Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

“It's so easy to become a grumbler, someone who condemns and carps at everything on principle and sees an ulterior motive behind it.” -Eric Metaxas

If we find out that we truly are alone in the Universe, whether there’s no other life, intelligent life, or spacefaring life, there’s no doubt that makes us special. But does that make us divinely chosen? Or, even more to the point, does that mean that the Universe was designed to give rise to human beings; with us in mind as the end goal? That isn’t necessarily a question we can know the answer to, but it’s something we can approach with science.

Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech. Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.

In particular, we can ask three separate questions:

  1. What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?
  2. How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
  3. And finally, if we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God?
Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett. Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett.

The questions themselves are interesting, but what science has to say about all of them might be the most interesting thing of all.

More like this

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” -Winston Churchill There was a piece that ran over this weekend in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is actually evidence…
“I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes. Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You're doing things you've never done before, and more importantly, you're doing…
"You can spend too much time wondering which of identical twins is the more alike." -Robert Brault You've of course heard by now the news that Kepler, the most successful and prolific planet-finding mission of all time, has probably reached the end of its useful lifespan. Image credit: NASA /…
"Continue to surprise those who would put you in a neat demographic. Be insistently curious." -Gordon Gee Twenty years ago, our Solar System was the only one we knew of that we were certain had planets orbiting around a main-sequence star. Image credit: retrieved from Universe-Review.ca. Perhaps…

Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

Oh, btw, teabaggie, don't go the cartesian duality route. It's centuries old now, dude.

Because that proves that even if you took "mind" as a supernatural thing and outside science's remit (the BS NOMA idea), it rather proves my point: brain damage and electronic stimulation, as well as drugs, all show that the mind is highly affected by the material of the grey matter that most people (you excepted, of course) use to think with.

MRI scans can show the patterns of thought. If there's any supernatural going on, we can measure its effect quite easily.

"I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same."

Mind is a process carried out by the brain. Some of us use it to think with. YMWV. See #500.

"Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it."

Check up Hitchen's Razor, retard.

“Physicalism fails to describe the mind”

Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.

My claim is still valid. Sorry.

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.

So did I.

"Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it."

So since you have no alternative, then we're left with science.

So if god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.

"So since you have no alternative, then we’re left with science."

... chuckling ... Since I have no alternative, then you’re left with science?

Besides attempting to put words into my mouth (I did not say I had no alternative), you have suborned you options to my situation.

If nothing else, you do provide entertainment!

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

Yeah, remember that tell you give away when your medication is wearing out? Just happened again, teabaggie.

"Since I have no alternative, then WE’re left with science?"

FTFY dude. Keep to the facts.

"Besides attempting to put words into my mouth "

Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative.

"I did not say I had no alternative"

Uh, so since this is just contradiction, I can discard it.

"you have suborned you options to my situation."

Since there is no evidence of that, why did you say it?

"If nothing else, you do provide entertainment!"

Since that is irrelevant, I can see that you have no argument and have to track off into the irrelevant (well, more irrelevant).

So my conclusion still stands because there has been no counter to it.

LOL! Everyone can read what we posted.

What I posted: "Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it."

What you posted: "Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative."

Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

What you posted was:

“I did not say I had no alternative”

Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it.

Which means you DID Say you didn't have an alternative.

"... Which means you DID Say you didn’t have an alternative."

... smiling ... You are in rare form this evening!

What was/is the comment # you are referring to? ... chuckling ...

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

... smiling ... You are in top entertainment form this evening!

OK, what/is the comment # where you found the text to which you are referring?

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

See, you don't even know what your petty assertions mean!

"Having reduced your argument to mere contradiction, I can dismiss it."
LOL, John you can pretty much dismiss anything retard Wowzer says.
BowWow Wowzer the forum barking dog is pretty knowledgeable about stars/suns I will give her that., but out side of that she is pretty limited in wisdom or knowledge of other things.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

So we have on one side that god HAS proven gods don't exist, for any extant definition of god, and gods don't exist by the generally accepted definition of god.

And on teabaggie's side,we have "there might be one" and "there might be more than reality".

So by evidence of, well evidence given, science CAN prove the existence of god.

As you are aware, I did not claim “there might be more than reality”.

What I have noted is that Physicalism, the philosophical thesis or doctrine upon which the notion that “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

By all means, believe it to be true.

As there is, I think, no complete, consistent description of reality, be it Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological, the correct question is not “which description is correct”, but rather “which description is best”. “Best”, then becomes an individual choice influenced by that individual’s experience.

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"What was/is the comment # you are referring to? "

This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”

“ “What was/is the comment # you are referring to? ”
This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “

That is a quote, not a comment #. Still, if that’s the best you can do, we’ll use it. As a matter of passing interest, that quote was taken from comment (current) #489.

At #489, I commented “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.”
At (current) #506, you commented: “So since you have no alternative, then we’re left with science.”
At (current) #507, I responded: “Besides attempting to put words into my mouth (I did not say I had no alternative), you have suborned you options to my situation.”
At (current) #508, you commented: “Lie. No words were put in your mouth. You said you had no alternative.”

… and at (current) #516, you posted in response to my request for the comment # containing the text you claimed I posted stating I had no alternative, not only did you not provide a comment number ([current] #489), but the text you quoted at (current) #516, “This one: “Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “ does not, in fact, say I have no alternative [to Science].

So, I’ shown you to be wrong.

Again

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

So you don't have an alternative.

And therefore my conclusion stands unopposed. If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists.

Not offering an alternative is not the same as not having an alternative.

Wrong again

By John (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

Wow (not the person), this thread is getting long.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

Never said otherwise. Just that there is no alternative.

And without one, the conclusion stands: yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"Never said otherwise. Just that there is no alternative"
Ah, but you claimed at (current) #519 I said such, and that is false.

LOL! Caught you again.
Your comments do provide entertainment!

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"As you are aware, I did not claim “there might be more than reality”."

And so even you haven't a clue what might be more, hence there's no evidence that science can't test gods for existence by their actions, therefore the claim stands: yes, science can prove the existence of god

"And so even you haven’t a clue what might be more ..."
... chuckling ... The issue is not that there is "more", it's that the philosophy underneath the notion that “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature."

Except there is no phenomena not accounted for in nature.

"Except there is no phenomena not accounted for in nature."

Nature is not in question. The philosophy underlying your claim “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests, currently fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature.

Physicalism (ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”) fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality.

Physicalism fails to account for recognized phenomena in nature. As a result, the proposition that depends upon it (current) #471 lacks a valid warrant.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"As there is, I think, no complete, consistent description of reality,"

Who cares what you think? What can you prove?

Hey, that's great! Snappy conversationalist!

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

" “Best”, then becomes an individual choice influenced by that individual’s experience."

Proof plz.

"What I have noted "

Claimed without evidence.

... smiling ... Posting with references is a more accurate description.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

Person above is not me, but a hacker who managed to guess my email. Check IP Addresses to confirm he is not me.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 06 Feb 2017 #permalink

John @489:

1. By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

No, you're confusing 'levels' of description. We don't have an explanation for all phenomena. However, there is nothing incomplete about the proposition 'all phenomena will have a physical explanation.' It could be false, but as a proposition it has no gaps.

By introducing the yet, the evaluation of Physicalism is deferred until sometime in the future.

No, we evaluate it now as the best available theory. ;nhere is no need for any sort of philosophical paralysis here. Scientific theory evaluation is something like a game of king of the hill; methodological naturalism will sit on top of the hill until something else supplants it, and issues of whether some philosopher thinks its incomplete are largely irrelevant to it being on top of the hill.

The question of “when I [sic] the future?” then becomes pertinent.

No, there is no specific time by which humanity or scientists must make any sort of formal declaration or commitment to it. We just keep using it until something better comes along. Without a contender/competitor theory, the issue of when it will explain everything or when it will meet some objective criteria of completeness is largely irrelevant. We use the best we've got, until its no longer the best.

...Until then, the promise of Physicalism remains rather empty.

I don't know what you think it's promising, but it is certainly useful right now. It helps guide research proposals, funding decisions, and so on. How does the government decide between funding the development of a TSA dowsing program or GC/MS program? Methodological naturalism...hopefully. So I would argue it's not empty at all, because it provides useful information for decision-making. And it will continue to do so, until a better idea supplants it. Are you detecting a trend in my responses yet?

By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism has no predictable schedule to become a complete description of reality.

Okay...so what? Again, we'll use it until something better comes along. Scientists rarely say "this theory doesn't help answer question x...therefore we can't use it." If it doesn't answer x but it does help answer y, we use it on y but not on x.

I agree. I am not proffering an alternative, but rather criticizing Physicalism. The criticism appears to be valid.

Valid perhaps in the sense that you are making true comments about it, but also useless in the sense that without an alternative concept or proposed modification and some evidence that the alternative works to help us solve problems, nobody who believes physicalism or uses methodological naturalism is going to stop using it.

You've just told us our ideas are imperfect. Okay. True but useless point made. Got any constructive commentary on how to improve them?

We use the best we’ve got, until its no longer the best.

QFT.

Apologists don't get it and sophists don't want to accept it, since it ruins their game.

But it's true nonetheless.

Just a couple more points of John's I want to address. @489:

What I have pointed out is that due to Physicalism’s current incompleteness, and considering there is no reasonable schedule for it becoming complete, those who believe it to be True are doing so in the absence of evidence to support their belief,

No, there's evidence in it's favor. That evidence is every successful use of a natural theory or hypothesis to explain a phenomena. It's also the spectacular failure of non-natural hypotheses to successfully predict or explain or be useful for any form of science or engineering. Now, that's inductive support and induction can always turn out be wrong, but it's support nonetheless. Uncertainty is not the same as equivalency; we are philosophically uncertain that naturalism will turn out to be true tomorrow because science is inductive. However, that doesn't mean it and any proposed alternative is equivalently supported. Right now, physicalism has by far (IMO) the most inductive support. Supernaturalist ideas and concepts have far less (and arguably no meaningful) empirical support at all.

@518:

“Had I proposed an alternative to Science I would be happy to defend it.” “ does not, in fact, say I have no alternative [to Science].

So, I’ shown you to be wrong.

Okay, so you haven't proposed one but you have one? I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop here, John. There's no need to string us along; if you have an alternative you think is better than current science, lay it on us. If you don't (or you have one but have no intention of discussing it here) and your argument ends at "physicalism may not cover everything", just say that.

eric, no he doesn't.

But he still clings to the hope that because we do';t know we can't know.

Because reasons.

If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.

"the philosophy underlying your claim “Any act god takes on this reality can be investigated by science …” ([current] #471) rests,"

Is solid.

"Physicalism (ref Wikipedia, “Physicalism”) fails to describe the mind."

Nope, destribes it fine.

It's the process taking place a brain.

"Nope, destribes it fine.
It’s the process taking place a brain."

While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

So no comeback, you can't prove your claim. Sad!

"Ah, but you claimed at (current) #519 I said such, and that is false."

Ahm but that's a lie. I never said you said such. I said you had no such.

Caught out again.

Eric @534

“… you’re confusing ‘levels’ of description. We don’t have an explanation for all phenomena. However, there is nothing incomplete about the proposition ‘all phenomena will have a physical explanation.’ It could be false, but as a proposition it has no gaps.”
It (the proposition) only has no gaps if it is true. As it currently fails to describe phenomena found in nature, it currently is not true. It follows that Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

“ “By introducing the yet, the evaluation of Physicalism is deferred until sometime in the future.
No, we evaluate it now as the best available theory…”
OK. Physicalism is currently an incomplete description of reality.

“… no need for any sort of philosophical paralysis here.”
I agree.

“Scientific theory evaluation is something like a game of king of the hill; methodological naturalism will sit on top of the hill until something else supplants it, and issues of whether some philosopher thinks its incomplete are largely irrelevant to it being on top of the hill.”
You have yet to accept that I have presented a criticism, and not proffering an alternative.

“ “The question of “when I [sic] the future?” then becomes pertinent.”
No, there is no specific time by which humanity or scientists must make any sort of formal declaration or commitment to it. “
*** I would suggest not making an issue of typos, as we both have made them. ***
In re the no specific time fix schedule, that is only meaningful if the proposition is shown to be true sometime in the future. If sometime in the future it is shown to be false, then it was always false, even if during that interval it was useful.

“We just keep using it until something better comes along. Without a contender/competitor theory, the issue of when it will explain everything or when it will meet some objective criteria of completeness is largely irrelevant. We use the best we’ve got, until its no longer the best.”
Sounds reasonable to me.

“I don’t know what you think it’s promising, but it is certainly useful right now … Are you detecting a trend in my responses yet?”
I am confident you are aware I’ve not suggested that Physicalism was not useful. What I’ve pointed out is that it is currently incomplete.

“ ”By introducing the yet, you acknowledge that Physicalism has no predictable schedule to become a complete description of reality.”
Okay…so what? …”
I shall read that as granting the point.

“ “I agree. I am not proffering an alternative, but rather criticizing Physicalism. The criticism appears to be valid.”
Valid perhaps in the sense that you are making true comments about it …”
I shall read that as granting the point.

“… useless in the sense that without an alternative concept or proposed modification and some evidence that the alternative works to help us solve problems, nobody who believes physicalism or uses methodological naturalism is going to stop using it. “
Again, I’ve not suggested that Physicalism was not useful. What I’ve pointed out is that it is currently incomplete.

