"He spouts untestable claims that lack any coherent scientific basis."Guess what. Both Tesla and Einstein did the same thing until humanity reached a point where we were actually able to test their theories.Hell Tesla described that eventually man would make a device that sounds very similar to an iphone and that was loonnngg before the idea of cellular technology was even around. He described a device that looked and felt like glass that would enable us to share information, talk to eachother, be controlled by touch, etc. Plenty of people called him crazy.Also read Einsteins memoirs sometime where he takes pot shots at religion and having to scale back some of his views because it upset the majority.You also point out that what string theory projects about gravity is bulls**t, yet you have no evidence to the contrary.
@rocknogIf you think science is about "throwing things out because of no scientific validity," that's as absurd as you try to make religion seem. We would still be cavemen if we just ignored things that didn't seem possible. And using the example "invisible pink unicorn" just makes you look like you're trying to make fun of religion instead of logically arguing against it.And the argument "the proof lies on the person that makes the claim" will get us absolutely nowhere in life. Again, it makes you seem lazy, childish, and not intelligent enough to even have a debate about the subject.
@arkI have a habit of talking in the wrong person, I actually made a mental note to be say that I wasn't speaking at "you" but I forgot.@fajitameltThe burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. That is always the case, in the court of law, in scientific practice, and well just about any body who makes a claim. However, to ask us to "disprove" (I use disprove loosely, since it's more accurately defined as bringing evidence to the contrary) something that has not yet been given any grain of credibility is actually quite simple. If you ask us to disprove flying pink unicorns, we will look at current species of horses and fossil records to see that there have been no record of horses with horns/wings/pink or any possible emergence of a horn/wings/pink. This can be considered inductive evidence. You can also go into detail of the mathematical and biological improbability of a horse being able to fly. That would be deductive evidence. Now concerning the existence of god, it's just that when comparing to scientific theories we have already established, that leaves us with only inductive evidence for debunking claims for the existence of god. Since scientists prefer more deductive weight in their arguments, that leaves us unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god. That is why the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so theories that have exclusively inductive evidence, or no evidence at all, are not considered until either deductively observed or directly observed.@rotundo"Complete lack of evidence does not disprove the existence of something unless you've exhaustively searched the whole domain."I agree that science does not play in the realm of proofs. However, I'm convinced, by mathematical proofs available online, and by reasoning, that the absence of evidence of evidence of absence. That is in no way absolute, but neither is any scientific theory.However, the concept of god contradicts our understanding of the universe, of physics, of our understanding of an intelligent mind being retained within a biological/chemical entity, etc... And, therefore, we could easily induce that a god is implausible. I'm not sure about deduce, except that the lack of evidence for the existence of god can be evidence for the absence of a god. To say that god is immeasurable and unobservable is absurd, since such things have yet to be shown to exist, and by definition, never will be shown to exist, therefore, we can quite obviously say that "it" doesn't exist. Now I understand how you could have finished my sentence "To say that god is immeasurable and unobservable is absurd" [and is therefore out of the realms of science], but tell me something that you know that does not involve claims and is in the realm of science. It is simply ridiculous that we exempt the claim for the existence of god from the realm of science, but remain rigorously empirical for everything else.
I have JLPT 1 and have been living in Japan for about 5 years. When it comes to my knowledge of Japanese, unless you are native or something I doubt you know more than me. Yes you can make a Wa sound with either わ or は in japanese but in the case of White it is normally put into katakana as ホワイト.
@c0mputarHow about an example like...bear in the closet? We don't know if there is one in there or not until we open the closet door. This is a good example because it doesn't portray God as a "fairy tale" figure, which you people love to do. It is also POSSIBLE that there a bear can be in a closet. Flying horses are not possible, as you have said. (I could make the argument that flying horses could exist somewhere in the universe, but that's exactly what my argument is-- that God CAN exist."By suggesting that science cannot disprove god invited a debate from me" .......So you think science CAN disprove God? After all, why would you debate my suggestion if you didn't believe that? Wait, but didn't you just say..."[Scientists are] unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god." CONTRADICTION ALERT!!!!I don't see how it is possible for one to argue against the statement "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God either way." All you have said is, "Scientists are unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god, therefore YOU must prove Him to exist." BINGO! You have stated NO counter-arguments at all, because essentially what you are saying is the exact same thing I am: a) scientists cannot prove He does not exist and b) that I am unable to prove the He does exist.
"A claim that is shown to defy science has then been inductively disproved, and that the deductive conclusion that the lack of evidence for the existence of god is evidence of there being an absent god."There are two things wrong with the above statement.1. God's existence does not defy science. Show me how it does.2. I have a lack of evidence that there is a bear in my closet...I don't hear him or see him. But no way in hell does that mean there in no bear in my closet.How is a horse somewhere else in the universe no longer a horse? Their capability of moving to other planets has absolutely nothing to do with it.
SHUT THE f**k UP. Damn that is annoying as hell. You guys say that and now it is stuck in my head.Now, can a black hole suck that repeating thought out of my head? Screw it, I want to be the first person to die because of a black hole.
