Community >> View Post
·
Post By
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 at 01:55:26 pm EDT (Viewed 393 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 at 09:14:47 am EDT (Viewed 390 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This one of those things that cannot be proven or disproven by science...at least at this point.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      God's existence doesn't need to be disproven by science. God can be disproven by logic. First and foremost, the burden of proof of existence is on those who make the claim for something's existence, not on everyone else to prove a negative. I can say Nonsense Man and Zip Woman, both of whom I just made up, exist. Is it up to you to scour the entire universe for these two entities and only if you don't find them anywhere across all time periods can you claim that I was wrong or lied? Of course not. You don't assume the existence of Nonsense Man and Zip Woman and any infinite number of other made-up possibilities until evidence disproving them presents itself. You know dogs, spaghetti, and cell phones exist because you've experienced them. You safely assume Nonsense Man and Zip Woman don't exist because you've never experienced them in any way and the nature of the existence doesn't make sense to you.



    Quote:
    I actually think Science should not try to prove or disprove God, because it cant.


Science can't because God is undefined. People give God vague attributes, but you don't really know what God is. How can you prove something when you don't even know what it is?


    Quote:
    As for taking things on faith...one could argue we take science on faith. Because have you ever actually felt a tachyon particle? Nope you have not. Theory predicts them, because the mathematics that we use and know works for "some" things predicts/uses this in some models. But truthfully accepting this is in some ways faith. True its faith in something that has been proven to work...USUALLY.


What you just described is the opposite of faith. You don't have to have faith in "something that has been proven." Proof is the opposite of faith. As for using tachyon particles as an example, either you're being disingenuous or you're not understanding the nature of science. Tachyon particles are a hypothetical. Hypotheses are proposed and then tested. The hypothesis is not automatically taken as true. The existence of tachyon particles has not been proven by science, so no, I don't know that tachyon particles exist and it's not a matter of faith.


    Quote:
    Because as we learn more models change, adapt and get better...sometimes discarding things (like how the amount of dark matter in the universe is a lot lower now that they found brown stars).


Yes, science is a continuous process of improving knowledge. Science isn't saying that what we know right now is necessarily true. It's just saying that those things that have been repeatedly tested and proven is the best we know right now what appears to be true. That's still the opposite of faith though, which just says believe regardless of what might contradict that belief.


    Quote:
    Now where science proves superior imo is that this is part of its basic set of principles...that its built on building blocks and needs to question itself and these blocks everytime it learns something new. It is aware of its own inherent weaknesses and tries to correct as best it can....when APPLIED correctly. Some scientists unfortunately so badly want to prove their own beliefs/theories that they forget this.


That some people do it wrong is not an invalidation of the scientific method. People make mistakes and the error is in the people, not the agreed-upon proper process of science.


    Quote:
    But is short...science is in some ways just as "faith based" as religion. It's improvement imo however comes from its basic principle of questioning its own assumptions at all times.


Again, that is exactly what makes it not in any way "just as faith based." That is exactly what makes it the opposite of faith.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Ehhh...Agree men have surely messed with it. Not sure just because whats in the books means the writers were homophobes...there is a lot more to whoever they were than just that. That's too easy a label. Those using anything in it to hurt gay people...those are the homophobes.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Sure, the authors of those particular passages were more than homophobes, but they were also at the least homophobes.



    Quote:
    Or they had some other agenda.


Well, if that was the case, using the promotion of murdering gay people for whatever else the agenda was makes them even worse people.





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software