“You’ve just told us our ideas are imperfect. Okay. True but useless point made. Got any constructive commentary on how to improve them?”
You sir, are an honest man. I shall reply to your request.

Goodness, that's a lot of words used just to communicate "no, I do not wish to say anything more than 'natural explanations don't explain everything at this time.'" What a point to spend your life making. Who knew that?

eric,

Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum, I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model.

I think there is now a general concurrence about:
1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete.
2. Science is limited to making authentic statements about the natural world. Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena.
3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature, but that portion of nature exposed to the method of questioning employed. This also limits the domain within which Science can speak authoritatively.
4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it.

(For those still uncomfortable with these propositions, references are available on request)

Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

eric,

Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum, I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model.

I think there is now a general concurrence about:
1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete.
2. Science is limited to making authentic statements about the natural world. Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena.
3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature, but that portion of nature exposed to the method of questioning employed. This also limits the domain within which Science can speak authoritatively.
4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it.

(For those still uncomfortable with these propositions, references are available on request)

Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial.

By John (not verified) on 07 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

Sorry about the inadvertent double post.

"Unlike the most prolific commenter to this forum"

Irrelevant trolling comment is irrelevant.

" I prefer to not extrapolate beyond the bounds of the model."

There's a lie.

"1. The philosophical foundation of Science, Physicalism, is incomplete."

More irrelevant.

" Within that domain. The empirical limits of Science place additional limits on human ability to inquire and answer questions about natural phenomena."

Remember the "I don't extrapolate" BS?

"3. What Sciences observes is not all of nature,"
Irrelevant again.

"4. The language of Science, Mathematics, is unable to articulate (prove) all true statements (theorems) that can exist with it."

Still irrelevant.

"Perhaps I’m making unwarranted assumptions, but I think these 4 points are uncontroversial."

They're irrelevant.

Nowhere do you show that science can't prove the existence of a nondefined god being in a nondefined somewhere else with a nondefined argument for nondefined reasons asserted without support.

Since there is no competing assertion, my claim remains: any act by god in this universe can be investigated by science and thereby prove the existence of god.

“There’s a lie.”
Among people who try to use language to communicate, in contrast to those who try to use it for other purposes, a lie is usually thought to be intentional expressions of a known false statement.

As I have attempted – successfully so far – to substantiate or warrant my opinions, not only have I not intentionally posted false statements (I believe them to be true), but I can support those I have with references to authoritative sources (independently corroborated).

You are wrong.
Again

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"While that description may be true for some specific minds,"

Proof plz.

... smiling ... That was fun.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

teabaggie, care to link any of your crap to god?

All you blather about is how you don't define anything and insist that nobody else try defining it for you. While making crap up too, for extra irony.

Just show what limitations there are on any god that would preclude it from being able to be found, and what causes gods to be so limited in scope that even they are forbidden from such actions.

John,
No, I don't necessarily agree with your statements.

1 glosses over the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, assuming all scientists agree with you that the foundation is philosophical naturalism. I can think of at least one counterexample that proves the "all" statement wrong - me. Saying "philosophical basis" also misses the point that our methodological naturalism is inductively derived, and is thus provisional and subject to change. So I would argue that our naturalism is not really a hardline 'philosophical basis' at all. If new experiments and observations started to show that assuming natural causes was a bad assumption, we would stop assuming it. I'd say the scientific world's acceptance of quantum indeterminacy and 'spooky action at a distance' is a prime example of science ditching assumptions thought to be a necessary part of naturalism and physicalism once the evidence points to those assumptions being wrong. Would we consider new forces, should the evidence begin to support them? Yep. New mind-brain interactions? Yep. New dimensions? Yep. And so on.

You #2 glosses over the problems associated with defining natural vs. supernatural. Science would have a hard time addressing irreproducible, unpatterned and unpredictable phenomena. But if some phenomena typically labeled 'supernatural' (such as ghosts, ESP, faith healing, etc.) is reproducible and follows regular patterns, then science can study it - regardless of whether we label it natural or not.

Your #3 is an assertion. I thought we agreed on this - you don't know what portion of the universe science can't even in theory explain. It could end up limited to explaining a mere 0.001% of it. Or that number could be 1%. Or it could be 100% of it and we just haven't gotten there yet. You don't know.

If your #4 is a reference to Godel, then the conclusion only applies to deductive systems that involve arithmetic (and arithmetical-like functions, such as symbolic logic, and so can encompass assertions about the world). Science is an inductive system. Thus the limitation is on our ability to formally, mathematically prove our set of natural laws to be true, but since science doesn't really set out to do that, this is not a major limitation on science. I'm sure it gives some philosophers conniptions to think that we'll never be absolutely, logically, formally and deductively certain whether F=ma is true, but most scientists think induction without the formal proof provides sufficient confidence to provisionally accept it as true. So you'd be right to say it imposes a limit on our ability to know, but that limit is mostly irrelevant for empirical studies of the world, since they don't typically aim for deductively sound formal proofs of physical laws. Godel's ideas do not prevent us from (in theory) developing a "merely inductively well-confirmed" explanation for every observed phenomena.

The one statement of yours that I have agreed with is: science does not have a natural/physical explanation for all observed phenomena at this time. And I'd agree that that is an uncontroversial statement.

eric @551,

I’ll work with your concurrence that Science does not currently not have a natural/physical explanation for all natural phenomena. Please note that I’ve changed your “observed” to “natural”, as the Mind is natural, while not observed. It's a start.

Now, in re our disagreement about Science being limited to making authentic statements about the natural world – I was referring to the natural sciences such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I thought they were representative.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

eric,

“Your #3 is an assertion. I thought we agreed on this – you don’t know what portion of the universe science can’t even in theory explain. It could end up limited to explaining a mere 0.001% of it. Or that number could be 1%. Or it could be 100% of it and we just haven’t gotten there yet. You don’t know.”

The assertion about the fidelity (how close to True [100%]) a theory or observation has in comparison to reality is made not by me, but by the presenter of the selection. If the presenter can describe why the selection is X%, Y% or Z%, of the whole, then I too would know the relationship of that selected representation in comparison to the whole. If the presenter cannot do so, then neither the presenter nor I will know. If the fidelity is unknown, there is no reason to assume 100%

Observations are often provided with error bars ( ± ) to indicate how close to a theoretical prediction the measurements are. The theory or hypothesis is assumed to be true, and the published observations (measurements) are provided to corroborate the theory.

Ref here "Heisenberg’s Astrophysics Prediction Finally Confirmed After 80 Years" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/02/heisenbergs-astr…)

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

"The one statement of yours that I have agreed with is: science does not have a natural/physical explanation for all observed phenomena at this time. "

the statement isn't just that, though, it says that there are things which science hasn't got an explanation for, then when cornered, says it can only explains "certain minds". Nothing there about what it means by that claim.

teabaggie here is proclaiming that incomplete exists now and means that there must be things forever unexplained. Yet their first go-to shot of "minds" fails its stated aim: to be a thing that science doesn't explain.

The insistence that incomplete current explanation of everything is predicated on things being inexplicable existing right now. But either that's wrong already, or it presupposes that something else is happening there.

But they then insist that they're "not saying" that there's anything else. Because they know they'll have to say they don't know or make up some argument from ignorance that, like the one about mind, is wrong.

And that's just to get the idea that there are things forever inexplicable by science, which teabaggie has failed at already. But that doesn't come to what's required to counter the evidence that science CAN prove god, even if it's so far been that god doesn't exist.

Teabaggie here is trying to insist on a god-of-any-gaps idea. The gap of "explaining consciousness" is irrelevant to any god unless you're trying to say that consciousness is some supernatural godishness that creates universes and life. And rather demands the question of "how much consciousness would be needed?". Brain damage or deformities can lead to lower cognition than canines, so are canines participants in godishness, or are the damaged excluded from it? And that's even if you take the assumption.

But teabaggie insists that they're not saying what they're saying and berate you for trying to intuit for them what they're saying, then berate you for not accepting what they themselves insist they're not saying or claiming.

And solely so that those he doesn't agree with can be claimed to be "believers".

Proving that he doesn't know what belief is either.

the Mind is natural, while not observed

I disagree with the latter. Given observations of brain activity can now predict in advance - sometimes seconds in advance - how people will answer simple questions, I'd say we are starting to observe minds.

I'll admit I think you're stretching a good bit there, but I’ll work with your concurrence that Science does not currently not have a natural/physical explanation for all natural phenomena.

Are you comfortable with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology being representative of the natural sciences? They are examples of what I was referring to as Science (2). I don't see the Social Sciences adding value to this conversation.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

John @555: no, you misunderstand my response. You said "What Sciences observes is not all of nature." To which I responded: you don't know that. As in, you don't know whether the methodology is limited in what it can eventually discover.

Its trivial but true that human scientists as of today can't observe some parts of nature. That, however, is philosophically unimportant if you're talking about the limits of the methodology. Its a much deeper claim - but much more controversial and unsupported - to claim you know there are some aspects of reality the methodology itself will not and never be able to access. I thought you were making the second type of claim, and I'm disagreeing with that.

If you're making the former claim - that, basically, we're cavemen without a microscope when it comes to some aspects of nature - well I'd agree with that. Just keep in mind that that sort of trivial claim doesn't support future claims that there can be no microscope. Your particular bugaboo seems to be the mind-body problem. Pointing out that human science can't observe mind now (which I disagree with) in no way helps support a stronger claim that science won't ever be able to see it. Observing mind may just require a microscope we cavemen have yet to invent. And if you're leading up to the assertion that this will be fundamentally, philosophically impossible for science to do, you're going to have to explain why it's impossible.

Are you comfortable with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology being representative of the natural sciences?

I'd really be a lot more comfortable if you told me where you were going with all this. Feeding us your grand argument tiny bits at a time is somewhat intellectually deceptive or dishonest, as it hints that you're trying to entrap us by getting us to agree to something before we understand the consequences of what we're agreeing to. I have agreed many many times that current science doesn't explain everything in practice. I have also disagreed many many times with your attempts to broaden that claim into a claim about what science can or can't do in principle. I don't think you're going to change my opinion on that. So...time to move forward with phase 2 of your argument, please.

eric,

"I’d really be a lot more comfortable if you told me where you were going with all this ..."

It is difficult to have a discussion with another who is unwilling to share enough agreement to serve as a basis for the discussion. You've seem many examples in this thread of that, where the other resorts to contradiction.

I wanted to, and still want to, establish that basis. I had assumed that the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world would have been uncontroversial. (#545 & #546) Yet here, in a "Starts With a Bang" thread, that agreement seems out of reach.

As we have achieved some agreement on this topic, I suppose that will suffice.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by eric (not verified)

The idea of discussion is to bring in all points of view. It does not mean others have to agree with one persons point of view exclusively to allow the flow to continue.

Feeding us your grand argument tiny bits at a time is somewhat intellectually deceptive or dishonest,

That's deliberate. Teabaggie here doesn't know what his argument can be, so he cannot give it until someone tells him another reason why his claims don't hold up. All he knows is his conclusion MUST BE right.

And his projection insists that this must be other people's fault, they must be believers.

The fact is that he doesn't know or care what argument is made, he will insist that science can't prove the existence of god so that he can keep his cognitive dissonance.

Because there's no method by which something that the average person could call god would NOT be able to be proven with science. Bill Nye said this himself when in answer to "What would convince you that you're wrong" with "Some evidence". Teabaggie here is acting like Ken Ham, who answered "Nothing could convince me".

Teabaggie will never accept evidence he's wrong.

Science can prove the existence of god. There is no limit to anything that could be called god that forbids them from proving themselves to mankind, and that proof would be available to the rigours of scientific investigation.

Science CAN prove the existence of god.

"You’ve seem many examples in this thread of that, where the other resorts to contradiction. "

You.

But what other answer is there to the claim that I've said something that I never said other than "Nope, didn't" to one who doesn't accept a consistent reality?

None.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who makes a claim then insists they have made no claim, who demands proof, then refuses to accept it, who will refuse to know what the question is and ask irrelevant queries, but insists on using the topic of the thread to avoid giving any proof themselves of their claims (which they insist they never made).

For all your whining and complaining and passing-off of your failure to engage or even want to engage with eric, you refuse to acknowledge his assertions and either counter or concede them, e.g.:

Its trivial but true that human scientists as of today can’t observe some parts of nature. That, however, is philosophically unimportant if you’re talking about the limits of the methodology. Its a much deeper claim – but much more controversial and unsupported – to claim you know there are some aspects of reality the methodology itself will not and never be able to access. I thought you were making the second type of claim, and I’m disagreeing with that.

That's far worse a failure to engage than "mere contradiction".

"... to one who doesn’t accept a consistent reality"

The apparent inconsistencies in reality are more likely due to the limits of Science than of reality.

"... That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction”."

Your contradiction was an absence of argument. By engaging with eric, I was able to secure some agreement.

I prefer the agreement I secured to your results.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"The apparent inconsistencies in reality"

Irrelevant, since this is either accepting or avoiding answering the claim against you that you do not accept reality.

"Your contradiction was an absence of argument. "

Irrelevant since you are supposed to be responding to "That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction", and your whinge here is nothing to do with countering that claim.

Absent a counter to the claim, the objections stand.

"I prefer the agreement I secured to your results."

