Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

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 01:18:40 pm CDT (Viewed 311 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 at 08:14:47 am CDT (Viewed 389 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          1) Humanity isn't wicked.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Well...actually we kinda are. It's just a matter of whos calling who wicked. A lot of people who post on here sure call trump wicked. (and not saying he isn't ;P)

      Quote:

        Quote:
        In the context of this discussion, Ancient One is saying humanity is not INHERENTLY wicked, ala original sin, and his proof are infants who lack willful malevolence. He was not saying that there are no wicked humans at all.

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              2) If you want to demonstrate that god has forbidden ANYTHING, first you have to demonstrate that god exists.

            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. 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. 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).


This is not really true. A hypothesis can be made on the existence of a given particle based on mathmatics. That is a basis though. Then it can be tested, sometimes not for quite a long time but it can be. And one can still often accumulate evidence for the existence of a thing because of how it interacts with other aspects of the physical world and ruling out other possibilities.

The last part you have to be careful with. Science is self correcting. That is different than faith. It does not mean the original material was wrong either. It may require modification, but one cannot wait for all data to be known. All Theories etc. can be invalidated in principle. Does not mean they will be though. A model may change but most of the big things have not been undermined in the least.

Science for instance would hypothesize Dark Matter and the amount based on observations, calculations and so on. But things changed as more data comes into play. That is how science is supposed to work. I have not heard of the Brown star thing. I will need to look into that.

Faith is believing in something where there may be no basis for it at all. That is never how science work. Every hypothesis comes from previous work. It may not be true at all, but it is based on a foundation.

God cannot directly be demonstrated because it is not clear what the definition that is being worked from. God is different to each person. One could provide evidence against a given idea of God from a given faith. Make it less likely that such a being exists or more likely for instance.

But some people believe that a summation of natural forces would be God. That would be very different than the personal God many worship, but it would be in some line with science. Things just get merky.

It is true that science is a naturalistic approach and assumes naturalistic explanation for events. Supernatural events are not really explained under it. However, to date no credible evidence of the supernatural has really come forward, that I know about. One would expect a supernatural entity, even if it is beyond naturalistic explanation, could be observed on its impact on the world. Seeing an echo or a gap or something.


    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.


To a point, but the last part does not invalidate science or the approach. That people do things wrong because they are purposefully doing it or they made an error does not hurt the whole scientific method.

Science is also self correcting. Sometimes it is slow in that area but it does get there. And it may take quite a while before it does. Scientists are people.

However, science and the various studies that are done well try to deal with various aspects that define faith. Numerous biases that humans have by just being human. Science attempts to address these if at all possible. Religion embraces them. It is what they do.


    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.


It is not faith based at all. Unless we stretch the definition of faith out until it is not really recognizable.

I could worship a cow as a supreme being. And believe it and have faith in it. Somebody could test the cow and find it to be a normal cow. I would not change. The method for science would be to start with (in this situation) that the cow is probably a normal cow unless evidence is shown otherwise. The person of faith already assumes the cow is divine.

A stupid example, but along the lines. Faith has its place but it is a very different sphere that does not overlap with science or scientific study.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      How do the faithful, who have the burden of proof, prove the existence of God? They can't. God just happens to lack any property available to the senses. God can't be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. If I tell you that Nonsense Man has these exact same properties - he can't be sensed in any way, he is omniscient and omnipotent, and Nonsense Man created the universe and humankind, he would have the exact same characteristics of God. On what logical grounds can you tell me that God exists and Nonsense Man doesn't? None.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Here are all the different modes of existence: the physical (mass or energy and any associative properties like size, color, etc.), concepts/ideas (categorizations, fiction, mathematics, sentences), actions/events (things that the other two categories do). God only fits one of these modes, that of an idea (fiction). Of course that is not the mode the faithful claim for God, and yet, God fits no other category. What then does it even mean for God to exist?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Ancient One also already made this very pertinent point against the existence of God here:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            https://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=community-2017081621523401&layout=thread

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  But again, the bible was written by men. They, in their homophobia, wrote verses that were homophobic in the 7th century BCE, and haven't become any less homophobic in the two and a half millennia since.

                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.







Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 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