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 4:56 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 4:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo 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 5:02 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai 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.
you can show me a white swan every day until we are pensioners on our deathbed, that will never prove that black swans cannot exist. however, thats not your job. the burden of proof would be mine to present a black swan. if i fail to do so, the logical conclusion is to assume my claim is false. same thing with a god, it is a theists job to prove it exists, not your job to prove he doesnt exist.
our understanding of the laws of physics continues to evolve and every one of its conclusions are tentative by nature. this is how science works. -
2020-11-02 at 5:05 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:06 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:07 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:07 AM UTCedited for privacy
-
2020-11-02 at 5:08 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev you can show me a white swan every day until we are pensioners on our deathbed, that will never prove that black swans cannot exist.
Correct. Which is why I wouldn't do it by showing you white swans, I'd do it by showing you that a gene for black feathers cannot exist. Or that it's impossible for the color black to exist. Because I'm not talking about showing you white swans, I'm talking about showing you that the underlying principles which govern the appearance of swans do not allow for the existence of a black swan. Which by the transitive property would necessitate also accepting that a black swan does not exist, thereby proving the negative claim that "black swans do not exist". -
2020-11-02 at 5:11 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:12 AM UTCYou're wasting your time arguing with him. He's mentally challenged.
-
2020-11-02 at 5:13 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Correct. Which is why I wouldn't do it by showing you white swans, I'd do it by showing you that a gene for black feathers cannot exist. Or that it's impossible for the color black to exist. Because I'm not talking about showing you white swans, I'm talking about showing you that the underlying principles which govern the appearance of swans do not allow for the existence of a black swan. Which by the transitive property would necessitate also accepting that a black swan does not exist, thereby proving the negative claim that "black swans do not exist".
you need to stop dabbling in absolutes, its the source of your confusion. you cannot prove a gene for black feathers cannot exist any more than you can prove any negative. genes mutate, new species arrive, new evidence falsifies old theories. -
2020-11-02 at 5:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev you need to stop dabbling in absolutes, its the source of your confusion. you cannot prove a gene for black feathers cannot exist any more than you can prove any negative. genes mutate, new species arrive, new evidence falsifies old theories.
L. O. L.
This has to be on purpose -
2020-11-02 at 5:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev you need to stop dabbling in absolutes, its the source of your confusion. you cannot prove a gene for black feathers cannot exist any more than you can prove any negative. genes mutate, new species arrive, new evidence falsifies old theories.
Octarine colored pajamas don't exist. -
2020-11-02 at 5:20 AM UTCedited for privacy
-
2020-11-02 at 5:20 AM UTC
-
2020-11-02 at 5:30 AM UTCITT a tranny trolls by declaring he/she knows what all scientists/bientists are thinking
-
2020-11-02 at 5:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo ITT a tranny trolls by declaring he/she knows what all scientists/bientists are thinking
ITT a tranny tells the truth by saying that even if scientists believe in god and believe they're unraveling the mystery of god through science, they've deluded themselves if they think science is valid tool to prove the existence of god. God literally telling them he exists in person as a glowing 18' foot penis wreathed in fire would not be scientific proof of god, unless they could force god to be an 18' foot penis wreathed in fire on command so as to make their empirical observation a repeatable one. Not a system equipped for dealing with the supernatual, like I said.