This admission here is merely accepting the claims against you for blank refusal and unreasoning actions.

Your preferences are irrelevant in any argument or rational discourse, they only matter in a case of directed reasoning and is an admission that you do not argue in good faith.

"... you that you do not accept reality."

That is inaccurate. If my comments are used for evidence, it is evident I'm quite comfortable with reality. I have referred to Science's incomplete description (much less explanation) of reality. This position more closely reflects the current state of affairs than those who claim Science does provide a complete description. That seems to have antagonized some here.

And that, by the way was another aovidance of eric's post.

You can't claim you had no time or effort to spare.

And you can't insist you missed it.

But you still avoided it.

"“… you that you do not accept reality.”

That is inaccurate. "

That is a contradiction. If only you are allowed that then it is also hypocrisy.

And it is also still irrelevant, since your response is supposed to be what the claim was, not the very small part you provided after the ellipsis.

And it is, yet again, refusal to engage with eric's point, despite you preferring an agreement with him.

Indicating even more reality refusal from you when you claim you're preferring that agreement.

" ““… you that you do not accept reality.”
That is inaccurate. ”
That is a contradiction "

No, that is a quote from your post #566, and an observation about it.

Perhaps a longer excerpt will be helpful, "... the claim against you that you do not accept reality.", again from your comment #566.

You comment remains inaccurate.

If my comments are used for evidence, they make clear I’m quite comfortable with reality. It is true I have referred to Science’s incomplete description (much less explanation) of reality. This position more closely reflects the current state of affairs than those who claim Science does provide a complete description.

... chuckling ... That is a far cry from not accepting reality.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"... you are supposed to be responding to “That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction” ..."

No, we are supposed to be responding to "Can science prove the existence of God?".

And I've done so. Many times.

I also pointed out how when you're unable to reply to a question about YOUR claims, you come back with "But the topic is...".

That's done, been answered, many many times, you don't get to refuse to defend your asinine claims with "But the topic isn't about my claims!". Your attempt to avoid reality again by deflection has been noted.

And your refusal to see the reality of eric's post when it has no text with the word "agree" in it is yet more proof of my claim's veracity against you as a dishonest and ignorant buffoon.

"... YOUR claims ..."

To what claims are you referring? Is it the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world? Yes, I'm quite comfortable with that. I find the lack of concurrence here passing strange.

To what other claims of mine are you referring?

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"... you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims ..."

I doubt you can identify any "asinine" (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I've made. But feel free to try.

You'll fail.
Again.

By John (not verified) on 08 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"” ““… you that you do not accept reality.”
That is inaccurate. ”
That is a contradiction ”

No"

And that's another contradiction in the place of argument.

Yet more hypocrisy? In what reality is this a sensible scheme for you to try, teabaggie?

At least one thing is being proven by this flailing you're undertaking: that you only want eric's agreement, no matter how much you proclaim to do something for him, you're not actually going to try.

"“… you are supposed to be responding to “That’s far worse a failure to engage than “mere contradiction” …”

No,"

Another contradictin and another race off to attempt in a Kellyanne Conway method to rebound the problem of your inability to deal honestly with others or defend your crass statements into a deflection back to a case that has already been sorted and solved.

What we're left with is trying to get you to either defend your claims, change them to something that is at least defensible by reality, or admit you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, but feel very deeply that science is forbidden somehow by supernatural means, whether they exist or not, from proving god exists.

The only way by which god can NEVER be proven to exist is if no such thing exists.

Like sock-drawer unicorns, unicorns being a magical (therefore supernatural) creature and not, by your unsupported assertion, able to be proven or disproven to exist in your sock drawer by any method of natural determinism or the scientific method.

"I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try."

And how will this be determined?

I can give several, but you have either ignored or doubled-down on them, so who can we turn to as arbiter of whether this has been done or not?

And what will you do when I find several examples and they are upheld?

Lets get the rules down and then test it.

It's called "rational argument".

John:

It is difficult to have a discussion with another who is unwilling to share enough agreement to serve as a basis for the discussion

It's called 'making a conditional argument.' You posit A and B. You argue that if A is true, then C follows. If B and C are both true, than D follows. You seem to be stuck on the notion that I must accept A and B to be true before you can tell me about how they deductively connect to C and D. That's not necessary. I'm perfectly fine with you going on to explain what you think logically follows from the premise that the scientific methodolgy can't - even in principle - explain everything...even if I don't accept that premise.

Do you understand the concepts of validity vs. soundness in logic? What I'm saying is, we do not have to accept your argument as sound in order to have a fruitful discussion over whether it's valid. Since you've already spend days trying to convince us that your premises are true and it isn't working, how about having that validity discussion as a means of moving forward? Once we've seen the logical structure and you've convinced us that you have a valid argument, you can always go back again and spend more time trying to convince us that the argument is also sound because your premises are true.

NB: I can't speak for other commenters, but I'll even promise not to bring up (what I perceive as problems with) your premises, if you'll move on to telling us what you think those premises logically imply. IOW I will take your premise as true 'for sake of argument' for a while, and I'll limit myself to critiques of validity. If you'll move forward with giving us the full enchilada.

The short of it is, teabaggie, that EVEN IF science doesn't explain the mind, EVEN IF science could NEVER explain the mind, how does that prove science cannot prove god?

You insist that we have to accept science doesn't explain the mind AND that it never can, and until then you won't say how that proves science cannot explain god.

Eric wants you to say how, even if taken as true, which hasn't happened, a thing I have to bring up because you falsely acclaim agreement merely by lack of disagreement (hence eric is absolutely right to query the validity of your claims about the mind), how does the claim that science cannot prove god exists arise from that.

But you will flail off at tangents and complaints about how you're being treated mean instead.

Last comment for the moment:

I had assumed that the proposition that Science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world would have been uncontroversial. (#545 & #546)

Your posts @545-6 say a lot more than that de minimis statement. Yes, science is a body of knowledge and a methodology that we use to study the world. 'Natural' has some wiggle room. No, those statements do not logically imply that philosophical naturalism (which is how I interpret your word 'physicalism') must be wrong or that there must be stuff out there that science cannot, even in theory, access. It might be wrong, but the simple statement I've quoted in this message doesn't logically imply that it's wrong. As I said in @559, I'm not really sure whether you're arguing the trivial point that science doesn't explain everything now, or the deeper point that science as a method can't explain everything even in principle. You don't seem to be clearly distinguishing between those two propositions.

"... EVEN IF science doesn’t explain the mind, EVEN IF science could NEVER explain the mind, how does that prove science cannot prove god?"

Taking the first ("doesn’t explain the mind") possibility to be true, then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus of an inexplicable interaction between God (assuming that such an entity exists) and the natural world. That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.

Taking the second ("could NEVER explain the mind") possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God.

"then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus"

Presuppositional argument is not valid.

"That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God."

And this, from you, is another asinine claim. That you whine and whinge with "But this topic is 'can science prove the existence of god'" and then go here and say "EXPLAIN"...

"Taking the second possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument "

But we can "see" mind. You insist it's right there.

"That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God."

But we can't see god, we don't know it's there, so how can following the argument that we can see mind and not explain it means we can't explain something we don't see, and it's god?

Are you claiming that mind is supernatural?

Note: the presupposition is not "mind can't be explained", it;'s that mind is god's path. And you've avoided explaining what that means.

"locus" is a woomancer word here, abused in usage that means nothing but "sounds sciencey" without actually explaining anything.

And yet again, you avoid eric...

eric: "Your posts @545-6 say a lot more than that de minimis statement."

Maybe we should just take him "at his word" (now) and that all he's currently saying is that science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world.

So if that's all he's saying, then there is no counter to my answer. He now needs to say something else or concede the point.

eric @581

As you led with "Last comment for the moment", I am uncertain if there is value in replying to your comment, but as it contains a mischaracterization of my position, I shall.

“… those statements do not logically imply that philosophical naturalism (which is how I interpret your word ‘physicalism’) must be wrong or that there must be stuff out there that science cannot, even in theory, access …”

I think I have not posted at #545 or elsewhere that Physicalism (the thesis that "everything is physical") is wrong. I have suggested, and warranted with a (contested) example, why it is incomplete.

Many, if not most things that are incomplete are not wrong.

" “That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.”
And this, from you, is another asinine claim ..."

You are mistaken. An example is not a claim.

"Maybe we should just take him “at his word” (now) and that all he’s currently saying is that science is body of knowledge and a methodology of studying the natural world."

I will admit (given your history of posts to me) to being suspicious that you suggest doing so.

Are you serious about agreeing that Science is body of knowledge about and a methodology of studying the natural world?

Maybe I should withdraw and let you argue with Wow, you actually give somewhat more substantive responses to him than you do me.

Taking the first (“doesn’t explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus of an inexplicable interaction between God (assuming that such an entity exists) and the natural world.

The nature of induction means that could always be true, even for things science has already explained. F=ma could be the locus of an inexplicable interaction between God (assuming that such an entity exists) and the natural world, just as much as mind could be. The important point for both is that we would want independent evidence of a god-world interaction before having any warrant to accept such a hypothesis. Mere lack of a scientific explanation doesn't do it.

Taking the second (“could NEVER explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God.

Saying 'there is a set of things [x] that science won't be able to explain" provides no justification for thinking any particular thing is in that set. First, you'd have to identify the characteristics that distinguish members of that set from non-members. Then you'd have to show (or simply posit that your) God has those characteristics. As a concrete example, a deist entity that never interacts with the world is probably a good candidate for the set of things science can't discover. An entity that interacts with the world, however...maybe not so much.

In both of these cases you seem to be arguing mere possibility; first quote is basically 'its possible some phenomena is a god-world interaction,' while second quote is basically 'its possible God is in the set of unexplainable things'. I am not sure where you are running with this possibility argument, but let's do it. Okay, let's conditionally agree that both of those are legit possibilities. What next, John?

I think I have not posted at #545 or elsewhere that Physicalism (the thesis that “everything is physical”) is wrong. I have suggested, and warranted with a (contested) example, why it is incomplete.

Yes but your idea of 'incomplete' is not clear to me. Do you mean physicalism doesn't provide an explanation for all phenomena right now? Or do you mean physicalism won't ever be able to provide an explanation for some phenomena?

Maybe I should withdraw and let you argue with Wow, you actually give somewhat more substantive responses to him than you do me.

It's because you ask questions that he doesn't want to answer, but he feels like he can just dismiss anything I say against him because he's already decided I'm wrong for non-logical reasons.

IOW he doesn't (yet) have anything he can pretend makes him right regardless of argument with you.

” “That would be an example of why Science cannot explain the existence of God.”
And this, from you, is another asinine claim …”
You are mistaken. An example is not a claim.

You are mistaken. That was a claim, not an example.

I think I have not posted at #545 or elsewhere that Physicalism (the thesis that “everything is physical”) is wrong. I have suggested, and warranted with a (contested) example, why it is incomplete.

Then all you have is that we haven't yet proven god.

This does not prove science can't prove god, so your assertions are not supporting your claim re the topic of the thread.

Whereas the fact that it has disproven gods show that it CAN be used to determine the existence of them.

"Okay, let’s conditionally agree that both of those are legit possibilities"

If it is possible God is in the set of unexplainable things, then there are exceptions to the claim all god-world interactions are discoverable.

first quote is basically ‘its possible some phenomena is a god-world interaction,’ while second quote is basically ‘its possible God is in the set of unexplainable things’. I am not sure where you are running with this possibility argument,

then there are exceptions to the claim all god-world interactions are discoverable.

Then what?

Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.

Oh, you also made a mistake.

P1: some phenomena is a god-world interaction
P2: God is in the set of unexplainable things

"there are exceptions to the claim all god-world interactions are discoverable"

Does not arise from the premises.

If mind is inexplicable, and why chocolate is tasty is inexplicable to science, and my mind makes me want to eat chocolate, that does not mean my eating chocolate is not discoverable.

"Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists."

How? All you have, and as said above, there's a gap remaining, is that not all god interactions are discoverable.

NO MATTER HOW you support that claim, you're now missing the gap between:

not all god interactions are discoverable
and
all god actions are not discoverable
and then
god is not discoverable

If it is possible God is in the set of unexplainable things, then there are exceptions to the claim all god-world interactions are discoverable.

No, this is an invalid argument. It could be that that we place a god-concept in that set because it claims no god-world interactions - and that the god-concepts which do claim such interactions, we place in the discoverable set. That would still be and outcome consistent with the claim "it's possible God is in the set of unexplainable things'. So your conclusion does not logically follow from this premise.

"... Then all you have is that we haven’t yet proven god.
This does not prove science can’t prove god, so your assertions are not supporting your claim re the topic of the thread."

You'll notice the topic of the thread "Can science prove the existence of God?" is expressed in the current (now) tense, and is not “Will science at Some Point in the Future be able to prove the existence of God”.

As my focus is on the current condition, I do think my line of argument is consistent with the topic of the thread.

[@595] [John]then there are exceptions to the claim all god-world interactions are discoverable.

[wow] Then what?

[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.

This is also an invalid argument. "Some God interactions are not discoverable" does not imply that science is insufficient to prove God, because it can be the case that the discoverable interactions are sufficient. So, again, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

"... It could be that that we place a god-concept in that set because it claims no god-world interactions – and that the god-concepts which do claim such interactions, we place in the discoverable set ..."

