The difference between Theories and Creation.

[painted wolf]

UM... my religion has no hell and wouldn't be bothered at all by alien life. You seem to be under the impression that all religions are like the big three monotheists.

oh, and science can no more disprove god than it can prove it.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Again, as i told serrated. Its not an argument because it wasnt a persuasion tactic. I was simply stating what my personal beliefs on the matter are. I see no fallacy in it. Because again, tis my belief.

I understand that it is what you believe. I was hoping that you understood the logical fallacy of begging the question. Your statement that "creation is evidence of the Creator" is a perfect example of that logical fallacy. It is also called circular reasoning, or a circular argument.

Just as if I said that I know "God doesn't exist because He doesn't exist". I might believe that to be true, but my statement is still committing the logical fallacy that yours does.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I disagree a person that see's or speaks to god is falsifialbe and repeatable. In fact these people typically see or hear God many times. They can even have there brainwaves monitored and activity is seen that supports there claim. They can pass lie dectector tests. They are then labeled mentally unstable or insane because of course that must be the reality because they certainly aren't seeing or hearing god.

"Repeatable" means that OTHERS can repeat the test and acheive the same results. If someone sees God in the mirror when they shave in the morning, that is not repeatable by another person. If they see God every morning for a month, that doesn't make their claim any more credible.

Just curious - why do you think someone that claims that they are seeing and/or hearing God speak to them would be labeled as "mentally unstable"?

 

[LyricalDutchess]

I understand that it is what you believe. I was hoping that you understood the logical fallacy of begging the question. Your statement that "creation is evidence of the Creator" is a perfect example of that logical fallacy. It is also called circular reasoning, or a circular argument.

Just as if I said that I know "God doesn't exist because He doesn't exist". I might believe that to be true, but my statement is still committing the logical fallacy that yours does.

Again, i dont see it as a fallacy because its what i believe whole heartedly. Mind you, i know i sound like a nut to a lot of people. A LOT of what i believe doesnt appeal to logical part of our nature. Whats logical about a God who had to come down and die for the sins of men, resurrect, and come back to get us in the end? Or why He allows horrible things to happen? I could go on for days with the questions because ive done it. Tis just dont appeal to many. But thats why its called faith.

Just as crazy as many of different faiths sounds to me, i know i sound just as crazy to them.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

UM... my religion has no hell and wouldn't be bothered at all by alien life. You seem to be under the impression that all religions are like the big three monotheists.

And PW's religion is far from alone in being able to make such a statement.

oh, and science can no more disprove god than it can prove it.
wa:do

Nor will it ever try to.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Again, i dont see it as a fallacy because its what i believe whole heartedly. Mind you, i know i sound like a nut to a lot of people. A LOT of what i believe doesnt appeal to logical part of our nature. Whats logical about a God who had to come down and die for the sins of men, resurrect, and come back to get us in the end? Or why He allows horrible things to happen? I could go on for days with the questions because ive done it. Tis just dont appeal to many. But thats why its called faith.

Just as crazy as many of different faiths sounds to me, i know i sound just as crazy to them.

There is nothing wrong with your faith, LD. To tell you the truth, I admire the fact that you understand that your faith has no basis in rational thought. On the other hand, it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you used. It doesn't invalidate your faith, but it does demonstrate the hole in your claim of evidence for the creator.

 

[LyricalDutchess]

There is nothing wrong with your faith, LD. To tell you the truth, I admire the fact that you understand that your faith has no basis in rational thought. On the other hand, it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge the logical fallacy you used. It doesn't invalidate your faith, but it does demonstrate the hole in your claim of evidence for the creator.

Im stubborn. LOL

 

[bobhikes]

"Repeatable" means that OTHERS can repeat the test and acheive the same results. If someone sees God in the mirror when they shave in the morning, that is not repeatable by another person. If they see God every morning for a month, that doesn't make their claim any more credible.

Just curious - why do you think someone that claims that they are seeing and/or hearing God speak to them would be labeled as "mentally unstable"?

Many people do hear God and See him it is not just one. There have been more than I can count on my hands that have passed lie dector tests. It is just like people who have seen, heard and been abducted by aliens. Many swear to there deaths that what they have seen heard and felt is true.

How do you scientifically repeat a test that involves a person or thing that you can not contact. Isn't it done by repeat observations. Such as what is a black hole made of. Don't we have theories on that? How about the multiple dimension theories surely they haven't been to another dimension yet. Maybe the string theory, which version should we accept.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Many people do hear God and See him it is not just one. There have been more than I can count on my hands that have passed lie dector tests. It is just like people who have seen, heard and been abducted by aliens. Many swear to there deaths that what they have seen heard and felt is true.

