Do you believe in God?

Page 74 of 88 [ 1403 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 88 Next

Do you believe God exists?

1) God is a being, that one can have a personal relationship. A person God.	30%	[ 55 ]
2) God is an impersonal force that guides reality as it is. He decrees our laws of physics, but does not intervene to break them.	12%	[ 22 ]
3) God does not exist. Reality can be explained by scientific inquiry and the scientific method in by itself.	33%	[ 61 ]
4) I am not sure. There is the possibility that God does exist, or does not. We must follow the preponderance of evidence when drawing our conclusion.	26%	[ 48 ]

Total votes : 186

marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

19 May 2016, 6:36 pm

drlaugh wrote:

Welcome back "Bot"
Thanks for sharing the Word.

Love and prayers

Thank you Brother,

I need them.

Much love and grace to you! :heart:

_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)

izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

20 May 2016, 3:57 am

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Theoretical falsifiability is good enough, even if the method may not be practical.

No; in order for a theory to be considered science it must be testable or subject to test. This is a basic compartment of the axiom of science.

It can be merely theoretically testable, even if the technology doesn't exist now to do the test.

First, and foremost, there is no such thing as theoretical testing. A simple Google search yields no results for the notion of theoretical testing or falsifiability. I think that is a term you made up. In science, for an idea to be considered scientific, it must be subject to test or verification by empirical observation.

That is not the meaning of 'theoretically testable'; it doesn't mean "do a thought experiment and see if it works out", it means "think of a way in which it could be tested, at a later date".

You are correct that an idea has to be testable, but noone states that it has to be testable by current science; that is an added requirement in order to be lifted to 'theory', a hypothisis can be perfectly valid if it can't be tested YET.
If i want to test for some new sub-atomic particle, but the current accelerators aren't strong enough, that doesn't invalidate my idea, it only means that i can't go beyond hypothesis just yet.

As an aside, you have not yet answered the question on how you would test for god. If you can't give any way to objectively verify his existence (without using the bible, since its validity hinges on god existing), we cannot take his existence seriously, by your own definition.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 5:59 am

AspE wrote:

b9 wrote:

and to continue, i think that the inevitable unfolding of the universe from nothing into infinite dimensions with zero errors of execution in it's "code" is miraculous and beyond description.

What would you consider an error?

it is difficult to say. if the process of some aspect of reality "crashed" and dissolved into affects that were not correctly integrated with their cause, and that also were incapable of being resolved into any resultant reality in the next instant of time, then the entirety of reality would fall apart immediately and cease to exist.
every indivisible "particle" of reality affects every other indivisible particle of reality no matter how distant from each other they are in time and space.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 6:11 am

Deltaville wrote:

b9 wrote:

NoahYates wrote:

b9 I invite you to never come back to this thread if you do not have anything to contribute. You are extremely rude. I will report you if you continue this behavior.

it is not your per-ordained right to pronounce my input as valid or not.
i do not think it is right to force one's beliefs upon anyone, and i merely chided you because i think that is what you do.
the "truth" is beyond even you, and you have no ownership over the conduct of this thread.

do not still be cranky about that thing i said to you about being sick of your face recently. it has blown long away in my mind.

It never ceases to amaze me that you.....

you must have a small sense of wonder

Deltaville wrote:

insist this thread run on a false dichotomy on the notion that this issue is run on a yes or no answer, coercing your own point of view on how it ought to be ran, and then accuse others of doing so in a likewise manner.

i did not mean to try to influence the conduct of the thread. it is none of my business what others want to talk about.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 6:16 am

Deltaville wrote:

No one is an owner of this thread. And I am puzzled why you have bowed down to b9's demand that you change your avatar. If I were you, I'd report his post, and restore your previous avatar.

i did not "demand" he change his avatar. his response of changing it was kind of petulant in my opinion.

i agree that it was unwarranted for me to say what i said, and i am sorry. all i meant was that it is like seeing the same face on a billboard on every street with some message or another written under it. that is what i meant about being sick of seeing it, but my mistake was even bothering to say it. no one cares anyway, and if i caused him some sort of self doubt, then i am sorry.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 May 2016, 8:43 am

Deltaville wrote:

...I have not even the most remote clue why you are of belief that every single Christian has the agenda of proselytizing non-believers.

