| |
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:16 PM |
>Jewish Internet Defense Force OY VEY
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:17 PM |
"OY VEY" remember the 600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 you filthy goy do you think i give a heck |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:18 PM |
oh look the "prove he exists" argument again
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:19 PM |
@naruto quit avoiding eachothers arguments and find the solution |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:21 PM |
"quit avoiding eachothers arguments and find the solution"
the flaw in asking for proof that god exists is the fact that science uses indirect proofs, meaning "prove god exists" would require science to disprove a deity rather than obtaining direct proof of one
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:23 PM |
| I respect others beliefs but I don't respect others. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:24 PM |
"indirect proofs, meaning "prove god exists" would require science to disprove a deity rather than obtaining direct proof of one"
If anything science asks for DIRECT proofs.
As for your statement, you are stating a double negative. That argument has been dismantled several times
-would require science to disprove a deity rather than obtaining direct proof of one-
You cannot prove a double negative.
I can say the flying spaghetti monster exists, and you cannot combat my argument because there is a lack of evidence to support its existence in the first place.
Okay so obviously religion fails to give any exclusive evidence for a deities existence or its 'supernatural' power of its philosophy.
Thats why plenty of people are already dismantling, using architecture and pure logic by presenting cases against the holy books, which has been done successfully.
In my opinion religion is just a philosophy, thats all it is, all it has extra is a 'holy' tag to it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:25 PM |
history*
by geography, archaeology, etc |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:28 PM |
"If anything science asks for DIRECT proofs."
You're dismissing the existence of a null hypothesis which seeks to prove the opposite of the original hypothesis
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:29 PM |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Indirect proofs
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:31 PM |
| >implying wikipedia is an accurate source |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:33 PM |
mods will not ban him at all.
so annoying.
do you have significant evidence to support that statement? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:33 PM |
The problem is religion isn't offering any proofs.
Its really not up to science to go and untangle all of the 'spiritual' and 'pseudo' remnants of religion.
Its up to religion, and its failed to do so both logically and with evidence.
The reason why it is Null hypothesis is because there is no evidence for it to go on the first place |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:34 PM |
Science is not using 'indirect proofs'
1. Religion does not give us any evidence or anything logical to work off of, so we have to go find our own proofs both directly and through theoretically. 2. I don't see religion stepping up to the plate? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:34 PM |
| Crap like this is why Africa exists. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:45 PM |
"Its really not up to science to go and untangle all of the 'spiritual' and 'pseudo' remnants of religion."
Well OP made the claim, he has to make the argument We can agree that we can't speak for science in general, although they still follow the same format
"Its up to religion, and its failed to do so both logically and with evidence."
Religion doesn't have an institutionalized system of proving itself true without referencing the Bible, Torah, etc., and most turn a blind eye to those sources without second thought
"Science is not using 'indirect proofs'"
Science will always use indirect proofs because nothing is absolutely 100% truthful or guaranteed
"1. Religion does not give us any evidence or anything logical to work off of, so we have to go find our own proofs both directly and through theoretically. 2. I don't see religion stepping up to the plate?"
A lack of evidence on religion's side doesn't give way to science claiming it untrue; if science were to prove it false, they'd have to fail at proving it true
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:47 PM |
"Religion doesn't have an institutionalized system of proving itself true without referencing the Bible, Torah, etc., and most turn a blind eye to those sources without second thought"
Thats the problem.
Religion doesn't have an institutionalized system of proving itself correct.
The bible, Torah, Qu'ran contradict each other often.
Religion is in-heredity just a philosophy.
A philosophy at that is a way of thinking.
You could argue which philosophy is more effective,ethnic, ect. (via capitalism vs communism, economics, way of life)
But you cannot prove one true from the other or not. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:48 PM |
"A lack of evidence on religion's side doesn't give way to science claiming it untrue; if science were to prove it false, they'd have to fail at proving it true"
You cannot prove a double negative. I can say the spaghetti monster exists, there is a lack of evidence to argue that case.
One side offers its case. The other side offer its case. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:49 PM |
"But you cannot prove one true from the other or not."
I'll agree with this It's one of many doubts I have about religion as a whole
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 06:55 PM |
In my opinion.
Religion is just a 'philosophy'
its a way of thinking.
someone could be a capitalist someone could be a communist.
you cannot prove one 'correct' or 'false'
but what you can do is try to compare them ethnically, effective wise, and other things.
like philosophies, there is no system to administer them right or wrong. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 07:00 PM |
"You cannot prove a double negative. I can say the spaghetti monster exists, there is a lack of evidence to argue that case."
You wouldn't investigate the parameters of the existence of the spaghetti monster, you would first look for factors disproving its existence Never mind there being a lack of evidence to argue the former, if you can disprove the opposite, the evidence arguing for it would have to contradict the evidence against it or otherwise the evidence against it would be accepted
Plus the evidence that argues for its existence could come at any time and, if able to contradict the opposite, would then be accepted until the process repeats, except in the opposite fashion
This is why theories can be constantly revised without any mismatched information, because the original is never accepted as true
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 07:03 PM |
theories and laws are made until proven wrong.
the original is accepted true until if something contradicts it.
and there is no evidence to begin with for the existence of god so one miracle evidence probably won't change the tables.
we know the law of gravity.
we aren't going to magically change that law |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 07:05 PM |
"we aren't going to magically change that law"
>until if something contradicts it.
That's the point Maybe it's not exactly applicable to religion, but it also leaves science open to any inconsistencies as well
"The Sauza so malo...", and then she said "You need to grow up." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Mar 2015 07:10 PM |
The problem is what you are stating is known as the "I know that I know nothing" paradox.
Is there is something that doesn't match with the current scientific theory, then it will be fixed or built into a whole different theory.
Religion cannot do that without breaking its fundamental rules.
If I were to tell you that dinosaurs weren't real. Even though there is alot of evidence to prove that. Your argument would be "In the future there could be evidence to disprove that"
1. You do not have immediate evidence for that explanation 2. You do not have any proof that the 'evidence' that will be brought up from 'the future' will even exist
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|