User Controls
Poll: Is God real?
-
Yes
- Bugz ,
- kroz ,
- livingelegy ,
- Obbe ,
- CandyRein ,
- Sudo ,
- Technologist ,
- Fonaplats ,
- DontTellEm ,
- Ghost ,
- cigreting ,
- Number13 ,
- -SpectraL ,
- Nil
- No
- Maybe, idk
Is God real?
-
2020-11-02 at 4 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 4:01 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Science is literally not equipped to determine whether or not a god exists. It's a system for explaining the root causes of natural phenomena. God is an inherently supernatural premise.
What? That's literally just your interpretation. There is the 28 grams or whatever that can't be quantified when you take apart the human body and people think unaccounted for particles are evidence of a soul. The search for God and the curiosity of science are interchangable subjects, spirituality is the supernatural.
I know you like to play devils advocate and troll peoples but this is beneath you Lucille, pick your battles. -
2020-11-02 at 4:02 AM UTCedited for privacyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-11-02 at 4:06 AM UTCedited for privacyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-11-02 at 4:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo What? That's literally just your interpretation. There is the 28 grams or whatever that can't be quantified when you take apart the human body and people think unaccounted for particles are evidence of a soul. The search for God and the curiosity of science are interchangable subjects, spirituality is the supernatural.
I know you like to play devils advocate and troll peoples but this is beneath you Lucille, pick your battles.
Did you just "The Dude" me and then tell me to pick my battles? "That's just like your opinion, man."
One of the basic assumptions of science is that all phenomena have a natural explanation. Science is fundamentally incompatible with anything supernatural.
Originally posted by netstat wrong, science proves that god doesn't exist and religious people are simply delusional
wrong, science proves it
It's true, you are right and I am wrong. I was just playing the devil's advocate, of course. -
2020-11-02 at 4:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo What? That's literally just your interpretation. There is the 28 grams or whatever that can't be quantified when you take apart the human body and people think unaccounted for particles are evidence of a soul. The search for God and the curiosity of science are interchangable subjects, spirituality is the supernatural.
I know you like to play devils advocate and troll peoples but this is beneath you Lucille, pick your battles.
That 28 grams shit is pop science and not actually true. Hasn't been replicated. -
2020-11-02 at 4:22 AM UTCYou totally eat 8 spiders a year in your sleep though
-
2020-11-02 at 4:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Did you just "The Dude" me and then tell me to pick my battles? "That's just like your opinion, man."
One of the basic assumptions of science is that all phenomena have a natural explanation. Science is fundamentally incompatible with anything supernatural.
Oh so we're declaring what we believe universal assumptions of science are now? Thank you for clarifying Dr. Nobel deScience Guy I forgot you had the power to fedorically degree universal laws and assumptions of science that literally span the universe.
This is going nowhere and is euphorically unenlightened. Anything is possible niggo. Believe in yourselfThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-11-02 at 4:31 AM UTCGod might exist, but yours certainly doesn't.
-
2020-11-02 at 4:32 AM UTCedited for privacy
-
2020-11-02 at 4:32 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 4:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Oh so we're declaring what we believe universal assumptions of science are now?
I'm just declaring what the universal assumptions of science are, which make it an unfit tool for addressing issues pertaining to the existence of god. Doesn't mean god isn't real, doesn't mean science is useless, just means science can't prove it because it's outside the scope of what science is meant to address. Any "science" that could address the issue of god would not be science by our modern definition of it. Words have meanings. -
2020-11-02 at 4:36 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 4:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Show me where it is written in your ANCHUNT SCIENCE TOME
J-just google "basic assumptions of science". They are the foundation and the guiding principles that lead all scientific thought. If god exists, science was only ever intended to explain his creations - not god himself. -
2020-11-02 at 4:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai You can prove something doesn't exist by proving that conditions are such that it cannot exist.
no, when someone doesnt provide proof for his positive claim, the claim is assumed to be untrue by default. this is called the null hypothesis.
the uneducated do it the other way around and assume every crackpot theory true until it is disproved. -
2020-11-02 at 4:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Dude, everything has an ESSENCE of a divine being, do you know how thin you spread yourself when you do that? When you are all powerful and incomprehensible you are literally making everything at once. It's not for me to question the design, just to admire it and be grateful
not following. How am I spreading myself thinly? they're not accepting of God so I simplified it in that sense. and yes in the Christian faith that may have been a sin or wrong doing.
Honestly I can't do anything right it seems. or I'm too neutral based these days. -
2020-11-02 at 4:50 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 4:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai I'm just declaring what the universal assumptions of science are, which make it an unfit tool for addressing issues pertaining to the existence of god. Doesn't mean god isn't real, doesn't mean science is useless, just means science can't prove it because it's outside the scope of what science is meant to address. Any "science" that could address the issue of god would not be science by our modern definition of it. Words have meanings.
These six assumptions are common to all the disciplines, to all scientists:
Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. …
We can know nature. …
All phenomena have natural causes. …
Nothing is self evident. …
Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. …
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
https://www.news24.com/news24/MyNews24/Understanding-science-scientific-assumptions-20140627
Ok so you were wrong. Please don't be hard on yourself.
I'm really trying not to explode because I'm self aware enough to realize everything about this conversation, especially WHO WE BOTH ARE makes it even more ridiculous and it's funny but also amazing. I Love you and that's proof that God exists because neither of us should be capable of Love. -
2020-11-02 at 4:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev no, when someone doesnt provide proof for his positive claim, the claim is assumed to be untrue by default. this is called the null hypothesis.
the uneducated do it the other way around and assume every crackpot theory true until it is disproved.
None of this changes the fact that you can prove that something doesn't exist by proving it cannot exist though. "X cannot exist" is a positive claim that one can provide evidence for, and when proven necessitates the acceptance that "X doesn't exist" is true. For example you could prove that a proposed stable element does not exist by showing that the physical properties of the proposed stable element defy the laws of physics.