I'm sure that many people have gone to their graves believing that they have seen God. I don't dispute that at all. That said, their experiences are not testable, they are not falsifiable, and they are not repreatable by others.

How do you scientifically repeat a test that involves a person or thing that you can not contact.

You don't - and that is why science can not, and does not, concern itself with the existence of God. God is (by definition) a supernatural being. Science deals with our natural world.

Isn't it done by repeat observations. Such as what is a black hole made of. Don't we have theories on that? How about the multiple dimension theories surely they haven't been to another dimension yet. Maybe the string theory, which version should we accept.

You are beginning to confuse scientific hypothesis with scientific theory. Also, the word "theory" when used in scientific terms does not have the same meaning as "theory" when used in casual conversation.

 

[McBell]

Again, i dont see it as a fallacy because its what i believe whole heartedly.

A circular argument does not cease to be a circular argument simply because everyone in the argument agrees with the circular argument.

 

[LyricalDutchess]

A circular argument does not cease to be a circular argument simply because everyone in the argument agrees with the circular argument.

Didnt say it did. Just saying i see no fallacy in it.

 

[McBell]

Didnt say it did. Just saying i see no fallacy in it.

The very statement is a logical fallacy.
You ability or inability to accept/understand that fact is completely irrelevant to the fact.

 

[LyricalDutchess]

The very statement is a logical fallacy.
You ability or inability to accept/understand that fact is completely irrelevant to the fact.

Thats fine. But the keyword in my statement is the word I.

I told you i was stubborn. hahaha

 

[bobhikes]

I'm sure that many people have gone to their graves believing that they have seen God. I don't dispute that at all. That said, their experiences are not testable, they are not falsifiable, and they are not repreatable by others.


You don't - and that is why science can not, and does not, concern itself with the existence of God. God is (by definition) a supernatural being. Science deals with our natural world.


You are beginning to confuse scientific hypothesis with scientific theory. Also, the word "theory" when used in scientific terms does not have the same meaning as "theory" when used in casual conversation.

God is not natural. Seems to me he would be the most natural thing of all if he exists. The only things that are supernatural are the things that science doesn't understand very convenient. What did I say that was hypothesis. String theory is valid. I believe scientists don't even question the existance of black holes anymore but admit they don't know what there made of. You can have something but not know what it is made of and you can't see it only the absence of it. What about antimatter or dark matter has anyone seen it yet. Seems to me your confused.

 

[McBell]

Seems to me your confused.

Seems to me that you are desperately trying to equate god with known and observed phenomenons.

 

[Ethos88]

There are no facts that refute any type of God or Deity has existed. You are going beyond the reach and scope of science. Badly.

OK, you are right, I went a bit overboard with that one. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that any man made religion is subject to tests. Which a large portion of them would not pass of as suitable to be accepted as fact.

If there were a religion or a God that I could see, feel, hear or touch or anything, any shred of evidence. Trust me I would believe in him, but as of yet I haven't seen said evidence.

I'm not trying to deny the existence of any god, just man made ones. Which is why the Agnostic approach seems most logical in several scenarios.

 

[LyricalDutchess]

OK, you are right, I went a bit overboard with that one. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that any man made religion is subject to tests. Which a large portion of them would not pass of as suitable to be accepted as fact.

If there were a religion or a God that I could see, feel, hear or touch or anything, any shred of evidence. Trust me I would believe in him, but as of yet I haven't seen said evidence.

I'm not trying to deny the existence of any god, just man made ones. Which is why the Agnostic approach seems most logical in several scenarios.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for God Himself to prove to you He's real? Would He have to physically come down and say it right in your face He's God?

Again, im just curious.

 

[Ethos88]

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for God Himself to prove to you He's real? Would He have to physically come down and say it right in your face He's God?

Again, im just curious.

Well I'd like to see him for sure, If I told you I had a unicorn in my house. How would you believe me otherwise?

 

[McBell]

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for God Himself to prove to you He's real? Would He have to physically come down and say it right in your face He's God?

Again, im just curious.

Just out of curiosity...
What would it take for some god other than the one you accept to prove to you that it is god and that you accept a false idol of a god?

 

[McBell]

Well I'd like to see him for sure, If I told you I had a unicorn in my house. How would you believe me otherwise?

I have an invisible dragon in my garage...