Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you disagree with me. Therefore, you think that I must be using a logical fallacy but you cannot seem to determine which one it is?
Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.None whatsoever, faith is not needed because I have evidence that it works, faith is only needed when there is no evidence,
that's why faith is reserved for religions, in fact it's the very reason all religions are called 'faiths'.
None whatsoever, faith is not needed because I have evidence that it works, faith is only needed when there is no evidence,
that's why faith is reserved for religions, in fact it's the very reason all religions are called 'faiths'.
Science did not get me to the moon. Therefore, the claim "Science got is (us?) to the moon" is factually incorrect.Hi,
Since Philosophy is your area and not mine, plus being totally out of place in science for the levels that you seem to be using it, I thought you could find your self in those three places right off that I found you.
I am a scientist, not a philosopher. As such, it is hard for me to switch to your language set, for it is not the language of science.
I found you, in three places I think. How many did you find yourself invovolved in? But remember this is about science, not philosophy. Science got is to the moon, and gave you computers. Philosophy did not.
LOVE,
You have previously claimed that you, as a scientist, proceed by trying to falsify a theory in question.Hi,
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Only on your point, Faith, Religions and God are observeable and therefore in the realm of scientific observation, and observations. If any evidence is there, then a scientist can look at that. With enough evidence, he/she might actually be able to say something by the force of that evidence.
LOVE,
Science did not get me to the moon. Therefore, the claim "Science got is (us?) to the moon" is factually incorrect.
Science did not give me computers. However, even if it could be proved that science had given me this computer, why should I think that one past success is a good predictor of future success?
You have previously claimed that you, as a scientist, proceed by trying to falsify a theory in question.
The theory is "God exists." How could I experimentally falsify this?
Zero.Hi,
The unanswered question was, how many logical fallacies do you delve in that are on the list. I think it is three or more?
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
What number do you think represents your responses?
LOVE,
All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.Hi,
Why do I think that is an tacit or otherwise ad hominem attack and also a from authority attack, as you are wanting to judge me based on a test, in which you proceed from a position in which you seem to not be a scientist?
How does a non scientist, quiz or check the credentials or veracity of a scientist?
LOVE,
Science doesn't care what went before or what comes after, if there is evidence for something then the people using science can find it and test it, if there is no evidence the people using science will not even see it, anecdotal testimony is not evidence it's hearsay.Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.
Does that mean that science will work well in the future?
Only if you believe that that the past is a good guide to the future.
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?
All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.
The reason I am asking is because most people seem to think that God's existence is not experimentally falsifiable. I do not consider it an ad hominem attack to ask you how to experimentally falsify God.
What kind of a test could be used to prove that God does not exist?
Are you feeling alright, you do realise that when no one can falsify your God it will mean all the other Gods will exist as well,All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.
No, faith is reserved only for religion.
You didn't answer the question. In fact, if we look at katerinah1947's list of logical fallacies we can see that you are engaging in the Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy. You are claiming that questioning science will lead to a catastrophic return to the dark ages.Science doesn't care what went before or what comes after, if there is evidence for something then the people using science can find it and test it, if there is no evidence the people using science will not even see it, anecdotal testimony is not evidence it's hearsay.
What would you have us do forget science and go with mythology? would you have us go back to the dark ages just to satisfy your beliefs? would you have everyone believe in a non-existent God just because you do? do you believe in all the other Gods, if not why on earth would you expect people to believe in your God when there is as much evidence for their Gods as there is for yours, none.
Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's go back and take the argument from the top.Are you feeling alright, you do realise that when no one can falsify your God it will mean all the other Gods will exist as well,
on top of that it will mean you will believe that anything that can not be falsified (like Unicorns) will also exist, not to mention all the comic book hero's, do you really want that? would it not be simpler just to wait until there is evidence for something before you believe it exists?
OK.Not true. Many have faith they're the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.
Well...maybe Darwinism could be called a religion.
Obviously, not everyone agrees that God exists. Accordingly, God is not a fact in the same sense as "grass is green." Everyone can see that grass is green, but not everyone can see God.Hi,
I don't know how to falsify a fact. The fact is God exists. How I found that out, was I tried to prove that the Bible is wrong, but using the standard techniques used in research as that was my field in that time frame.
I took a job in a division of a major company, that needed a researcher for a research project on an Optically Isolated 440 Volt SCR. I ran the project as project manager and when it was over, I did other work for them.
The question of the Bible came up, and I knew nothing about it. The year was about 1990. I had no idea if that God idea, or God Theory if you will allow that terminology, was real or not. However, the need to find out if that book were man made or not came up.
I chose to try and prove the book wrong, without prejudice. I hoped that if it were man made, there would be an error in there somewhere. I chose a method from the many many many methods that are available. I then set about to find an error that was provable.
The short story was, I could find none. I looked around then. No one else had either. I then took the required break between segments of a research project that is long, and then ran five contolled experiments, testing really if God said some things or not. ((I think))
The results of those had no variance and only one answer. God did indeed say those things. When I was done, I knew not only that in a very special way, the Bible is Real, but also God is Real, and then God did much to reveal Himself to me, first in small doses and then in a very very very big way.
I don't know if that is what you were asking. I tried to falsify the Bible, not God.
LOVE,
You are right I did not follow your argument, I was wrong and you were right.Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's go back and take the argument from the top.
1. K insisted that God is open to scientific inquiry.
2. Things that are subjects of scientific inquiry are experimentally falsifiable.
3. I asked whether God was experimentally falsifiable.
4. Then you, out of nowhere, try to argue that unicorns must exist if God is found to not be a subject of scientific inquiry.
Get a grip.
Clearly you are not following the argument. Try again.
Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.
Does that mean that science will work well in the future?
Only if you believe that that the past is a good guide to the future.
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?
Does that mean that science wil work well in the future ?
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?
Obviously, not everyone agrees that God exists. Accordingly, God is not a fact in the same sense as "grass is green." Everyone can see that grass is green, but not everyone can see God.
Additionally, your response didn't answer the question. You tried (and say that you failed) to falsify the Bible. However, you didn't say what you would have found that would have convinced you that the Bible was false.
You said that you performed 5 controlled experiments. What were those experiments?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?