This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Yeah, he's wrong, what's your point? I merely want to clarify how the scientific method does work. I read your posts and his and you two didn't seem to be getting anywhere so I figured I'd come and settle the matter.
Then don't say I'm the one being illogical just because you have a gripe against me, and then end up agreeing with me.
And the point of a debate is to demonstrate to the other person
why
they are wrong. We don't need some random person to 'come settle the matter.'
I'm not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, I'm merely stating how it is. Now whether YOU agree or disagree with how it is may vary, but that doesn't change it. You're being illogical there buddy if you don't think that something that is questionable to someone should be made clear so that the debate can move forward.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where was I illogical? I've been defending the position that is something cannot be proved or disproved by science it is therefore indifferent, you can't say anything about it scientifically.
If that's the truth as you claim it is, then it wold be
logical
to defend it.
Post by
TheMediator
Where was I illogical?
You're being illogical there buddy if you don't think that something that is questionable to someone should be made clear so that the debate can move forward
We don't need some random person to 'come settle the matter.'
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where was I illogical?
You're being illogical there buddy if you don't think that something that is questionable to someone should be made clear so that the debate can move forward
We don't need some random person to 'come settle the matter.'
But I've been 'making it clear' to him for what...3 pages now? You come in and say absolutely nothing new, which does nothing.
Unless of course he worships you unconditionally. In which case, that's a different matter.
Post by
TheMediator
which does nothing.
We'll have to wait and see about that.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
which does nothing.
We'll have to wait and see about that.
thus science = false until proven true
Your amazing powers of persuasion don't seem to have worked.
For the record I'll state what wakka refuses to:
Science = indifferent until proven true or false.
But wait, look, he contradicted himself:
but i guess its more of a grey zone, uncertain until proven true like someone said.
It may or may not exist
So, since you can't prove that aliens exist, their existence is therefore false. But they also may or may not exist.
I'm the one who said it by the way (the one you are arguing against). If that was you admitting that I was right, it was the lamest one I've ever heard.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: they should really teach Term Logic in high school :P
Post by
TheMediator
Your amazing powers of persuasion don't seem to have worked.
but i guess its more of a grey zone, uncertain until proven true like someone said.
heh.
Anyways, I get where the conflict is. HSR is talking in the theoretical, while wakka is looking at the specific case. There's already evidence that supports the theory that a God does not exist, we're past the point where we say to ourselves "we can't decide because we don't have any evidence". Now, you can argue that not enough evidence exists, but science has more fair standards than you do when deciding whether or not to conclude something than you do (You demand a 99.99999999999% level of confidence in the evidence, hell, there's the possibly you just flat out won't trust the evidence at all), but that's aside from the point. Basically, I think there's a confusion in terms of what you're talking about, theoretically you're right HSR, just looking at a blank slate, he is wrong to say that science would flat out reject aliens (or God in this case), but when you draw up a new hypothesis, there is already accumulated evidence where you are no longer in that initial phase of "we can't decide because we don't have any evidence".
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your amazing powers of persuasion don't seem to have worked.
but i guess its more of a grey zone, uncertain until proven true like someone said.
heh.
That was actually
me
, who said that.
There's already evidence that supports the theory that a God does not exist, we're past the point where we say to ourselves "we can't decide because we don't have any evidence".
As I said, science can demonstrate nothing about God because they can only make
a posteriori
arguments.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
what makes you think that i have absolutely no faith?
What does faith have to do with our discussion on science? Are you saying you have faith that aliens exist?
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
what makes you think that i have absolutely no faith?
What does faith have to do with our discussion on science?
Real faith, not ignorance, is actually pretty critical to science.
faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing
I have faith that evidence is reliable so that I can draw the correct conclusions. You do not have faith, you have ignorance, you IGNORE the facts and believe something despite the evidence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) =/= Trust (Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.)
But here comes Mediator with his semantics arguments, so that's my cue to leave.
@ wakka
indifferent means that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Science is indifferent to the existence of aliens, because whether they exist or not does not contradict anything.
Post by
TheMediator
Yes it is. That's final. I'm not allowing you to attempt to pull your "I'm changing the definition of the word to suit my argument" bull*!@# again.
faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing
Faith =/= trust
But here comes
Mediator
Hyperspacerebel with his semantics arguments, so that's my cue to leave.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
what makes you think that i have absolutely no faith?
What does faith have to do with our discussion on science?
Real faith, not ignorance, is actually pretty critical to science.
I disagree: science requires no faith, that's what makes it science.
How do you know whether or not the evidence to support your hypothesis is reliable? You don't, but you have faith that the evidence that you do have is reliable and accurate. You can't know for sure, but you have faith until it is shown otherwise. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to get anywhere with science alone, because you'd never be able to conclude anything because you would be skeptical of your own evidence.
Part of the reason I like statistics so much is that it is an absolutely fair science - we start out by saying we only require a 95% level of confidence (although specific other areas might have agreed upon levels of confidence that are different) and from there we proceed, using only the evidence to decide whether or not we can reject or not reject a stated hypothesis.
We have "faith" that even though we have that 5% or smaller part of doubt, we can trust our conclusion.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
349158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.