it cares about behaviour and conformity.
Belief is an after the fact justification for why we behave in certain ways.

The question science should be asking is 'why have human beings spontaneously and ubiquitously evolved religious forms of behaviour?'

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 11:12:41 AM

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3.

I just did.

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 11:12:41 AM

I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

Good for you. Just don't wheel out your accomplishments and paint them as a retort in future. That is appealing to your own authority, which is fallacious.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Nemo1024 on April 29, 2014, 10:52:17 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on April 29, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

It is the absolute truth for that specific observer that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

You see what I am doing? The same trick as "turtles all the way down".

And to repost: Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus", perchance? Wink

No, I know how to avoid a 'Tower of Turtles', thanks.

No, I haven't read that.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 10:51:13 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:37:51 AM

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.

Wow, you *really* do place a great deal of stock in your own 'cleverness', shame really, the scare-quotes around that word are there for a reason.

Your point '3' is utterly trite, it is not a clever retort to my remark that you would be better served learning more about the scientific method, if the reason why I suggest such is because the assertions you are making are clearly indicative of someone failing to account properly for the correct application of it as *the* tool for knowledge acquisition.

Either you don't understand the scientific method properly, meaning my suggestion is pertinent, while your point '3' is simply you fallaciously appealing to your own authority or, and this might equally be true, you do understand the scientific method but choose to dishonestly respond as if otherwise while crowing about how 'clever' all and sundry claim you to be, according to you.

Ill tell you what -- rebut points #1 and #2 and I'll concede #3. However, it seems to me that you don't understand the limitations or boundaries of the scientific method, the discipline from which science is derived (philosophy), and how disciplines like mathematics and philosophy can pick up the slack by tackling issues science is ill-equipped to explore.

Point #3 isn't meant to be clever. I am allowed to have a self-esteem and take pride in my accomplishments, thanks.

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Actually it is equally dishonest for anybody to be basing their argument on empty nonsense such as truth', let alone doing an on-the-fly conversion of it to equal 'God'.

You might as well say "Absolutely fluuuum exists" for all the use your argument is. Much in the same way as you are unable to define 'God', you are also unable to define the truth that you are attempting to smoke'n'mirror us with.

But I'm guessing that you're simply from the tired old school of claiming there must be a 'God' because, otherwise, how would you explain the beauty of a flower, or lurve, or morality. You know, subjective-made-up-shit(tm) that sounds all deep and meaningful but is only ever an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:42:42 AM

Quote from: Nemo1024 on April 29, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

It is the absolute truth for that specific observer that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

You see what I am doing? The same trick as "turtles all the way down".

And to repost: Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus", perchance? Wink

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:37:51 AM

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.

Wow, you *really* do place a great deal of stock in your own 'cleverness', shame really, the scare-quotes around that word are there for a reason.

Your point '3' is utterly trite, it is not a clever retort to my remark that you would be better served learning more about the scientific method, if the reason why I suggest such is because the assertions you are making are clearly indicative of someone failing to account properly for the correct application of it as *the* tool for knowledge acquisition.

Either you don't understand the scientific method properly, meaning my suggestion is pertinent, while your point '3' is simply you fallaciously appealing to your own authority or, and this might equally be true, you do understand the scientific method but choose to dishonestly respond as if otherwise while crowing about how 'clever' all and sundry claim you to be, according to you.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Nemo1024 on April 29, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

"It is the absolute truth that everything is relative to an observer, including this statement."

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Everything is relative to an observer, including this statement.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Nemo1024 on April 29, 2014, 10:37:46 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:23:18 AM

1) Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation. For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable. If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

I think you enter a fallacy region here. By the very same logic I can prove that you, "the joint" is a big green blob using mind tricks to appear in a human form. And it'd be interesting to hear your seasoning about "absolute truth"

If someone says, "There is no absolute truth," they are saying, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."

If someone says, "There is more than one absolute truth" or "Truth is relative," then they are saying "It is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth" or "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

You can't escape it; any attempt to deny absolute truth reaffirms its existence.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 10:35:46 AM

^^^ Yum, word salad.

Goodness me you are certainly full of yourself. Shame you are so eminently full of something else too.

Firstly, could you explain to me what your point '3' is meant to be a take-down of? It appears to be solely a way for you to brag about how awesome you were as a student. Doesn't really address anything else though, does it?

You suggested I learn more about the 'scientific method' and 'fallacious argument,' so I'm being equally passive-aggressive.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: the joint on April 29, 2014, 10:23:18 AM

1) Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation. For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable. If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

I think you enter a fallacy region here. By the very same logic I can prove that you, "the joint" is a big green blob using mind tricks to appear in a human form. And it'd be interesting to hear your seasoning about "absolute truth".

Have you read Ludvig Holberg's "Erasmus Montanus" perchance? Wink

cryptodevil

legendary

Activity: 2240

Merit: 1254

Thread-puller extraordinaire

^^^ Yum, word salad.

Goodness me you are certainly full of yourself. Shame you are so eminently full of something else too.

Firstly, could you explain to me what your point '3' is meant to be a take-down of? It appears to be solely a way for you to brag about how awesome you were as a student. Doesn't really address anything else though, does it?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: cryptodevil on April 29, 2014, 02:04:38 AM

Quote from: the joint on April 28, 2014, 03:34:48 PM

It is absolutely possible to reason about god or . . .

No, because if you employ critical thinking and reasoning about the concept of 'God' you swiftly find that the notion falls apart as, in order to maintain the notions required for this topic of conversation, one has to become intellectually dishonest.

What you could say, instead, is, "It is absolutely possible to speculate about God . . ."

Which is just making shit up basically. Anything beyond that falls outside the bounds of intellectual honesty.

Quote from: the joint on April 28, 2014, 03:34:48 PM

any other subject science can't explore including the study of the very large (I.e. the universe as a whole), the very small (subatomic and quantum levels), extremely rare events (e.g. Alien encounters, UFOs, God manifesting the body of a single individual, etc.).

Can't explore? I suspect you misunderstand what the scientific method actually is.

Quote from: the joint on April 28, 2014, 03:34:48 PM

Science, aside from being a method, is simply one of many theories of knowledge acquisition, and by no means is it the best

Actually it is. You're just making false claims now in order to attempt to rubbish science and the scientific method so your ooky-spooky woo can be painted equally as valid a concept. It is not.

I suggest you learn a bit more about both the scientific method and fallacious argument.

Addressing responses to each quote:

1) Actually, God is a logical *necessity*, but unless you're actually curious about why this is, I'll spare you a lengthy explanation. For example, if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable. If you have any doubts about the existence of absolute truth, I can dispell all of them in a few sentences.

2) Please tell me how science can explore something abstract (hint: it can't). I also hope you realize that science carries unfalsifiable (at least by its own methods) assumptions, e.g. we live in a Positivistic Universe. This is particularly interesting because a Positivistic Universe is provably illogical since invoking a Positivistic Universe requires invoking a logical fallacy, namely the assertion that any two relands 'x' and 'y' can actually be absolutely independent of one another; this is wrong.

Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 8. (Read 7917 times)