But it could be that we place a god-concept in that set [the set of unexplainable things] because it claims no discoverable, measurable god-world interactions. You've already conditionally granted the set.

"... it can be the case that the discoverable interactions are sufficient ..."

That is true iff there are discoverable interactions. So my conclusion can follow from my premise.

"But it could be that we place a god-concept in that set"

Then your claim rests on a vast array of presuppositions:

1) That science and material naturalism cannot discover some things by definition
2) That those things actually exist
3) That god all actions are all within that set
4) That no allowed god actions are outside that set

Therefore god cannot be proved to exist by science.

Any break of any one of those links means your conclusion is falsified.

And you've no evidence or even claim in support that the propositions, any of them, are true.

Mine are just that there exist god actions that can be discovered and scientifically prove the existence of the god that did them.

1) Some god actions are discoverable

Therefore science can prove the existence of god.

On the balance of the size of the presuppositions and axiomatic statements, your claim fails the test.

Gentlemen,

Hopefully before this becomes rancorous, let me assure you that I do not begrudge you your interpretation, only that is is incomplete.

"You’ll notice the topic of the thread “Can science prove the existence of God?” is expressed in the current (now) tense"

No, it's not couched in any tense (the lack of the word "now").

Goodness. So you:

There may possibly in theory be things that science can't discover, that they possibly may include some of the things that some thing we call god but don't define does, and that these things are what proves that god.

But WE are incomplete in our theory because we're not presupposing that you're right.

Right...

You call anyone else a "believer" because they aren't willing to accept your overblown sense of the unknown unknowns really known to exist...

“1) That science and material naturalism cannot discover some things by definition”
Yes, Science presents a selective representation of reality. I think that uncontroversial

“2) That those things actually exist”
If it is true (see above) that Science presents a selective representation of reality, it follows that whatever remains unselected still does exist. Iff the selected representation = all reality the count of undiscovered things = 0. I think we're not there yet.

“3) That god all actions are all within that set”
No, while it is true that the god actions in the set of undiscoverable things are, by definition undiscoverable, there is no necessary reason to assume all god actions are undiscoverable.

“4) That no allowed god actions are outside that set”
Not necessarily. Just because there may be god-world interactions does not mean they will be discovered, only that they might.

If it is true (see above) that Science presents a selective representation of reality, it follows that whatever remains unselected still does exist.

No, it does not follow. Sock-drawer unicorns can't be detected by science, but that science doesn't (by presupposition) prove minds exist doesn't mean sock-drawer unicorns exists.

“3) That god all actions are all within that set”
No,

Then god actions CAN be outside that set, therefore they can be in the set science detects and your conclusion is voided.

“4) That no allowed god actions are outside that set”
Not necessarily.

Then god actions CAN be outside that set, therefore they can be in the set science detects and your conclusion is voided.

And if your insistence that 3 and 4 are not presumed, then science CAN prove the existence of god.

"Then god actions CAN be outside that set, therefore they can be in the set science detects and your conclusion is voided."
Not necessarily. Just because there may be god-world interactions does not mean they will be discovered, only that they might.

“Then god actions CAN be outside that set, therefore they can be in the set science detects and your conclusion is voided.”
Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. Without "necessary" then it's not CANNOT, and it *is* CAN.

But it could be that we place a god-concept in that set [the set of unexplainable things] because it claims no discoverable, measurable god-world interactions. You’ve already conditionally granted the set...

[and]

That is true iff there are discoverable interactions. So my conclusion can follow from my premise.

You still seem hung up at the possibility stage. Yes lots of things are possible. However for your arguments to be deductively valid your conclusions must necessarily follow from your premises, and they don't.

I'll use the old Socrates example to try and show what you're doing. The standard form is "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; if they are true, the conclusion must be true. There's no wiggle room, no logically allowed outcome in which the premises are true but the conclusion isn't. What you're arguing is more like this: "All men are mortal. Socrates might be a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." It's not a valid argument. You cannot argue from "God might be in the set of undiscoverable things" to "Science can't discover God." Likewise you cannot argue from "There might be undiscoverable interactions" to "therefore science must only be able to access a limited part of reality." Those 'might be's' kill your argument flat.

eric, it's pure 100% presuppositional argument.

Presume that god can't be proven by science, therefore god can't be proven by science.

And he seems *very occasionally* to be willing to drop to

Presume that god might not be provable by science, therefore god cannot be proven by science.

Which isn't any improvement over logical deduction from the former.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism

Which one do you think he is, eric?

What you’re arguing is more like this: “All men are mortal. Socrates might be a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.”

Or, alternatively, "All men are mortal. Jesus might be a man. Therefore Jesus is mortal".

Or "I can't see unicorns in my sock drawer, but they might be invisible, so therefore they exist.". Which isn't improved when you conclude they MIGHT exist instead.

eric,

At #589 you conditionally agreed that both propositions following are legit possibilities.

The first of the two was “Taking the first (“doesn’t explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then that inexplicable thing (or process, or place) could be the locus of an inexplicable interaction between God (assuming that such an entity exists) and the natural world.”
The second was “Taking the second (“could NEVER explain the mind”) possibility to be true, then following a similar line of argument That would be an example of why Science could never explain the existence of God.”

The first provides a current god-world interaction location for scientifically inexplicable phenomena.
The second provides a permanent god-world interaction location for scientifically inexplicable phenomena.

In each case (temporarily for the first, permanently in the second) god-world interaction would be scientifically inexplicable. It follows that Science would be unable to prove the existence of (an assumed) God if the god-world interaction consisted of the above scientifically inexplicable interactions. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the more outré, scientifically inexplicable behavior exhibited by True Believers (on either side of the “God Exists” discussion) here in this thread. It does account for their symptoms. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, having progressed from the current state of electrical recordings of brain activity to a fully articulated scientific theory of self-consciousness, that debate will conclude. Given the delta between humankind’s current scientific understanding of the Mind, and a scientific understand needed to settle the issue, the probability that either of us will be there to celebrate that scientific success is very low.

While on the topic of the nonphysical Mind being a problem for Physicalism, I note your reference (#559) to my use of Mind as an example of a problem for the Physicalism thesis. If you prefer, we could use the The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism (https://tinyurl.com/hs343xx), The Problem of Intentionality (https://tinyurl.com/zdunbea), or Physicalism’s Methodological Issues (https://tinyurl.com/hjsmcun).

eric,

Those arguing that science can prove the existence of God have, so far, failed to make the case that there are no scientifically undiscoverable god-world interactions. I have provided references to examples of the limits to, or the incompleteness of the philosophical (Physicalism) and scientific positions (the natural world). You’ve agreed to instances where those limitations permit (in the first temporarily, in the second permanently) undiscoverable god-world interaction.

Until those arguing that science can prove the existence of God demonstrate that the number of exceptions is, in fact, zero, Science will need non-scientific support to prove the existence of God.

Those arguing that science can prove the existence of God have, so far, failed to make the case that there are no scientifically undiscoverable god-world interactions.

Why is that a necessary pre-requirement? Doubly so when you don't prove your end of your conclusion, and even admit that those premises aren't necessarily true, but insist that it doesn't HAVE to be to support your claims.

Double standard and hypocrisy. Totally expected.

"You’ve agreed "

CONDITIONALLY for the sake of argument.

You have asserted them without evidence that they are valid premises. They were accepted for the sake of argument so that you could get from the premise claims to the conclusion you think they support.

Wasn't surprised when they didn't.

Induction is not materially real. Therefore we can rely on induction for the conclusion that, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

Why do you post that?

This question is whether science can prove the existence of god.

One would have thought after all the bullshitting about the question, you'd have figured it out yourself, but apparently not.

... chuckling ... And Ethan's article was about the natural world.

Yeah, typing out "...chuckling...." just puzzles me.

And doesn't act as anything other than a red herring claim.

P1) Some god actions are discoverable

C) Therefore science can prove the existence of god.

... chuckling harder ... So you're telling me with a straight face that you accept that Science will never know everything about the natural world, but can prove the existence of a supernatural entity?

What a hoot!

By John (not verified) on 10 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

Yes.

Quite why you think that funny you'll have to explain.

If, indeed, "think" is the right word for it.

All you're doing as far as I can tell is force god to be in the gaps, completely incapable of getting outside the gaps, wherever they may be.

All you've EVER done is argue from ignorance as if it were proof rather than a logical fallacy.

“All you’re doing as far as I can tell is force god to be in the gaps, completely incapable of getting outside the gaps, wherever they may be”
That’s probably true – the as far as you tell part.
As far as the God of the Gaps allusion you’re working on – more hilarity! The supernatural is: 1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t)

You’re wrong again.

By John (not verified) on 10 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

And to word your rewording correctly: I "accept that Science may never know everything about the natural world, but can still be used prove the existence of a supernatural entity that acts in this reality"

You'd have to prove that whatever science may know has to necessarily include god actions.

You've failed for, what, 400 posts so far.

"1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

Presumption.

Begging the question. Is there more than nature.

Prove it.

"You’re wrong again."

About what?

"And to word your rewording correctly .."

More along the lines of "And to word your rewording so that wow can use the tools that are unable to describe reality completely, that will never know everything about the natural world, and yet wow will spin and twist until in wow's mind they can prove the unprovable".

No, that's bullshit, teabaggie.

"Go find out why some things are inherently unknowable "

Irrelevant.

Unless you prove that god has to be inherently unknowable.

LOL! Ah, so now you're adopting the position that you know God.

wow knows God!

Whoda thunk it?!?!?!

" so now you’re adopting the position that you know God."

The only one here making declarative assertions on god's abilities here is you, teabaggie.

I'm just following the generally accepted definition of god, who does stuff in this reality all the time. And all of them are discoverable and within the remit of science to investigate.

You keep insisting it must be supernatural. You keep insisting it must be in those bits of nature that science will never know, despite not knowing what they are.

You're the only one insisting that god hide from us, like you hide from reality.

"The only one here making declarative assertions on god’s abilities here is you ..."

Wrong again! What I have shown is that the tool you use, Science, is inadequate to prove that God exists.

Of course, we all know that Science cannot know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural entity.

But do keep insisting you're right. It's cheap entertainment.

“The only one here making declarative assertions on god’s abilities here is you …”

Wrong again!

Nope. #634 is either irrelevant or insisting on god attributes and abilities to be limited to whatever gaps must exist in science.

Of course, we all know that Science cannot know everything about the natural world,

Prove it.

much less a supernatural entity.

You're claiming god is supernatural. That supernatural exits, that no supernatural entity can do anything in this reality.

Yet you insist you're not making anything about god....

Right....

Those arguing that science can prove the existence of God have, so far, failed to make the case that there are no scientifically undiscoverable god-world interactions.

I already told you why this is wrong: because God could do BOTH things we can't access AND things that we can use to demonstrate his existence. The former does not prevent the latter. So claiming God is demonstrable does *not* require first proving there are 'no undiscoverable interactions.' There could be many undiscoverable interactions...as long as they aren't the only interactions God does.

I have provided references to examples of the limits to, or the incompleteness of the philosophical (Physicalism) and scientific positions (the natural world). You’ve agreed to instances where those limitations permit (in the first temporarily, in the second permanently) undiscoverable god-world interaction.

You'll have to point back to where I agreed to those things. I maintain that what I've agreed to is that science doesn't explain everything right now. I have never, AFAIK, agreed to your stronger claim that (we know that) there are phenomena science can't explain.

Yes, Ethan's latest post is interesting and relevant, but if you read my response you'll see I disagree with him about understanding the pre-inflation state. As to the unobservable universe, yes that means that there are things humans can't discover, but that's not a limit on the methodology of science. That's easy to see, if you consider aliens living on some other planet. Could they use the methodology of science to view and observe things beyond Earth's observable universe? Well, yes. Because the methodology of science does not change when you change your xyz location in space. So not a limit on the methodology itself, though certainly a limitation on what humanity can learn using it.

"Nah, I’ll let Ethan do that."

Since he doesn't, then my claim is upheld.

"Nah, I’ll let Wikipedia do that "

But you did.

Therefore whether WP did is irrelevant.

"You know, the whole omnipotence & omniscience thing."

Omnipotence != Supernatural.

Omniscience != Supernatural

You can tell by the fact they use different words with different meanings.

"Since he did"

No he didn't.

" your position is busted."

No it isn't. See above.

"Try reading the article,"

I did. Care to tell me what you think "busted" me?

"The part where Ethan explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

Meaningless. I say there is no such part in there that "busted" me.

My claim isn't that we'll know everything about the real world.

My claim is that science can prove the existence of god.

And nowhere in Ethan's article does he show that claim is wrong.

"... I say there is no such part in there that “busted” me."

Of course you do. You're so heavily invested in your belief that you can't - and will never - admit you are wrong. It won't make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

There is no evidence that will cause you to change your mind.

"“… I say there is no such part in there that “busted” me.”

Of course you do. "

Because it is true.

If you had anything to prove otherwise, you would be able to be more specific.

But you won't, because you can't.

"There is no evidence "

True, despite all my requests, there is no evidence from you. Nor logical argument. Nor coherency.

"If you had anything to prove otherwise ..."

I already let Ethan do that. You know, the part where Ethan explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

... and you're still claiming that that incomplete tool can explain the supernatural.

Ssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it can. LOL!

