SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

The fact that people can believe in non-existent deities is true. Therefore, belief alone is not evidence that a deity really exists.

Ditto on your dark sky deities....

 

[ScottA]

What is coming?

The end.

This universe was created for a finite purpose, most of which has been fulfilled. Time is not on the side of the skeptic.

 

[Smidlee]

Scientists don't make that claim about black holes; they make it about the singularity.

How can you have a black holes without a singularity? Again the scientist do admit that black holes break the known laws of physics. That's why many at first didn't believe in their existence. They are those who still doesn't they exist.

How did we determine that Geocentrism was wrong? By using evidence?

Heliocentric was not accepted because of the evidence at first but simply it made the math easier.

 

[Michael]

An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.

You mean like your alleged "space expansion" claim that cannot be falsified in any logical manner? Give me a break. Your personal need for falsification only seems to rear it's ugly head with respect to the topic of God, otherwise you don't bat an eye, nor do you care.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is omnipresent, and not only does he effect anything, he is overseer. But what I was referring to is not his limitation, but the limitation of this universe. It's close-circuit, so, no, we can't go outside to demonstrate how it fits into the greater scheme of things.

If God affects our universe in some way, why can't we detect that effect using science?

The problem with claiming that our assertions are empty, is a limitation adherent to your position: You are unwilling to go outside the space, time, matter realm to consider anything beyond, and you insist on evidence that is simply not attainable there. "I don't want to go, and I don't want to know...so you must be delusional!" ...Yeah right.

You seem to act as if you have considered it, so why don't you present the evidence.

 

[Michael]

Yes, I have. I considered them and found them all to be unverifiable and untrustworthy. When your evidence for something is indistinguishable for that something not existing, then you have a serious problem. This is the problem that Sagan covered in his essay on Dragon's that live in garages.

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

So what is the difference between an invisible and completely undetectable deity and one that doesn't exist?

Oh the irony with respect to your menagerie of invisible, impotent on Earth sky dragons.

 

[Loudmouth]

Heliocentric was not accepted because of the evidence at first but simply it made the math easier.

So why is Heliocentrism accepted today? Is it because of the evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

Very true people have reported mysterious feelings of many kinds. People report being abducted by aliens too. That doesn't make aliens more or less likely to be true. It just means people have feelings they can't explain. There are many potential explanations.

Note that aliens are the result of man looking into the heavens knowing there is life out there.

 

[Michael]

What alternative cosmologies should they be teaching in ethics classes?

Ethics classes? I don't think anyone teaches ethics to astronomers, hence their reliance on terms like 'crank', 'crackpot', and their deceptive advertising practices.

 

[Smidlee]

So why is Heliocentrism accepted today? Is it because of the evidence?

As far as I know it's not as it was shown to be incorrect.

 

[ScottA]

If I put a high school kid in a sweaty god suit, is that who God is?

No, that would be the anti-christ.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as I know it's not as it was shown to be incorrect.

It seems that you are twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that would be the anti-christ.

Then why did you use Disneyland as your example?

 

[Smidlee]

It seems that you are twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious.

General relativity

 

[Loudmouth]

The end.

This universe was created for a finite purpose, most of which has been fulfilled.

I am betting that you have a very human-centered view of the universe?

 

[Michael]

Indeed, where you tried to conflate the human brain's ability to recognize patterns and the development of artificial pattern recognition.

You've totally and completely backed yourself into a corner. Science relies upon pattern recognition.

 

[Smidlee]

I am betting that you have a very human-centered view of the universe?

Most scientist today thinks the universe revolves around man's intellect.

 

[Loudmouth]

General relativity

Now you are just barking out random phrases.

Heliocentrism was accepted because of the evidence. So many of the things we accept today we accept on the weight of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Most scientist today thinks the universe revolves around man's intellect.

How so?

 

[Smidlee]

Now you are just barking out random phrases.

Heliocentrism was accepted because of the evidence. So many of the things we accept today we accept on the weight of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Do you have a problem with general relativity?