Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Exial]

Yes. There sure are.

Then their educational system has failed them.

The evidence for gravity is that it works, same with the other forces. Same with God. Same with time. That doesn't mean science can know why and exactly where, and how.

I am not sure I follow.

You have no evidence against God.

So, you can imagine a magic singularity appeared for no reason, and that life appeared by fluke, and that there is nothing but this physical universe and laws man knows on earth if you like. You have no evidence for any counter creation claim, and denying the known spiritual is required for your dream scenarios.

Trying to prove a negative is gigantic waste of time, why would you even invoke such a stupid argument?

Man doesn't know the creation details by any ability he has. You may imagine whatever you like..it ain't knowledge or truth.

Right back at you mate.

 

[Delphiki]

Notice how dad never seems to have any of this "real" science to actually tell us?

"Yeah! hamster wheel metaphor.. i'll run with that for a while. that'll make me sound smart! DERP."

 

[dad]

Notice how dad never seems to have any of this "real" science to actually tell us?

"Yeah! hamster wheel metaphor.. i'll run with that for a while. that'll make me sound smart! DERP."

Illustrating the truth is the name of the game. Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge is the name of their game. A hamster spinning it's wheel is a good illustration. You must have thought about it, you mentioned it.

 

[Delphiki]

Illustrating the truth is the name of the game. Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge is the name of their game. A hamster spinning it's wheel is a good illustration. You must have thought about it, you mentioned it.

^^^Hey look! Another post with basically no "real" science in it!

 

[sandwiches]

^^^Hey look! Another post with basically no "real" science in it!

Minus the 'basically.' There is literally no substance to that, yet again. Nothing but empty rhetoric and bare assertions.

 

[Upisoft]

You have no evidence against God.

Nor you have evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now what? Will we play like children with their pokemon invoking their powers to see which pokemon wins?

 

[dad]

Then their educational system has failed them.

In your opinion.

I am not sure I follow.

What is gravity? You don't know. What is God? We don't fully know. We know how they work.

Trying to prove a negative is gigantic waste of time, why would you even invoke such a stupid argument?

Who gets to define what a 'negative' is? Seems to me the foolish and godless and baseless anti creation fables of science are negative. That OK with you mate?

I do not imagine a record of man's experiences with God and the spiritual. It is part of the fabric of our existence here. It is separate from the realm science chose to restrain itself to. Why would anyone deny either the natural or spiritual, and history and the bible for no reason? A balanced perspective that leads anywhere must include both, or you are stuck spinning your wheel getting nowhere fast.

 

[dad]

Nor you have evidence against the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now what? Will we play like children with their pokemon invoking their powers to see which pokemon wins?

No. Those that thought physical evidence for God exited will have to be honest. Science has limits, and it can't yay or nay God.

 

[sandwiches]

No. Those that thought physical evidence for God exited will have to be honest. Science has limits, and it can't yay or nay God.

We may not be able to know if a deity exists but we can definitely tell that the Bible is wrong. If you base your deity belief on those incorrect premises, then we can logically know that belief is wrong, as well.

 

[Look Up]

I find it moderately helpful, as has been proposed, to think of gravity as a form of entropy.

 

[Delphiki]

A negative in this context means "not something" or "no something" or "absence of something".

As in, "not a God" or "not a pink unicorn". Nobody can have evidence that there is NOT something. Only a lack of evidence FOR something. I think I might have said this in this very thread. There are many reasons for this. One example is that disproving something doesn't necessarily prove anything else.

In other words, disproving the theory of evolution wouldn't necessarily prove the case for Christian creation as there are hundreds of creation stories and faiths out there, not to mention many other scientific hypothesis that were proposed before evolution was first speculated.

A positive means "is something" or "existence of something". If you say "There IS a God" or "there IS a unicorn" then it should be fairly easy to prove if it is correct. You can prove a positive by simply showing evidence of your God or unicorn.

Page back a few and maybe the whole burden of proof thing might make more sense now. Err.. wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Nevermind.

 

[Upisoft]

No. Those that thought physical evidence for God exited will have to be honest. Science has limits, and it can't yay or nay God.

It depends what kind of god we are talking about. If the god is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, then it is self evident that this god does not exist. If we change "benevolent" with "indifferent", this type of god may exist, but its existence is not self evident.

 

[Delphiki]

I actually created all of you when I created the universe this morning, memories of previous days and all. I'm doing it as an exercise to see what kind of conversation these silly human creatures I thought up would do if their only two ideas regarding their own existence were things I called religion and science. So far, it's pretty amusing. I'm also enjoying this role play as one of these mortal beings myself. Quite fun.

edit: You're all incorrect, by the way, including my avatar. If you guys REALLY knew how the universe worked, it would blow your minds.

 

[Upisoft]

I actually created all of you when I created the universe this morning, memories of previous days and all. I'm doing it as an exercise to see what kind of conversation these silly human creatures I thought up would do if their only two ideas regarding their own existence were things I called religion and science. So far, it's pretty amusing. I'm also enjoying this role play as one of these mortal beings myself. Quite fun.

Sorry, the Invisible pink Unicorn made you to think so. For its own fun purposes. I would suggest going to a mental institution, but that will not help, as the Invisible Pink Unicorn will not allow it.

 

[Delphiki]

Only the human imagination can think of something that is both invisible and pink. Sometimes I marvel at my creation.

 

[sandwiches]

As in, "not a God" or "not a pink unicorn". Nobody can have evidence that there is NOT something. Only a lack of evidence FOR something. I think I might have said this in this very thread. There are many reasons for this. One example is that disproving something doesn't necessarily prove anything else.

Well, this is not entirely correct. We can definitely prove certain negatives, such as showing there isn't a person sitting on a specific chair or finding evidence that there isn't any more milk left in the container.

Just the same, we can definitely show evidence that specific definitions or deities do not exist. For instance, we have evidence that a giant deity who walks around the Earth eating thousands of people daily does not exist.

 

[Upisoft]

Only the human imagination can think of something that is both invisible and pink. Sometimes I marvel at my creation.

Of course. That is what you were instructed to do. Only impossibility is proof of unnatural existence. For example see how fine tuned our Universe is. As fine tuned as a natural one can be. If it was not fine tuned, but we were still here this would be a proof that you were the creator. However the Invisible Pink Unicorn is deceptive one. It made our universe so it looks like natural one. This also proves you are deceived as well.

 

[Delphiki]

Just the same, we can definitely show evidence that specific definitions or deities do not exist. For instance, we have evidence that a giant deity who walks around the Earth eating thousands of people daily does not exist.

Well, it's not that we have evidence that there is no man-eating god giant, it's that we LACK evidence FOR one, so we can assume, with very high probability, that there is no such thing. There are no giant footprints and giant piles of digested humans stinking up the landscape. It's the lack of the prints and the poop piles (the lack evidence) that leads us to our conclusion and not positive proof of a negative claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are still people who believe in Noah's ark?

Yup --

And the Easter Bunny and Santa, I presume?

The Easter Bunny and Santa are teraphim, made specifically for taking the true Emphasis out of the holidays.

 

[Delphiki]

The Easter Bunny and Santa are teraphim, made specifically for taking the true Emphasis out of the holidays.

Actually, that's just the result of their incorporation into Christian holidays. The Easter Bunny was concocted to lure pagans into celebrating a Christian holiday in an attempt to convert them.

Santa Claus is a character based on a real historical Saint. Which is kind of funny when you consider there is more physical evidence (they have actual bones) for his existence than there is for Jesus.