His books are great, they are so thick and burn so long. I think Parallel Worlds burned longer than most of Sagan's books. Can't wait for the next one, the house is getting a bit chilly.
perhaps you are not omniscent and therefore cannot perceive everything in the universe simultaneously, or maybe you were texting and weren't paying attention?
qumahlinAug 23, 2009
The eternal mystery of our world is its comprehensibility.
qumahlinAug 23, 2009
"He spouts untestable claims that lack any coherent scientific basis."Guess what. Both Tesla and Einstein did the same thing until humanity reached a point where we were actually able to test their theories.Hell Tesla described that eventually man would make a device that sounds very similar to an iphone and that was loonnngg before the idea of cellular technology was even around. He described a device that looked and felt like glass that would enable us to share information, talk to eachother, be controlled by touch, etc. Plenty of people called him crazy.Also read Einsteins memoirs sometime where he takes pot shots at religion and having to scale back some of his views because it upset the majority.You also point out that what string theory projects about gravity is bulls**t, yet you have no evidence to the contrary.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2009
@rocknogIf you think science is about "throwing things out because of no scientific validity," that's as absurd as you try to make religion seem. We would still be cavemen if we just ignored things that didn't seem possible. And using the example "invisible pink unicorn" just makes you look like you're trying to make fun of religion instead of logically arguing against it.And the argument "the proof lies on the person that makes the claim" will get us absolutely nowhere in life. Again, it makes you seem lazy, childish, and not intelligent enough to even have a debate about the subject.
c0mputarAug 24, 2009
@arkI have a habit of talking in the wrong person, I actually made a mental note to be say that I wasn't speaking at "you" but I forgot.@fajitameltThe burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. That is always the case, in the court of law, in scientific practice, and well just about any body who makes a claim. However, to ask us to "disprove" (I use disprove loosely, since it's more accurately defined as bringing evidence to the contrary) something that has not yet been given any grain of credibility is actually quite simple. If you ask us to disprove flying pink unicorns, we will look at current species of horses and fossil records to see that there have been no record of horses with horns/wings/pink or any possible emergence of a horn/wings/pink. This can be considered inductive evidence. You can also go into detail of the mathematical and biological improbability of a horse being able to fly. That would be deductive evidence. Now concerning the existence of god, it's just that when comparing to scientific theories we have already established, that leaves us with only inductive evidence for debunking claims for the existence of god. Since scientists prefer more deductive weight in their arguments, that leaves us unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god. That is why the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so theories that have exclusively inductive evidence, or no evidence at all, are not considered until either deductively observed or directly observed.@rotundo"Complete lack of evidence does not disprove the existence of something unless you've exhaustively searched the whole domain."I agree that science does not play in the realm of proofs. However, I'm convinced, by mathematical proofs available online, and by reasoning, that the absence of evidence of evidence of absence. That is in no way absolute, but neither is any scientific theory.However, the concept of god contradicts our understanding of the universe, of physics, of our understanding of an intelligent mind being retained within a biological/chemical entity, etc... And, therefore, we could easily induce that a god is implausible. I'm not sure about deduce, except that the lack of evidence for the existence of god can be evidence for the absence of a god. To say that god is immeasurable and unobservable is absurd, since such things have yet to be shown to exist, and by definition, never will be shown to exist, therefore, we can quite obviously say that "it" doesn't exist. Now I understand how you could have finished my sentence "To say that god is immeasurable and unobservable is absurd" [and is therefore out of the realms of science], but tell me something that you know that does not involve claims and is in the realm of science. It is simply ridiculous that we exempt the claim for the existence of god from the realm of science, but remain rigorously empirical for everything else.
secrityAug 24, 2009
Expecting science to agree with religion is like expecting science to agree with the TV version of The Wizard of Oz.
ceryn1126Aug 24, 2009
I have JLPT 1 and have been living in Japan for about 5 years. When it comes to my knowledge of Japanese, unless you are native or something I doubt you know more than me. Yes you can make a Wa sound with either わ or は in japanese but in the case of White it is normally put into katakana as ホワイト.
Closed AccountAug 26, 2009
@c0mputarHow about an example like...bear in the closet? We don't know if there is one in there or not until we open the closet door. This is a good example because it doesn't portray God as a "fairy tale" figure, which you people love to do. It is also POSSIBLE that there a bear can be in a closet. Flying horses are not possible, as you have said. (I could make the argument that flying horses could exist somewhere in the universe, but that's exactly what my argument is-- that God CAN exist."By suggesting that science cannot disprove god invited a debate from me" .......So you think science CAN disprove God? After all, why would you debate my suggestion if you didn't believe that? Wait, but didn't you just say..."[Scientists are] unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god." CONTRADICTION ALERT!!!!I don't see how it is possible for one to argue against the statement "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God either way." All you have said is, "Scientists are unable to create an established theory in the nonexistence of god, therefore YOU must prove Him to exist." BINGO! You have stated NO counter-arguments at all, because essentially what you are saying is the exact same thing I am: a) scientists cannot prove He does not exist and b) that I am unable to prove the He does exist.
Closed AccountAug 29, 2009
"A claim that is shown to defy science has then been inductively disproved, and that the deductive conclusion that the lack of evidence for the existence of god is evidence of there being an absent god."There are two things wrong with the above statement.1. God's existence does not defy science. Show me how it does.2. I have a lack of evidence that there is a bear in my closet...I don't hear him or see him. But no way in hell does that mean there in no bear in my closet.How is a horse somewhere else in the universe no longer a horse? Their capability of moving to other planets has absolutely nothing to do with it.
moralogicSep 5, 2009
SHUT THE f**k UP. Damn that is annoying as hell. You guys say that and now it is stuck in my head.Now, can a black hole suck that repeating thought out of my head? Screw it, I want to be the first person to die because of a black hole.
joe8packDec 6, 2009
His books are great, they are so thick and burn so long. I think Parallel Worlds burned longer than most of Sagan's books. Can't wait for the next one, the house is getting a bit chilly.
joe8packDec 6, 2009
perhaps you are not omniscent and therefore cannot perceive everything in the universe simultaneously, or maybe you were texting and weren't paying attention?