"I already let Ethan do that. You know, the part where Ethan explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

But that's nothing to do with my claim.

"… and you’re still claiming that that incomplete tool can explain the supernatural."

Uh, how do you know that science has to be complete to prove god's existence?

Prove it.

"“… But you won’t, because you can’t”

I thought it better to let a scientist do it."

But you can't.

"“But you can’t.”
The scientist did."

No he didn't. And you can't.

And you still haven't because you still can't.

If you had anything to prove otherwise, you would be able to be more specific.

But you won’t, because you can’t.

And since Ethan doesn't know what you're talking about, he can't supply it either. Doubly so because he can't have written it before you made the claim about it.

"... how do you know that science has to be complete to prove god’s existence?

Prove it."

LOL! You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies on you, not me,

“… how do you know that science has to be complete to prove god’s existence?

Prove it.”

LOL! You’re the one making the claim.

No, you made the claim. You even put it in quote marks there.

Go read it. There's a claim there.

Prove it.

"And since Ethan doesn’t know what you’re talking about, he can’t supply it either. Doubly so because he can’t have written it before you made the claim about it."

... chuckling ... Ethan didn't need to know what I was talking about. He posted the fact that science will never know everything about the natural world.

Now you have to live with the fact. We both know you'll deny that the fact demonstrates the inadequacy of Science to prove a supernatural entity exists,

So go ahead, deny it and the fact as well

“And since Ethan doesn’t know what you’re talking about, he can’t supply it either. Doubly so because he can’t have written it before you made the claim about it.”

… chuckling … Ethan didn’t need to know what I was talking about.

How can he point out what you mean if he doesn't even know what you SAID?????

"the fact demonstrates the inadequacy of Science to prove a supernatural entity exists, "

What fact does that?

"... No, you made the claim ..."

Wrong again! You're the one claiming Science can prove God exists. The burden of proof lies on you, not me,

Ethan's post shows that the tool is inadequate.

But go ahead and deny it while you continue to fail to provide proof for your claim.

Enjoy yourself.

“… No, you made the claim …”

Wrong again!

Nope.

“… how do you know that science has to be complete to prove god’s existence?

Prove it.”

LOL! You’re the one making the claim.

No, you made the claim. You even put it in quote marks there.

"
“… No, you made the claim …”
Wrong again!
Nope."

Ah! Back to contradiction. It suits you well.

"LOL! You’re the one making the claim.
No, you made the claim. You even put it in quote marks there"

More contradiction. Hey! Do what you do well, right?

Just remember, you’re the one claiming Science can prove God exists. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

Not that you'll succeed, mind you, as Ethan last post shows that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less explaining how a supernatural entity would interact with it.

So, come and explain, using Science exclusively, how a supernatural entity interacts with te world.

Just remember you're the one claiming that Ethan's post is relevant to the question here, whether science can prove the existence of god, not me. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Maybe you're hoping that nobody notices that you're making an irrelevant connection here.

There is no connection between this thread and the other one. One is talking about things in our universe, and you keep bleating on that god is supernatural, therefore cannot be in this universe.

"So, come and explain, using Science exclusively, how a supernatural entity interacts with te world."

I don't have to.

But any made would result in changes that can be discovered and analysed by science and therefore prove god.

This is exactly the same thing as I said waaay back in post, what 1?

"... There is no connection between this thread and the other one ..."
Riiiiiiiight! There's no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

LOL! You're priceless!

"“… There is no connection between this thread and the other one …”
Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection"

Correct.

"between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word"

and this question:

Can science prove the existence of God.

The question of this thread.

NOBODY knows what you think you're achieving in your own mind with this "LOL" crap. It's irrelevant.

"... But any made would result in changes that can be discovered and analysed by science and therefore prove god ..."

And just WHAT would a supernatural entity be REQUIRED to interact in a scientifically discoverable way?

Oh wait! I know! Because if God didn't interact in a scientifically discoverable way, your claim would be false, so God MUST interact in a scientifically discoverable way.

Got it! LOL!

"that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain"

Proof, please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you.

"Oh wait! I know! Because if God didn’t interact in a scientifically discoverable way, your claim would be false,"

Yes.

All that is required is that god CAN so interact.

As eric has said time and time again, you're going from "There may be interactions that can't be discoverable" to "All interactions can't be discoverable" yet haven't made that necessary link.

" ... All that is required is that god CAN so interact...."

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan's post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

Of course, you'll just say that's not true.

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction.

So I'm not wrong, then.

And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.

Irrelevant.

"Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you"

Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Your tool is Science.
Ethan's post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.

But you'll just say that's not true.

Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy.

Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.

Irrelevant. Red herring. Not proof, then.

Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.

Ethan only talked about "the natural world" and that it would be incomplete. Nothing there about supernatural.

Red herring. Not proof.

But you’ll just say that’s not true.

No, I'll say you haven't proven anything.

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”
Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction.
So I’m not wrong ..."

Actually that shows you were, and remain, wrong. The question is not what God can or cannot do, but rather what Science can or cannot do, and Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to make all measurements.

Unless, of course, you feel entitled to specify what interactions God may make with the natural world.

Let me know how that goes.

And your "Y" is begging the question: that Y is god.

And your "Y" is also asserted to be in both domains.

And you assert that B exists without proof. All we have is A (reality) and an undefined Y.

Quite why you thought you would do better by not naming them, nobody knows.

"
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy"

On this planet it is proven.

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”
Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction.
So I’m not wrong …”

Actually that shows you were, and remain, wrong.

Repeating a fallacious claim does not make it valid, teabaggie.

The question is not what God can or cannot do, but rather what Science can or cannot do

And science can be used to investigate claims on reality. So the only question left is if god can act in reality.

and Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to make all measurements.

Equivocation fallacy.

"And your “Y” is begging the question: that Y is god"

Wrong again! The Y is the measurement of the interaction.

On this planet it is proven.

blank assertion is not proof.

“And your “Y” is begging the question: that Y is god”

Wrong again! The Y is the measurement of the interaction.

What interaction?

Are you still hawking the idea that if it's possible not to measure god interactions with reality that all god interactions with reality cannot be measured?

This is not proven. You need to prove all god interactions with reality cannot be measured.

"Repeating a fallacious claim does not make it valid ..."

Then stop claiming that Science can prove the existence of God.

Ethan's post showed your tool is inadequate, and I've show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

"... You need to prove all god interactions with reality cannot be measured."

Wrong again! You made the claim, so you need to prove any god interactions with reality can be measured.

Good luck with proving how God interacts with reality.

Then stop claiming that Science can prove the existence of God.

Why? My claim is not proven by repetition but by the proofs supplied.

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate

Nowhere did he show that.

, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Except you haven't. The only one who thinks you have is you.

Your claim is busted.

How? There are no counterarguments left.

"What interaction?"

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven't shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

“… You need to prove all god interactions with reality cannot be measured.”

Wrong again! You made the claim

I haven't claimed that all god interactions with reality cannot be measured. You have.

“What interaction?”

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Then your claim regarding them was false.

Substituting for tool, A and Y in your claim;

"If scoence is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality "

You need to show that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.

You're the one who claims that Science can prove the existence of God.

Without evidence of interactions
With an inadequate tool
Resting on an incomplete foundation.

Sorry, no sale.

"… You need to prove all god interactions with reality cannot be measured.”

You made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, so you need to back it up.
You haven't so far.

And you're the one claiming that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.

Without evidence of what ALL the interactions god can have with reality can be.

"You made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, so you need to back it up."

I have.

You made the clam that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.

"And you’re the one claiming that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality."

Ethan has shown that Science is unable to provide complete information of the natural world.

I've pointed out that that inadequacy is true also for the natural plus the supernatural world.

Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.

And despite being asked, failed every time to even point to where you thought he had done that.

Just remember, you’re the one claiming Science can prove God exists. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

When will you provide some?

Ethan has shown that Science is unable to provide complete information of the natural world.

Irrelevant.

You’re the one claiming that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.

I’ve pointed out that that inadequacy is true also for the natural plus the supernatural world. /blockquote>

Without proof. And every time I've asked you to prove your claims, you insist you don't make any.

"Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect."

What post # was that?

"Just remember, "

I do.

When will you remember to provide proof for your claims?

#681

Posting so much bollocks you're losing your place?

"You’re the one claiming that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality."

No kidding? In what post did I claim that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.

"No kidding? In what post did I claim that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality."

#681 still.

Posting so much bollocks you don't know what you just asked 5sec ago?

@ 701 "#681"

Here's post #681.

" “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”

Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.

But you’ll just say that’s not true" "

As we can all see, I did not claim what you said @ 703 I claimed. "Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect."

So you've been reduced to making a false statement you knew was false when you made it.

I'm sure you're proud of that accomplishment.

@ 710 "#681 still."

And you've now repeated the false statement you knew was false when you made it.

Congratulation. You're a real class act.

"As we can all see, I did not claim what you said"

So what is Y?

"And you’ve now repeated the false statement "

Apparently you don't know either the meaning of "asking twice" nor "false".

Uh, anyone out there pissed off at how long this has gone one, please remember this next time you blabber on about how good free speech is, m'kay?

"That fact is documented above."

OK, now the question is are you really this incompetent or are you just being a troll here?

And we already sorted out the fact of your lies back around 320 or so.

"Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

So Y is now "Everything about the natural world"?

“Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”

Yes. That's correct.

Even someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted should be able to read that.

By John (not verified) on 10 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

If you say so.

Shall I take that as your decision to not discuss the limits on what Science can comment meaningfully.

(see #359)

Now see 357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

" "There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted."

If you say so "

Yes. You should seek out others like you who are willing to post false statements known to be false when posted. Ref #708 & #710.

I hope you find no others here.

By John (not verified) on 10 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

“Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”

So Y is now “Everything about the natural world”?

#719 John
February 11, 2017

You post false statements

If you're going to spam the same bollock assertion made without evidence, go to the dump thread for morons who just won't get the point:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

“Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”
[So Y is now “Everything about the natural world”?]

Yes. That’s correct.

Is it?

“… Yes. That’s correct.”
Is it?”

Yes, it is correct that “Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”

Even someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted should be able to read that.

By John (not verified) on 10 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

“ [ “Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”
[So Y is now “Everything about the natural world”?]]

… Yes. That’s correct.”
Is it?”

Yes, it is correct that “Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

If you persist in your bullshit avoidance, take it to the dump thread, retard:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

"... go to the dump thread for morons who just won’t get the point:"

If you feel better calling other posters name, go ahead and indulge that fancy.

I've already established that you post false statements known to be false when they were posted. Ref @708 & @710

What other peccadillos do you have?

"... If you persist in your bullshit avoidance, take it to the dump thread, retard ..."

There's no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

Explain to him why he is wrong and you are right.

" If you’re going to persist in your bullshit, take it where it is “topical”: "

Is posting false statements known to be false when they were posted (#708 & #710) your idea of topical?

Go to the dump thread where your baseless and pointless claims made only to avoid answering the question "So what is Y" stops clogging this thread like the turdmonster you are.

"Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

Irrelevant. This question is not about whether we can know everything about this universe (note: NOT "about the natural world").

And answer the question: So what is Y?

You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

Tell him why he is wrong and you are right.

“… clogging this thread like the turdmonster you are.”

How cute! Whenever I read that I’ll think of you.

Yet more avoidance. Why can you not say what the Y is in your "proof"? Because you don't want to admit to posting a false statement when you knew at the time it was false?

Too late: see 357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

“ “Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.”
Irrelevant. This question is not about whether we can know everything about this universe (note: NOT “about the natural world”).”

… chuckling … the Universe is the natural world.

Yet more avoidance...."

"You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy.

What purpose is there in engaging with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

Tell him why he is wrong and you are right.

#681:If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

So what is "Y"?

You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy.
Once you have explained to my satisfaction why anyone should engage in discussion with someone who, like you, is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted, you’ll be readmitted to polite discourse

"So what is “Y”?"

An abstraction.

Even someone like you, who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted (ref #708 & #710) should know that.

You have made many fallacious claims that you knew were fallacious when you made them. @357 and @499, for example.

Once you have explained to my satisfaction why anyone should engage in discussion with someone who, like you, is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted, you’ll be readmitted to polite discourse, until then take it to the dump thread.

@499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

"You have made many fallacious claims that you knew were fallacious when you made them ..."

You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy. You've now added #745 to the list.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.
Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

Tell him why he is wrong and you are right.

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they're posted?

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Like 357, 499 and 475

@475

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

Plus the spamming of "Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world." leading to a thread titled why-science-will-never-know-everything-about-our-universe.

Uncounted times.

"Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?"

Because you asked me to show where you knowingly lied and made a fallacious statement. Which means posting false statements known to be false when they were posted.

Duh.

" "“Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?”

Because you asked me ..."

I did not ask you to post false statements.

That is another example of posting a false statement known to be false when you posted it.

You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy.

There remains no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

"Tell him why he is wrong and you are right."

You tell him why you are willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted. (ref #708 & #710)

Explain your behavior to Ethan.

"Plus the spamming of “Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.” ..."

I post facts. You post statements known to be false when they are posted

You tell him why you are willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted. (ref #708 & #710)

They are not false.

That can be proven because you said Y was interactions god has with reality.

"The Y is the measurement of the interaction."

Since this is supposed to be proof my claim that an interaction god has with this reality is open to scientific proof is wrong, then "the measurement of the interaction" is the interaction god has with this reality.

You have demonstrated @ #708 & #710 by posting false statements known to be false when posted, that you are untrustworthy.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

"Physicalism fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality."

That is accurate.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted; even less when that one is unfamiliar with the subject material.

You word cannot be trusted. That fact is documented @ #708 & #710 .

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

Argue with him about your God "proofs".

“Physicalism fails to describe the mind. Reality includes the mind. Therefore Physicalism is an incomplete description of reality.”

That is accurate.

No it isn't. Physicalism does not fail to describe the mind.

And you knew it. @590:

“Nope, destribes it fine.
It’s the process taking place a brain.”

While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

"... your claims are bullshit and you should leave for the bullshitters’ thread"

You posted false statements you knew were false @ #708 & #710 when you posted them .You are untrustworthy.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

"... the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out."

LOL! Give me a call when you can deliver a scientific description of self-awareness.

Oh wait! Since you post false statements known to be false when they're posted (ref @ #708 & #710), you'll just say you've already proven that.

That's a bad habit of yours.

You word cannot be trusted. That fact is documented @ #708 & #710 .

No, there;s no facts for that claim.

If you are going to accept blank assertion and insistence, then you are moreuntrustworthy because of 357, 473, 475, 496 and 499.

Plus the several you have spewed out just these last few hours.

“… your claims are bullshit and you should leave for the bullshitters’ thread”

LOL! Tell you what - I'll do that if you leave for the thread for people who post false statements known to be false when they're posted.

"... No, there;s no facts for that claim...."

They're documented @ #708 & #710

You demonstrated @ #708 & #710 that you are untrustworthy.

“… your claims are bullshit and you should leave for the bullshitters’ thread”

You posted false statements you knew were false

Lie again.

Take this bollocks over to the dump thread, you moronic teabagger idiot.

"There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted."

And you are the prime example of why (and of how to do that in the face of reality too).

"... Take it over to the bullshitters thread ..."

Words you should live by rather that posting false statements you knew were false as documented @ #708 & #710

"... Take this bollocks over to the dump thread, you moronic teabagger idiot."

Snappy conversationalist too! There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

Bullshit claims remain bullshit. News at 11 (for teabaggie here, its news).

Ethan, this idiot is still parading asinine claims and now drops all pretense at being rational

Please throw his ass into the dump thread.

Ta.

"There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted."

I refer the right dishonourable retard to my previous answer.

"Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

Irrelevant.

Bullshit and irrelevnt claims are still bullshit and irrelevant.

When will teabaggie work this out?

"I refer the right dishonourable retard ..."

More scintillating wordplay from someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted (ref @ #708 & #710).

"Bullshit and irrelevnt claims are still bullshit and irrelevant."

A master of insightful prose, as well as someone who is willing to post false statements known to be false when they're posted (ref @ #708 & #710).

You continue to impress!

Yup, repeat of the bullshit. Still bullshit, teabaggie.

Put some thought into your bullshit and see where it goes.

"Ah, so now Ethan’s explanation that science will never know everything about the natural world is “irrelevant”."

Yes.

Display what relevance you insist it has to the question of god being provable by science. So far you've had nothing, confirming there is nothing.

Ethan, please do some at least minimal control here, the retard here is out of control and really doesn't care to hide it any more, 600+ posts on from his earlier asinine assertions made solely to disrupt.

"Bullshit claims remain bullshit ..."

And false statements known to be false when posted remain false as documented @ #708 & #710.

The difference being, my dear wow, that I am innocent of your accusations, while you are guilty as charged, as documented @ #708 & #710.

" “Ah, so now Ethan’s explanation that science will never know everything about the natural world is “irrelevant”.”

Yes"

I'll be sure to let him know that his explanation that science will never know everything about the natural world is “irrelevant” to the issue of if Science can explain the existence of God.

You're mistaken again, but I'll do that if you ask nicely.

"I am innocent of your accusations"

Oh, if all that's needed to prove innocence is that, then I am innocent of your accusations. Applied less often too.

"I’ll be sure to let him know that his explanation that science will never know everything about the natural world is “irrelevant” to the issue of if Science can explain the existence of God."

He can read.

If he disagreed, he would have said so and, unlike you, would probably provide evidence of the connection.

You don't because you have nothing other than bare assertion.

"Your tool is insufficient to accomplish your goals."

Proof plz.

"... I am innocent of your accusations."

You are mistaken. Your false statements @ #708 & #710 show that you are untrustworthy.

There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

"… I am innocent of your accusations.”

You are mistaken."

Then you are when you claim innocence of the accusation in 758.

Teabaggie is also mistaken when they use "I am innocent" as sufficient "proof" of innocence, since apparently "You are mistaken" is the counter to that proof.

"Yes, I an innocent of your accusations @ #758
Accusations are not proof. "

Then your accusations are not proof.

"Unlike you, however, I’ve documented your false statements @ #708 & #710"

The documentation that they exist is not proof they are false statements.

I have pointed you to multiple (and you've done scores more just this morning) documented examples of your lies. See 758.

re your 711, see my 734.

Which means that if you want to define your Y differently, then you were lying in 678. Or you were lying in 711.

that should be 687 not 678.

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”

This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

I’m sure you’re proud of that accomplishment. It is unlikely many others in this forum are.

You tell him why you are willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted. (ref #708 & #710)

They are not false.

That can be proven because you said Y was interactions god has with reality.

“The Y is the measurement of the interaction.”

Since this is supposed to be proof my claim that an interaction god has with this reality is open to scientific proof is wrong, then “the measurement of the interaction” is the interaction god has with this reality.

"Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world."

Proof pls

So a ghost opens a door. Science can't show the door is open, measure the opening state of the door, the change of state of the door, solely because you, teabagger, insist that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science.

Srsly?

"Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world."

Still irrelevant.

So, teabaggie, your word cannot be trusted. That fact is documented above.There is no value in discussion with someone who is willing to post a false statement known to be false when it was posted.

That Ethan has said that science will never know everything about the natural world has no bearing on this discussion "Can science prove the existence of god".

You’ve demonstrated you are untrustworthy (ref #708 & #710). Why should anyone engage in discussion with someone who is willing to post false statements known to be false when they were posted?

I suggest you seek out others who, like you, are willing to post false statements known to be false when posted. If nothing else, you'd feel at home.

Science not advanced by people who make false statements known to be false when posted

I hope you find no others here

That Ethan has said that science will never know everything about the natural world has no bearing on this discussion “Can science prove the existence of god”.

LOL!

Just remember, you’re the one claiming Science can prove God exists. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

Another reminder - posting false statements known to be false when posted in lieu of support for your claim are insufficient.

Of course, before you can use Science to prove the existence of a supernatural entity, you'll need to get past the problem of Why Science Will Never Know Everything About Our Universe.

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will-nev…)

That Ethan has said that science will never know everything about the natural world has no bearing on this discussion “Can science prove the existence of god”.

Yes. Any reason you wanted to write it again?

I suggest you seek out others who, like you, are willing to post false statements known to be false when posted.

More lies.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: (quoting meIt’s the process taking place a brain.

While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

---

So you knew you were lying.

Now: projecting.

"Just remember, you’re the one claiming Science can prove God exists."

I do. You're the one with the memory problem.

An act god makes that changes this reality can be measured and investigated by science and prove god exists.

You have to prove that no such action can ever possibly happen.

You never have. Ask eric for confirmation.

Using Science exclusively, please explain how a supernatural entity interacts with the world. Doing this will help support your claim that Science can explain the existence of God.

Please avoid the temptation you fell for @ #708 & #710 of posting false statements you know to be false when you post them.

That the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out is analogous to saying that Science has been beneficial to mankind.

You like to use the word “Duh” at these occasions, correct?

"
That Ethan has said that science will never know everything about the natural world has no bearing on this discussion “Can science prove the existence of god”.

Yes. Any reason you wanted to write it again?"

1.“… There is no connection between this thread and the other one …”

You're asking why I would revisit the contention there’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain?

Well it is a start. At least you didn't post a false statement you know to be false when you posted it, as you did @ #708 & #710.

Baby steps I suppose.

So, when did you first adopt your technique of posting false statements you know to be false when you post them?

@ #815 referring to #804 “So a ghost opens a door. Science can’t show the door is open, measure the opening state of the door, the change of state of the door, solely because you, teabagger, insist that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science.”
As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”, you’re … wait for it …
Wrong again.

… chuckling ... and you probably knew that claim to be false when you posted it. Do what you do well, eh?

"a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain"

Except that post or thread exists nowhere.

Just one that says that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word.

Nowhere does Ethan show it would be nadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain.

And not that science has to explain god. Just be able to prove it.

You're a weapons-grade retard, teabaggie.

"So, when did you first adopt your technique of posting false statements you know to be false when you post them?"

Poisoning the well and asserting facts not in evidence.

"As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”, you’re … wait for it …"

Right.

Or you're lying again.

As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”

Therefore acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”

Then why did you ask me to provide one?

"Or you’re lying again."

As I have not (unlike you @ #708 & #710) posted false statements known be false when posted, I cannot you so again.

Another mistake.

Nice tr though

" "As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”

Then why did you ask me to provide one?"

Were you able to prove one (in stark contrast to your penchant for posting false statements you know to be false when you post the), you would be on your way to supporting your claim.

You will be unable to do that (not the false posting thing, we all know you can do that), of course, but it would help you.

"“Or you’re lying again.”

As I have not "

Oh you have. Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true. And you have made several pairs of contradictory statements. E.g.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: (quoting me)"It’s the process taking place a brain."

While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

"” “As I have never insisted an any post “that no supernatural actions can be discoverable in science”

Then why did you ask me to provide one?”

Were you able to prove one"

I did.

Ethan, teabaggie here is going "Full Retard" again, without a care what they are doing.

"... Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true ..."

Correct.

"... And you have made several pairs of contradictory statements. E.g.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: (quoting me)”It’s the process taking place a brain.” ..."

Both are true statements.
Oopsies! You goofed again.

"... While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out."

Perhaps you think Science provides a fully fleshed out explanation of self-awareness, but I'll wager you're in a minority.

Still if you feel you can show otherwise, feel free to try.

"... teabaggie here is going “Full Retard” again, without a care what they are doing."

I remain in awe of your eloquent exposition!

“… Then why did you ask me to provide one?”
Were you able to prove one”
I did.”

Excellent! That’s great! Please document your scientific measurement of that god-world interaction.

Remember now: Science only! None of your false statements you knew were false as you did @ #708 & #710.

"You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You:"..."

Both are true statements."

No they aren't. The first says that it doesn't describe the mind. The second one you hid behind ellipses says that it does, but needs fleshing out.

And you lied again.

But you really don't care, do you, you're going "Scorched Earth" on this thread and don't give a shit any more.

Ethan, HOW do you know this retard? Not asking you out him, but how do you know who teabaggie here is?

"That’s great! Please document your scientific measurement of that god-world interaction."

I've shown that the supernatural can have effects measured by science.

The question is not HAS science proven the existence of god, teabaggie.

Wrong again!

It is true that Physicalism fails to describe the mind.

It is also true that the mind is a process that occurs in the natural world

It follows from those two statements that Physicalism (the doctrine that everything is physical [ref Wiki]) is incomplete.

... unless, of course, you decide to start posting statements you know to be false, as you did @ #708 & #710.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.

Knowingly.

And now you're lying about what happened to hide it.

"statements you know to be false, as you did @ #708 & #710."

That accusation is unproven.

“… I’ve shown that the supernatural can have effects measured by science.
The question is not HAS science proven the existence of god …”.

Well, how about that! You can support that claim with evidence? What measurements do you have?

Just Scientific stuff here, none of your false statements you knew were false as you did @ #708 & #710.

"... “statements you know to be false, as you did @ #708 & #710.”

That accusation is unproven."

Not only proven, old bean, but well documented.

Better luck next time, but please, none of your false statements you knew were false the way you did @ #708 & #710.

"What measurements do you have?"

This is not HAS science proven the existence of god.

"as you did @ #708 & #710."

Lying liar still lies about those two posts.

" "What measurements do you have?”
This is not HAS science proven the existence of god."

Ah, then in the absence of evidence, I suppose you'll do the honest thing and admit Science cannot prove the existence of God, right?

@838 "Lying liar still lies about those two posts."

Wrong again!

Here's the documentation ...

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”

This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

I’m sure you’re proud of that accomplishment.
Congratulations!

"Ah, then in the absence of evidence, I suppose you’ll do the honest thing and admit Science cannot prove the existence of God, right?"

Wrong.

"Here’s the documentation …"

Which isn't evidence of what you claim, retard.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.

Knowingly.

"Which isn’t evidence of what you claim, retard.
"
Such eloquence is difficult to describe!

“ “Ah, then in the absence of evidence, I suppose you’ll do the honest thing and admit Science cannot prove the existence of God, right?”
Wrong.”

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay then. Why am I not surprised? So you WILL be trotting out your scientific evidence of the god-world interaction?

" So you WILL be trotting out your scientific evidence of the god-world interaction?"

This is not about "has science prove the existence of god".

@ #845
“This is not about “has science prove the existence of god”. “
So what do we have from you then, other than an almost constant outpouring of insults?
The claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Without evidence to support the claim.
After Ethan posted an article that shows the inadequacy of your tool
That has an incomplete philosophy for support.

