Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

One is using Microsoft and the other Mac. Error.....error....

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
Prove that im wrong.

Burden of proof fallacy. You are being illogical. It is up to the person making the assertion to prove it is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Belk · Apr 5, 2016

Chriliman said:
I didn't say falsification means something must be proven false, I said falsification means something can possibly be proven false.

Not quite. It means there must be a way to test if something is true or false.

Chriliman said:
Logically, the truth about reality would be impossible to prove false, therefore, one should not employ the scientific method to determine the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

No, the truth about reality would be tested and shown to be true. You have to be able to test if something is true or false in order to know if it is true.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Burden of proof fallacy. You are being illogical. It is up to the person making the assertion to prove it is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

You use the same fallacy, thats what im saying. You cant prove God through science.

bhsmte · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
You use the same fallacy, thats what im saying. You cant prove God through science.

He never said you could.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

bhsmte said:
He never said you could.

Ok then, matter settled.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
You use the same fallacy, thats what im saying. You cant prove God through science.

I am not the one claiming that God exists. It isn't up to me to prove or disprove that God exists.

bhsmte · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
Ok then, matter settled.

Yes matter settled, there is no scientific evidence of a god.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

Loudmouth said:
I am not the one claiming that God exists. It isn't up to me to prove or disprove that God exists.

Im talking only about the conversation between us.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

bhsmte said:
Yes matter settled, there is no scientific evidence of a god.

Prove it.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

THis is a waste if time. You will use junk science, assert that it disproves God, and i'll say that its junk science, and we'll debate it till the end of time. What a waste of life that is. I think i'll bow out.

bhsmte · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
Prove it.

I know of no scientific evidence to prove a god exists. If you have some, go for it.

But, you already claimed science cant prove a god, so it seems, you agree.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
Im talking only about the conversation between us.

Funny how you have to ignore your own words.

Extraneous · Apr 5, 2016

bhsmte said:
I know of no scientific evidence to prove a god exists. If you have some, go for it.

But, you already claimed science cant prove a god, so it seems, you agree.

It cant disprove him either, that's the point you keep missing. God is only found in the way He has predetermined, i told you what that is, and there is nothing else i can say.

The Cadet · Apr 5, 2016

Chriliman said:
Sure, when statement is falsifiable, this means it can be shown to be possibly false. This is required in order for a statement to be considered scientific.

The truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable, therefore the truth about reality would logically be unscientific. Therefore, one should not employ the scientific method in order to figure out the truth about reality.

Gravity is falsifiable. However, it is also the truth about reality that mass attracts other mass with a force relative to their respective masses and distances. The fact that something cannot be proven wrong in reality does not mean it cannot be proven wrong in theory. If gravity is the truth about reality, it will never be proven wrong. This doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable. If it were wrong, we'd find evidence of mass not attracting other mass. The Schiehallion Experiment would have failed. If we saw a black hole and a star pass right by each other with no evidence of gravitational lensing or any effect on each other, the law of gravity would be falsified. We don't see that, but it could, in theory, happen. This is what "falsifiable" means - it doesn't mean that something can be proven wrong in this reality, it simply means that we can devise a test by which the theory could, hypothetically, fail.

Here's another example. An object with mass moving faster than the speed of light in a vacuum would disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. We're probably never going to observe objects with mass moving at the speed of light. This doesn't invalidate this as a means of falsification, though. It simply means that the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong yet, and probably never will be shown to be wrong. Make sense?

Chriliman · Apr 5, 2016

Most of what you said does make sense to me, except this.

The Cadet said:
If gravity is the truth about reality, it will never be proven wrong.

If gravity were the truth about reality then it should be able to explain everything in reality, including, but not limited to things like why there is good and evil. Gravity cannot explain this.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
It cant disprove him either, that's the point you keep missing.

That puts God on the same level as invisible unicorns and leprechauns.

God is only found in the way He has predetermined, i told you what that is, and there is nothing else i can say.

That is a bare assertion.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Extraneous said:
Prove it.

Your inability to produce a shred of evidence for God is our proof.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2016

Chriliman said:
If gravity were the truth about reality then it should be able to explain everything in reality, including, but not limited to things like why there is good and evil. Gravity cannot explain this.

Baloney. Truths can be independent of one another.

Chris B · Apr 5, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Ah, but there is only one serious claim, it's Genesis.

Well, that would rather be expected of anyone speaking of the tradition within which they stand.
You wouldn't count the Hindu model in the slightest?
To (a range of, but not all) Hindus its almost intuitively obvious.

And is that Genesis read literally or as (true) creation myth?
There remains a distinct divide on how Genesis is to be read even between those who consider it a true and divinely inspired message.

Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Contributor

Well-Known Member

SO COOL

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Old Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency