Does God Exist?

@RexRed,

Quote:

You are talking to a person who has had their lives save about 5 times by doctors. Call that cognitive dissonance if you like while you push your err, faith.

Ok, I understand,
You are making a logical fallacy here.
Because YOU have been 'saved' doesn't mean that everyone is 'saved'
think about all of this and take your time, it is a process!
I also don't think a lot of doctors kill intentionally ( however some do for sure)
The whole thing is more subtle than that! And that makes it scary as well because it means it is designed and done on purpose.
Just read the website I linked to and the papers itself.
I do understand that you don't get it the first time, it really is a process.
Just start reading.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank:
I'm a black and white kinda guy...it comes from a lot of years as a cop.
If you show me with verifiable, repeatable evidence, evidence that anyone can see, I will change my mind insatntly.
My training and expeience tells me that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and goes QUACK...I pre-heat the oven and open up the orange sauce.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

scientific theory is ever proven true for sure

HUP is not a theory...it's a principle...a basic natural law of the universe....it cant be changed and if it were wrong your computer would'nt work...and you wouldn't be here.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
You are talking to a person who has had their lives save about 5 times by doctors. Call that cognitive dissonance if you like while you push your err, faith.

Ok, I understand,
You are making a logical fallacy here.
Because YOU have been 'saved' doesn't mean that everyone is 'saved'
think about all of this and take your time, it is a process!
I also don't think a lot of doctors kill intentionally ( however some do for sure)
The whole thing is more subtle than that! And that makes it scary as well because it means it is designed and done on purpose.
Just read the website I linked to and the papers itself.
I do understand that you don't get it the first time, it really is a process.
Just start reading.

Because my life is saved by doctors at least 5 times over 50 years no one else can... Thanks for clearing that up for me. I am so glad I have someone with such superior cognitive skills helping me understand.

So next time I need a doctor instead I will just pray about it. (cynical)

I am not interested in reading your website, no thanks.

I am not impressed with your critical reasoning skills.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

HUP is not a theory...it's a principle...a basic natural law of the universe....it cant be changed

If it's science, it can be changed. HUP is just a part of a broader scientific theory which can be contradicted by facts (falsifiable). So you can't really use HUP to disprove gods...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

If it's science, it can be changed. HUP is just a part of a broader scientific theory which can be contradicted by facts (falsifiable). So you can't really use HUP to disprove gods...

First,you apparently are not familar with scientific terminology and you need to be to continue this discssion. The word theory in science doese not mean the same as in common usage.
Second, Death is a scientific fact...eventually everyone dies...whens the last time you saw someone live past 130?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

I am quite familiar with the scientific concept of 'theory', thank you very much.

'Every man will die' is not exactly a scientific theory, more like a very well documented fact. But i'll take the bait nevertheless.

It is conceivable that one day the science of medicine could beat death. Thus 'every man will die' is falsifiable.

Many plant species can beat death already.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

If it's science, it can be changed. HUP is just a part of a broader scientific theory which can be contradicted by facts (falsifiable). So you can't really use HUP to disprove gods...

Quote:

I am quite familiar with the scientific concept of 'theory', thank you very much

Well then I must assume that you were purposely trying to be obtuse in that you refered to HUP as a broader scientific theory.
Your thought that one day medicine will beat death is not scientific in that in order to "beat" death you would have to stop time.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Well then I must assume that you were purposely trying to be obtuse in that you refered to HUP as a broader scientific theory.

You are being obtuse. I said is is PART OF a broader theory.

Listen kiddy, if if it science, it makes no claim to certainty. It's as simple as that.

All you can legitimately say is this: 'if HUP is true, then god(s) cannot be omniscient.'

Quote:

Your thought that one day medicine will beat death is not scientific in that in order to "beat" death you would have to stop time.