… chuckling … I suppose by your standards that’s an airtight argument.

Oh! Wait! Should we include the false statements you knowingly posted @ #708 & #710 as part of that airtight proof?

"The claim that Science can prove the existence of God."

Yes.

An act by god that affects this reality can be investigated by science and will therefore be able to prove god's existence.

"Should we include the false statements you knowingly posted "

Lying asshole lies again. News at 11.

"Lying asshole lies again. News at 11"

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ....

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”

This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself.

“ “The claim that Science can prove the existence of God.”
Yes.”
In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

That sounds more like your Profession of Faith than anything else.

Lying asshole lies again. News at 11.

Meanwhile back in sane-land.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"Lying asshole lies again ..."

Yet more eloquence from the Demosthenes of SWAB!

"“ “The claim that Science can prove the existence of God.”
Yes.”
In the absence of evidence"

Irrelevant. The question is whether there can be evidence. Not if there is evidence.

Do you have significant property in loon-land?

What is your problem with the proof of my claim?

“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.“

In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

That sounds more like another Profession of your Faith than anything else.

Ethan has been posting about the Limit of Knowledge, specifically, the limit of Scientific knowledge for several years now. I would have expected even people who, like you, post statements you know to be false, as you did @ #708 & #710, would have been aware of that.

"Do you have significant property in loon-land?"

I believe you already bought the prime property there.

"“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.“

In the absence of evidence"

No absence of proof. I've given it. Got a problem with it? Disprove it.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"... No absence of proof. I’ve given it. ..."

Perhaps in your Mind, but you haven't poster any evidence about that in this tread yet.

Starting to sound like another one of your knowingly false statements, like the ones @ #708 & #710.

"Perhaps in your Mind, but you haven’t poster any evidence about that in this tread yet. "

Here:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #860
“Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”

Only those that are recorded. No scientific measurement, no act.
That is yet another example of a limit of Science.
But I’m sure you Believe it’s True.

@ #860
“… because those acts can be discoverable ones …”

Just because they can be does not mean they will be.
You’re arguing about possibilities, not about facts.
More limitations of science again.

"“Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”

Only those that are recorded."

And therefore science can prove god.

"“… because those acts can be discoverable ones …”

Just because they can be does not mean they will be."

But just because they may not be doesn't mean they can't.

Therefore the claim and its proof are still valid.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #860
“… and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence …”
You would be right … if you had any measurements.
Any scientific evidence
Which you don’t.
Fail

@ #860
“… of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.”

If would … you had any to measure.
Which you don’t.
Another fail.

"“… and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence …”
You would be right … if you had any measurements."

They are right even if we don't have any measurements.

Therefore the claim and its proof remain valid:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #863
““Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”
Only those that are recorded.”
And therefore science can prove god.”

You would be right … if you had any scientific evidence.
Any measurements.
Which you don’t.
Fail

"“… of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.”

If would …"

Would what?

The logic is sound and the proof valid.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #860
“Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Such absolute Faith, In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (as Ethan has posted about several times over the years) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation is touching.

Quaint really.

"““Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”
Only those that are recorded.”
And therefore science can prove god.”

You would be right … if you had any scientific evidence."

I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #863
““… because those acts can be discoverable ones …”
Just because they can be does not mean they will be.”
But just because they may not be doesn’t mean they can’t.

Excellent! Trot ‘em out for inspection!
Not the false statements like you knowingly made @ #708 & #710, mind you, but real, scientific evidence.

"“Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Such absolute Faith"

You don't know what faith is. Explains a lot of your errors.

It's logical argument, the premise is sound, else you would have found a counter for it, the conclusion necessarily arises from the premises, therefore the conclusion is sound.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #863
“Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”

What acts are you referring to?
Any to show?

"““… because those acts can be discoverable ones …”
Just because they can be does not mean they will be.”
But just because they may not be doesn’t mean they can’t.

Excellent! Trot ‘em out for inspection!"

Here:
Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"I am right with or without evidence ..."

A True Believer shows his Scientific openness.
You rock, dude!

"“Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god …”

What acts are you referring to?"

These ones: Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"“I am right with or without evidence …”

A True Believer shows his Scientific openness."

So you don't understand believer either. Or scientific openness. Not a surprise.

So, absent a genuine counter, the claim remains unaltered and valid:
Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #873

“Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.”

In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

That sounds more like another Profession of your Faith than anything else.

Ethan has been posting about the Limit of Knowledge, specifically, the limit of Scientific knowledge for several years now. I would have expected even people who, like you, post statements you know to be false, as you did @ #708 & #710, would have been aware of that.

I suppose you don’t pay attention to Stuff You Don’t Believe In.

@ #877

"... the claim remains unaltered ..."

And still without evidence
Just your Faith it is True,

So, when did you first adopt your technique of posting false statements you know to be false when you post them?

Has it been a long-term, chronic problem, or has been a sudden-onset affliction?

You know, the posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them, like you did @ #708 & #710?

So, yet more ignorance over terms, including what proofs are, and a complete ignorance of the question of this thread and not one counterargument for the premise nor its conclusion.

That's teabaggie's own brand of insanity, right there!

But, despite their idiocy, the lack of counter leaves the claim valid still.
So, absent a genuine counter, the claim remains unaltered and valid:
Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

““I am right with or without evidence …”
That is what you posted @ #870, isn’t it?
That’s a direct quote.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.

Knowingly.

And now you’re lying about what happened to hide it.

'nuff said.

@ #882
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?
That sounds more like another Profession of your Faith than anything else.

@ #877
“… you don’t understand believer either. Or scientific openness …”
This is your chance to explain all those things, O Man of Great Faith.
While you’re at it, will you also explain why you posted false statements you knew were false when you posted them at #708 & #710?

"““I am right with or without evidence …”
That is what you posted @ #870, isn’t it?"

Yes, because the argument is can science prove the existence of god, not prove god exists.

And since the argument's premise is untouched by your insanity nor is it affected by your lies, the conclusion remains valid.

Yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"... Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god."

O Great Man of Faith, in the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

That sounds more like another Profession of your Faith than anything else.

"“… you don’t understand believer either. Or scientific openness …”
This is your chance to explain all those things"

'course, teabaggie.

Believer definition, to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

Yet you think it somehow religious belief.

FAIL

Not having evidence is not a failure of scientific openness.

FAIL.

"O Great Man of Faith"

Who? You?

@ #887

“““I am right with or without evidence …”
That is what you posted @ #870, isn’t it?”

Yes, because the argument is can science prove the existence of god, not prove god exists."

Sooooooooooooo, you Believe You Are Right With Or Without Evidence.

O Great Man of Faith, your words do not speak of Science, they speak of your Faith.

Now that you are a Man of Great Faith, will you no longer make false statements like you knowingly made @ #708 & #710?

No, it's not just faith for you, is it teabaggie. It's a compunction to lie, an inability to converse with logic, an incomprehension of rationality and a disregard for reality. Just "Faith" doesn't cover your insanities, does it, you feculent retard.

The premise remains untouched and valid, the conclusion uncontested with a counter and therefore the claim stands still.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

@ #889
“… Yet you think it somehow religious belief …”
O Great Man of Faith, who also posts “““I am right with or without evidence …”, the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.

Just you and Hasnain.
What are you trying to tell the world now?

@ #890

"Just “Faith” doesn’t cover your insanities, does it, you feculent retard"

A Wonderful Wizard of Words as well as a Man of Great Faith!.

I am so fortunate to be in your presence!

" the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain."

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don't you, teabaggie.

The premise remains untouched and valid, the conclusion uncontested with a counter and therefore the claim stands still.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #890
“… It’s a compunction to lie, an inability to converse with logic, an incomprehension of rationality and a disregard for reality …”

While I am sure you feel great remorse for your peculiar behavior of posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them (ref here your comments #798 & 710), you must not take so badly.
I’m sure there is still goodness in you.

AS for your inability to converse with logic, an incomprehension of rationality and a disregard for reality, I’m uncertain there is anything I can do to help you with those failures.

@ 898

"... Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god."

O Great Man of Faith, in the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith than anything else.

"your peculiar behavior of posting false statements"

You mean your lie about only two people talking about religion, right?

"AS for your inability to converse with logic,"

You have presented no logic argument against the premise nor the conclusion.

Therefore it stands unopposed.Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

If you have a problem with the logic, you need to state it.

Also work out what you want to say because

O Great Man of Faith, in the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

Is meaningless. At the very least, with the best take on fixing it, this is not a question, so drop the question mark.

It still fails many other hurdles for having any meaning.

But one conclusion is clear: you don't know what Ethan said. That would explain why you've been unable to use it except as a proclamation and never use it.

@ #897
“ ” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”
1) So what? ..”

So, birds of a feather flock together.
Just sayin’

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

If you have a problem with the logic, ask someone for help.

"“ ” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”
1) So what? ..”

So, birds of a feather flock together."

2) A lie. Many others did so.
3) You were one of them.

Flocking about here too, are you?

But I see no argument against the logic I made so it stands yet:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #901
“ your peculiar behavior of posting false statements”
You mean your lie about only two people talking about religion, right? “

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud, O Man of Great Faith.

@ #901
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith than anything else

O Great Man of Faith, in the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

Plus the others shown before.

Bad boy.

But I guess when you haven't got a leg to stand on, you prattle this crap the same way as a cat shuffles the contents of the litter tray around to hide what they just did.

And still there is no counterargument to either the proposition or the claim from you.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #905
“… But I see no argument against the logic I made so it stands yet …”

Of course, you don’t. There is nothing anyone can say to you that will change your mind. You have your Faith to guide you, and as you posted @ #870, “I am right with or without evidence …”

“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
In the absence of evidence, using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?
That sounds more like another Profession of your Faith

“… But I see no argument against the logic I made so it stands yet …”

Of course, you don’t.

Because it isn't there.

Still isn't.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

"In the absence of evidence"

Evidence of what? Why is its lack relevant?

The premise doesn't need it, the conclusion rests on the premise therefore doesn't warrant it, and the question is about the ability of science to prove not the fact of proof having occurred, and evidence is nonsensical to claim.

"But one conclusion is clear: you don’t know what Ethan said...."

Wrong again O Man of Great Faith. Here's what Ethan posted,

"The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be."

You also now know what Ethan posted. You should listen and learn.

"using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world"

Why is that relevant? This is about whether science can prove the existence of god. Not whether science can describe all the natural world.

“But one conclusion is clear: you don’t know what Ethan said….”

Wrong again O Man of Great Faith. Here’s what Ethan posted,

“The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

The claim wasn't you could not copypaste it, but that you don't know what he said.

@ #911
“Evidence of what? …”
Evidence of any god-world interaction you could point to support your claim that Science can Prove the existence of God, O Man of Great Faith.

The problem, although you probably don’t see it this way, is that not everyone has your Faith, and would like to see some evidence BEFORE they believe.

“… Why is its lack relevant?”

Its lack is relevant because this blog is about Science, not your version of Faith.

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

"cannot describe all the natural world " != But some things we will likely never know.

"much less a presumed supernatural one " Doesn't exist there.

" incomplete philosophical foundation" Doesn't exist there. You tried to claim that it didn't understand mind, but it does. Your lie.

"“Evidence of what? …”
Evidence of any god-world interaction "

Why is that needed?

"Why is its lack relevant?”

Its lack is relevant because this blog is about Science, not your version of Faith."

Non-sequitur.

"The claim wasn’t you could not copypaste it, but that you don’t know what he said."

LOL! At least I read the post. And now you have too, at least a little bit of it.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

Nothing about having proved god.

"LOL! At least I read the post. "

And didn't refer to it anywhere in your claims that you asserted were shown in it.

And it doesn't.

Which is why I wanted you to point out what you were talking about, since I knew there was nothing in Ethan's post that supported your claims about it. I may have missed something, so I gave you plentiful opportunity to find it yourself rather than do the work thinking what you might have misconstrued, only to get you whining about how I got the wrong bit.

Which you provided yourself, EVENTUALLY, and have now shown that, yes, I was correct: You were talking bollocks about what it said.

@ 917
““Evidence of what? …”
Evidence of any god-world interaction ”

Why is that needed? ..."
Weeeellllll, since you have no evidence to support you claim that Science can prove the existence of God. only people of Faith, like you and Hasnain, can find it easy to Believe in It.

"... “Why is its lack relevant?”

Its lack is relevant because this blog is about Science, not your version of Faith.”

Non-sequitur."
I'm sure you Believe you Faith trumps Science, but that's not so true in this blog.

"Weeeellllll, since you have no evidence to support you claim that Science can prove the existence of God"

Since the claim is not that science has proven god, your insistence is invalid.

The question is "Can science prove the existence of god".

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #920
“… I knew there was nothing in Ethan’s post that supported your claims about it …”
Other than explicitly stating, “The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”?
LOL! Busted again!

“… I may have missed something …”
You’ve missed the point of Ethan’s post. Science is unable to completely describe the natural world. It’s good, but not that good.

Argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the subject as it is studied in logic and philosophy. For other uses, see Argument (disambiguation).

In philosophy and logic, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.[1][2] The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science.

In a typical deductive argument, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]

The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic.[9] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

See "Evidence" in there, teabaggie?

I suppose it is time now for you to revert to form, and again start posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710

I wonder what it will be about this time?