Well, it is a Biblical commandment.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 May 2016, 11:42 am

izzeme wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Theoretical falsifiability is good enough, even if the method may not be practical.

No; in order for a theory to be considered science it must be testable or subject to test. This is a basic compartment of the axiom of science.

It can be merely theoretically testable, even if the technology doesn't exist now to do the test.

Again, there are no new subatomic particles to test. We have already discovered all of the Higgs mechanisms and vacuums, and only the notion of strings remain. Unfortunately, strings, if they exist, are forever beyond the reach of scientific inquiry with the particle accelerators necessary for its testing.

And no, there is no such thing as theoretical 'testing.' It is a term AspE made up.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 May 2016, 11:44 am

b9 wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

b9 wrote:

NoahYates wrote:

b9 I invite you to never come back to this thread if you do not have anything to contribute. You are extremely rude. I will report you if you continue this behavior.

It never ceases to amaze me that you.....

you must have a small sense of wonder

Deltaville wrote:

i did not mean to try to influence the conduct of the thread. it is none of my business what others want to talk about.

Not too long ago, you wanted to circumscribe this thread to a yes or no question.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 12:11 pm

[quote="Deltaville"
Not too long ago, you wanted to circumscribe this thread to a yes or no question.[/quote]
processed.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 May 2016, 1:07 pm

Deltaville wrote:

...

And no, there is no such thing as theoretical 'testing.' It is a term AspE made up.

It's part of the principle of falsifiability. A statement must be at least theoretically falsifiable to be considered science as opposed to pseudoscience. It doesn't matter at all if the observation in question is practically impossible, it must be only theoretically possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 May 2016, 1:11 pm

Deltaville wrote:

Scientists discover new subatomic particle

Strange new subatomic particles discovered at atom smasher

Two New Sub-Atomic Particles Discovered at CERN

Physicists in Europe Find Tantalizing Hints of a Mysterious New Particle

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 1:12 pm

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

...

And no, there is no such thing as theoretical 'testing.' It is a term AspE made up.

any practice that only aims to validate the falsehood of notions is doomed to never make a discovery

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 May 2016, 1:23 pm

Quote:

any practice that only aims to validate the falsehood of notions is doomed to never make a discovery

You realize you are talking about all of science, right? Because that's how it works.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 1:33 pm

AspE wrote:

Quote:

any practice that only aims to validate the falsehood of notions is doomed to never make a discovery

You realize you are talking about all of science, right? Because that's how it works.

not all of science.
there is cynical science and pioneering science. pioneering science disregards any previous investigations in it's quest for new discovery
that is how i see it and if it is wrong then i still see it that way

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 May 2016, 1:43 pm

b9 wrote:

That's fine, but you still have to formulate an hypothesis and test it. New discoveries are often the result of an idea that is shown to be wrong.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

20 May 2016, 1:51 pm

AspE wrote:

b9 wrote:

That's fine, but you still have to formulate an hypothesis and test it. New discoveries are often the result of an idea that is shown to be wrong.

that may very well be the case, but a genius idea unfolds with inevitability in it's correctness according to it's thinker and is best left to flourish to it's conclusion before the "post mortems" (morta ?) of peer reviews come come in to look for faults.

faults can only be found in endeavour. if no one bothered to think anything, then no fault could be found in what anyone thinks.

the highlighting of faults serves only the purpose to redirect the minds of the authors of those scrutinized ideas toward more fertile ground, and that is all well and good, but it is only a peripheral process to the actual inspiration of true discovery thinking.

finding faults will never find correctness.

Page 74 of 88 [ 1403 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 ... 88 Next

Jump to:

Do you believe in God? Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe in God?