And who said that was impossible?... Smile

The test if falsifiability is not very demanding: even the slightest theoretical possibility of factual contradiction is taken as a yes. There is a sliiiight theoretical possibility that future science could beat death, or that an eternal human being could appear in some distant future. Therefore death is being spoken of scientifically, when saying 'all men will die'... But if you say: 'death is in fact a rebirth in another world' ... how could that be contradicted by facts, EVER?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

All you can legitimately say is this: 'if HUP is true, then god(s) cannot be omniscient.'

If it's true? If it werent, you wouldnt be here.

Quote:

Listen kiddy, if if it science, it makes no claim to certainty. It's as simple as that.

Uh...how can you say that and expect me to take you seroiusly? Then are MANY certaintuies in science.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

If it's true? If it werent, you wouldnt be here.

So goes the THEORY...

Quote:

Uh...how can you say that and expect me to take you seroiusly? Then are MANY certaintuies in science.

Like what? Facts, yes, but not theory.

1 Reply

There are many things in science which are well established and well documented, but science is always willing to admit that it is wrong if verifiable evidence shows that it is. Science simply changes theory to adapt to the new facts. That's why science works.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

giujohn wrote:

If it's true? If it werent, you wouldnt be here.

YOU WROTE:
So goes the THEORY...

I WROTE

Uh...how can you say that and expect me to take you seroiusly? Then are MANY certainties in science.

YOU WROTE:Like what? Facts, yes, but not theory. ]

If you still think that HUP is a theory and not a fact then there is no reason to contiue the discussion or provide you with any other facts, as you obviously can not distiguish between a principle and a hypothesis.

HUP wasn't invented, it is a basic law of nature that no matter how smart we become or how many technological advancements we achieve we CANNOT violate it.
It is what allows matter to exist. With out it (I say again) YOU-WOULDN'T-BE-HERE

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Exactly. Science's humility towards facts is a strength, not a weakness. It's called empiricism.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Exactly. Science's humility towards facts is a strength, not a weakness. It's called empiricism.

I'm not sure humility plays a role, generally and the definition of empiricism
in the philosophy of science, is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Exactly. Science's humility towards facts is a strength, not a weakness. It's called empiricism.

Really? So you never studied the history or sociology of science?
That is for sure.
Just see it as a human enterprise with lots and lots of errors made along the way.
Even 'scientists' are human you know. They have hidden agenda's, money issues, ego-issues, power issues and the list goes on and on and on.
Nope, the 'scientific method' (which really is a myth!) won't help at all!

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

There are many things in science which are well established and well documented, but science is always willing to admit that it is wrong if verifiable evidence shows that it is. Science simply changes theory to adapt to the new facts. That's why science works.

WRONG!!!
That really is just a fairy tale fed to you.
'science' isn't an open minded adventure AT ALL!
research the history of science and you will find out the reverse is true.
It is an extremeley closed enterprise.
You may not touch upon that religion, you know! Wink

0 Replies

This one is much closer to the truth:

Quote:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Quote:

“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
― Max Planck

Please do some research next time!

0 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Frank:
I'm a black and white kinda guy...it comes from a lot of years as a cop.
If you show me with verifiable, repeatable evidence, evidence that anyone can see, I will change my mind insatntly.
My training and expeience tells me that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and goes QUACK...I pre-heat the oven and open up the orange sauce.

If so...you should be saying that you do not know if gods exist or not in REALITY.

I don't care how much training you have as a cop...there is no evidence you can furnish that gods are impossible.

You MAY BE correct that there are no gods...but you may be incorrect.

I do appreciate you sharing your blind guess on the issue though.

1 Reply

Dawkins said the human eye is wired "the wrong way round", yet biologists have corrected him by pointing out that it only appears to be wired badly, and that if it was wired the way he suggested, we'd all be blind.
Yet Dawkins hasn't corrected himself as far as I know, and is letting his error stand.

Article excerpt- "According to biologist Richard Lumsden, it is critical to have the photoreceptive processes of the rods and cones intimately associated with the pigment layer for another reason, in order to allow the light-sensitive pigment rhodopsin to regenerate.
So if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether! "
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

0 Replies

Does God Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know