From http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.

In this review of elementary logic, we'll undertake a broad survey of the major varieties of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical tradition. We'll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth while other patterns do not, and we'll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding the latter. It will be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe human reasoning in general.

See "Evidence" there? What does it use as "Evidence"?

For definition:

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
noun: evidence

1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;
support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for
"they found evidence of his participation in the burglary"
Law
information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
"without evidence, they can't bring a charge"

verb
verb: evidence; 3rd person present: evidences; past tense: evidenced; past participle: evidenced; gerund or present participle: evidencing

1.
be or show evidence of.

I suppose it is time now for you to revert to form, and again start posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did in #925.

They don't affect the conclusion nor its premise, which are:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #924
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia …”
Hey! You’ve learned how to cut and paste! That great!

When will you learn that you should not post statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710 ?

Lying again, teabaggie? Just like before, huh.

No worries, nobody believes you.

@ #927
"... Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god"

Ah, back to another of your Professions of Faith, O Great Man of Faith?

O Great Man of Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you're using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

@ #929
"Lying again ..."

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Is that normal for you, O Man of Great Faith?

"much less a presumed supernatural one"

Evidence please.

"that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation"

Prove that it matters.

"in the absence of evidence"

Prove it matters.

"using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world "

Prove it matters.

"why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?"

Lying again, teabaggie? BAD BOY.

If you can't manage all those, then the premise and conclusion stands unopposed:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

“cannot describe all the natural world ” != But some things we will likely never know.

“much less a presumed supernatural one ” Doesn’t exist there.

” incomplete philosophical foundation” Doesn’t exist there. You tried to claim that it didn’t understand mind, but it does. Your lie.

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

Plus the others shown before.

@ #932
"... Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god"

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

"in the absence of evidence,..."

You have no evidence your complaints are correct.

Evidence and proof, plz.

TIA.

Without that proof and evidence, the claim still stands.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

" ” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?"

So are you and Hasnain trying to tell us something about Faith?

@ #901
“ your peculiar behavior of posting false statements”
You mean your lie about only two people talking about religion, right? “

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud, O Man of Great Faith.

////////////////////////////////////////////

“AS for your inability to converse with logic,”
@ #937
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

” ” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?”
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

Are you trying to tell us about your religion teabaggie???

Must be hateful for you to be unable to find a logical reason against the answer "Yes". If only you could find a problem with this:
Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

@ #937
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

"No lies HERE."

Evidence proves otherwise, teabaggie.

But you spam it again because you can't find any way to disprove the answer you hate deep within your soul.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

@ #940
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

"That sounds ..."

Still making irrelevant demands, teabaggie? You couldn't find a hole in the logic, so you're pretending that your spam is valid.

It isn't.

All you need is to find logical problems in the argument:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

@ #942
"... you can’t find any way to disprove the answer you hate deep within your soul ..."

Now the Man of Great Faith is talking about the "soul", yet another supernatural entity!

You rock, Dude!

@ #942
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds more like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

"Now the Man of Great Faith is talking about the “soul”"

You.
See #412

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

At least while you’re posting about your supernatural entities and your Beliefs, you’re not posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710.

So that’s a step in the right direction.

@ #948
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

Ethan, if you're feeling a bit pissed off, thank your off-hands approach for it.

Teabaggie the insanity puppy here is, frankly, higher than a camper full of hippies.

He's left with nothing.

But he sure as hell is going to pound it.

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

“much less a presumed supernatural one”

Evidence please.

“that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation”

Prove that it matters.

“in the absence of evidence”

Prove it matters.

“using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world ”

Prove it matters.

“why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?”

Lying again, teabaggie? BAD BOY.

If you can’t manage all those, then the premise and conclusion stands unopposed

@ #947
"See #412"

Yes. I answered your question. Read on ...

#412
"“Please show that the supernatural exists.”

When one asks questions like “What is the meaning of life?” and “Does the soul exist?”, we generally expect answers that are outside of the natural world (supernatural) — and hence, outside of Science

QED."

And now you're all about the "soul". Good for you!

@ #952
“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

@ #952
"Lying again ..."

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud, O Man of Great Faith.

"““Please show that the supernatural exists.”

When one asks questions like"

"Please show that the supernatural exists", you don't. Therefore your claim regarding it is unsupported by any claim of relevance.

"— and hence, outside of Science"

Is unsupported conjecture that it exists. Before you can make a claim that it is outside science, you need to give some evidence it exists.

So your claims are invalid. The contest, though entirely invalid anyway, is shown here to be invalid. The claim stands:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god

“much less a presumed supernatural one”

Evidence please.

“that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation”

Prove that it matters.

“in the absence of evidence”

Prove it matters.

“using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world ”

Prove it matters.

“why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?”

Lying again, teabaggie? BAD BOY.

If you can’t manage all those, then the premise and conclusion stands unopposed

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

And his repeated claims 708 and 710 are false.

===

All your lies in one package, teabaggie, you fucking retard.

Tabulation of your lies, teabaggie:

=====
” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

@ #956

“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god …”

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

@ #958
“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

So when you claim Ethan's post as having busted my argument, you were lying, then teabaggie.

You have to support the claim that the tools are inadequate to investigate the actions of the supernatural.

You have to support the claim that there IS a supernatural.

Without that, you have nothing against the premise:

Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

@ #961

“… Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature”

Hmmm. Interesting. Now you're defining how God must interact with the natural world - in a way Science can measure.

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

O Man of Great Faith, in the absence of evidence, as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, why should anyone pay any attention to your Claims of Faith?

"Hmmm. Interesting. Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world"

Hmmm. Interesting. Where do I say god must interact with the natural world...?

Hmmm. You patently must never have read it before, despite scores of repeats. "now"????

@ #958
“… If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions …”

As you elected to excerpt the above from #475, it would appear you found the conjecture notable.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I provide it in full. Read on …

#475
“Physicalism is the philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.
If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions; if Physicalism is defined as anything which may be described by physics in the future, then one is really saying nothing.”

What was it that you found so notable?

@ #958
“… Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true …”

While it would appear you found that comment notable, it is supported by evidence. For example, I avoid – unlike you @ #870 making comments of the form “I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid …”

You assert as True, with or without evidence, that Science can prove the existence of God. [the claim]
That is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science.
That is a Credo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo)

While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.

"physics cannot describe how the mind functions"

Is a lie.

I noted out your lies, teabaggie. That is the lie.

"You assert as True, with or without evidence"

The evidence to support the claim is: Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones and those acts confirmed as proof and evidence of the existence of god, just like it would prove the existence of any natural actor in nature.

See the definition of evidence.

@ #961
“… So when you claim Ethan’s post as having busted my argument, you were lying …”

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

A notable achievement, O Man of Great Faith.

@ #966
“ “physics cannot describe how the mind functions”
Is a lie.”

What evidence can you provide to substantiate your claim, , O Man of Great Faith?

re 968:

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===

@ #967

There’s no need for you to try to justify your claim @ #870, “I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid …”

Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870 are unassailable by reason, and you are welcome to it.

You should realize though, that when you assert as True, with or without evidence, that Science can prove the existence of God [the claim], the type of assertion you are making is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science. That is a Credo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo)
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.

"Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870 "

Yet another lie, teabaggie.

The clam is based on logical reasoning.

Not faith, you moron.

@ #974
"Not faith, you moron."
LOL! More eloquence from the Man of Great Faith!

Let us return to your claim @ #870, “I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid …”

Claims based on Faith, such as those that admit of no alternate possibility like the one @ #870 are unassailable by reason.

I prefer Reason to Faith.

Still if you prefer to make assumptions that you are unwilling to challenge, if that's what floats your boat, by all means take that path to your Truth.

I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.

Then again, you’re quite comfortable with making false statements you know to be false when you make the, as you did @ #708 & #710, so there is no telling what you’ll post next, is there?

@ #974
"Yet another lie, teabaggie."

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Do what you do well, O Man of Great Faith.

"Claims based on Faith,"

Irrelevant. The claim in 870 is based on logic, not faith.

"Claims based on Faith, such as those that admit of no alternate possibility"

Like yours that you are wrong!

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===
Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870
===

Your list of lies grows and grows....

@ #977

There's no need to get excited, old bean. As I’ve told you before, it’s unnecessary for you to try to justify your claim @ #870, “I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid …”

Again, claims based on which admit of no possibility of error (ref here “right with or without evidence”) are assumptions – faith based, not reasoned ones. They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours. Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.

You should realize though, that when you assert as True, with or without evidence, that Science can prove the existence of God [the claim], the type of assertion you are making is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science. It is a Credo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo)

While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.

I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith. That said, if you prefer to make assumptions that you are unwilling to challenge, if that’s what floats your boat, then by all means take that path to your Truth. I also prefer Science to what you seem to practice.

As you’re quite comfortable with making false statements you know to be false when you make them, as you did @ #708 & #710, there is no telling what you’ll post next, is there?

@ #978
“.. While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so …”

Yes, that is my opinion, O Man of Great Faith. People who prefer Faith to Science have their gathering places, and people who prefer Science to Faith have their gathering places.

Please be aware that this place is the latter, not the former.

@ #978
“.. Your list of lies grows and grows …”

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew false when you made them.

It is all documented, O Man of Great Faith.

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===
Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870
===

There’s no need to get excited, old bean.

===

It's all documented, old bean.

@ #982
“... Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted? …”

As you have been documented engaging in that activity, it is a reasonable question.

Is it because you are aware that Science cannot prove the existence of God? Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)?

Is it because Science rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation?

Teabaggie, simple q here:

Can a geiger counter prove radiation exists?

"As you have been documented engaging in that activity, it is a reasonable question."

As it is begging the question, it is a logical fallacy. And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.

"Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)?"

Is a formal fallacy: the generic fallacy.

You don't do logic much, do you, teabaggie. No wonder you are still incapable of accepting the conclusion, yet have no idea why, or how to write it out.

@ #982
“… Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted? …”

As you have been documented engaging in that activity, it is a reasonable question

So since you do not argue with it being a lie to claim I'm posting false statements known to be false when they're posted, the accusation stands proven.

A question thereby arises: why do YOU, teabaggie, post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

@ #985
“ “As you have been documented engaging in that activity, it is a reasonable question.”
As it is begging the question, it is a logical fallacy …”

As the documentation is a fact …
You’re wrong again.

“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a fallacy.

As you did engage in posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them, you are untrustworthy.
Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)

@ #986

"... So since you do not argue with it being a lie to claim I’m posting false statements known to be false when they’re posted, ..."
Ref #987. You’re wrong again.

“… the accusation stands proven.”
Yes, the accusation that you post false statement you know to be false does stand proven. That’s why you are untrustworthy.

@ #986
"... why do YOU, teabaggie, post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?"

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Way to go, O Man of Great Faith.

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===
Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870
===

There’s no need to get excited, old bean.

===

As you have been documented engaging in that activity,

===
“… the accusation stands proven.”
Yes, the accusation that you post false statement you know to be false does stand proven.
===

The list of your lies goes on and on. Back to the post where it belongs.

@ #985

"... “Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)?”

Is a formal fallacy: the generic fallacy."

No, I don’t agree that Ethan’s post is a formal fallacy. Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world.

So, teabaggie, can a geiger counter prove radiation exists?

At least while you’re posting about Geiger counters, you’re not posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710.

That’s a step in the right direction, right?

"That’s a step in the right direction, right?"

Still not answering the question. That's not a step at all. Are you so terrified of saying something you might have to support? That's the faithiests' reason for wanting the burden of proof hived off their back. Or is this just another attempt to copypasta the same tired lie all over again?

Teabaggie, can a geiger counter prove radiation exists? Tell me you DO know what they are, right?

@990,
“… While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so … “

Yes, that’s correct. As I’ve told you before, it’s unnecessary for you to try to justify your claim @ #870, “I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid …”
Again, claims based on which admit of no possibility of error (ref here “right with or without evidence”) are assumptions – faith based, not reasoned ones. They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours. Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
You should realize though, that when you assert as True, with or without evidence, that Science can prove the existence of God [the claim], the type of assertion you are making is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science. It is a Credo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo)
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith. That said, if you prefer to make assumptions that you are unwilling to challenge, if that’s how you roll, then by all means take that path to your Truth. I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.

HA! So it's true! You DON'T know what a geiger counter is!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

@990,
“ “… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “

Yes, that’s correct.
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

snrk.

OK, so you don't know what a geiger counter is. Do you know what radiation is, teabaggie?

And it's HILARIOUS how easy it is to distract you from reality by dropping a little birdseed for you to pick at as if it were all that was in the world! ROFLMAO!!

@994
“… Are you so terrified of saying something you might have to support? …”
As you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, the burden of proof lies on you, not me.

“… That’s the faithiests’ reason for wanting the burden of proof hived off their back …”

Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.

HA! Yup, you don't know what radiation is, either!!!!

God, you're dumb.

Now fuck off this science site you retard. Only those who either know science or are willing to listen and learn need apply.

Morons like yourself are restricted to the dump thread where there wilful and voluble ignorance is contained.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Ethan, please see this stupid fuckwit off the premises.

They are completely unable to answer simple questions and don't know the first thing about either radiation or geiger counters but would prefer to repeat bullshit and lies time and time again.

Kick the stupid arsewipe off.

Ta.