“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.
In particular, we can ask three separate questions:
- What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?
- How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
- 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.
- Log in to post comments
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 /…
“We have finally established the contours that define the supercluster of galaxies we can call home … This is not unlike finding out for the first time that your hometown is actually part of much larger country that borders other nations.” -Brent Tully
It's been another remarkable week here at …
@990,
“ as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) ”
Yes, that’s correct.
Ethan has shown that Science is unable to provide complete information of the natural world (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will-nev…)
I’ve pointed out that the inadequacy is true also for the natural plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events.)
Nothing you want in those 11 posts, so you "forget" they even exist.
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
The current list of lies and bullshit from you, teabaggie, all because you'd rather spew bullshit than talk rationally with someone you don't agree with (but can't explain why).
Pitiful.
BUT HILARIOUS!
HA! Don't know what radiation is, nor what a geiger counter is (kinda reasonable since you don't know what radiation is!). Obsessed with faith and evidence for it!
Fucking priceless.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
@ #1000
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
Remember, as you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, the burden of proof lies on you, not me.
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim.
So, teabaggie, can a geiger counter prove radiation exists?
Or will you just regurgitate the same stale vomit as before?
Coarse language, irrelevant and hectoring posts, knowingly posting falsehoods as you did @ #708 & #710, and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
Remember, as you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, the burden of proof lies on you, not me. You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you're unlikely to do so.
Since you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one), and rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, I suppose we shouldn't expect much from you.
Ethan, can you please BAN this caustic Bitch WOW? She constantly talks in circles. NEVER making any scientific based argument butt merely inflammatory rhetoric back by circular reason.
John has exposed her bull Shit OVER AND OVER in this thread.
Just Ban The Bitch. If even for a week..
Thanks
Would it be easier to ignore the post altogether? That way you don't have to choose to get riled over that with which you do not agree. WOW, or John are not making you lose your cool; you are the only one who decides whether to be angry, or not.
@ #1006
We all remember who made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, and know where the burden of proof lies. To date, no evidence to support that claim has been provided, and it is unlikely there ever will be.
True Believers believe without proof that God does or does not exist. Hasnain believes without proof that God does exist. Each of them asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position, and stridently deny weaknesses in their own intellectual position. They are two sides of the same coin; they are both True Believers. Not only do they both not agree with me, but they also disagree with each other.
Hasnain, to his credit, was honest, unlike those who knowingly post false statements, as happened @ #708 & #710 in this thread. Dishonesty like that is unsurprising, as the tool being used, Science, cannot describe all the natural world, much less a presumed supernatural one containing a supernatural God, and that tool rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation. “The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n”. One can only imagine the despair (s)he wallowed in, once the hopelessness of that cause was finally understood, if it ever was.
We’ll never know, of course, how many potential contributors to these threads have clicked away to other good Science blogs, Field of Science (The Curious Wavefunction in particular) for example, put off by the loutish behavior and foul language used here by some.
This forum isn’t for them, it’s for people who are not prejudiced.
PJ, teabagging medium wants me banned because they hate anyone who doesn't respect the cult he's following.
Tabaggie here just wants to lie. and ignore questions they can't lie about.
See the following list:
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
Ragbag, where the fuck were YOU for the last 800+ posts, hmm?
Fucking about and making shit up, that's what.
@ #1009
From Ethan:
“Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
Goodness John, you and Wow are up to a thousand posts and you still haven't progressed beyond 'science limited! God possible!' ???
It's a 'he.' Milton the author was male, and the character Satan in Paradise Lost is also male. Its clear from other bits of the poem that Satan feels despair and knows exactly the price he's paying for his rebellion. Though arguably Milton made revenge and pride - not despair - his lead character's most powerful personality traits. Thus the famous line, "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n."
@ #1012
The context of your excerpt follows ...
"Hasnain, to his credit, was honest, unlike those who knowingly post false statements, as happened @ #708 & #710 in this thread. Dishonesty like that is unsurprising, as the tool being used, Science, cannot describe all the natural world, much less a presumed supernatural one containing a supernatural God, and that tool rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation. “The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n”. One can only imagine the despair (s)he wallowed in, once the hopelessness of that cause was finally understood, if it ever was."
I was referring to neither Milton nor Satan.
Hell, I[ve gone further than that. He just keeps bleating on about how I have to have evidence to show that god exists before I can claim that science can prove god exists.
He's also paralyzed with fear over the question:
Can a geiger counter prove radiation exists?
He ignores it totally, as if it's some sort of kryptonite to him
But, no, only teabaggie here is stuck at "science limited! "
God possible isn't even what I'm at, it's:
He just keeps bleating on about how ethan's proven that science is limited and I have no evidence that god exists, so I must be a religious person.
Fucking moron that he is doesn't even care about what's said.
Ah. You were referring to the guy who was banned for spamming the board over and over and over again with cut and pasted material as "honest." I think I'll take Wow's profligate insults over that type of honesty.
Since this thread is already long and not advancing, allow me to ask a sidebar: so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him. Do you think he did that on purpose, or was he simply unable to create a world where human scientific investigation could reach him?
@ #1015
"... You were referring to the guy who was banned for spamming the board over and over and over again with cut and pasted material as “honest.” I think I’ll take Wow’s profligate insults over that type of honesty."
The text to which you refer follows …
“Hasnain, to his credit, was honest, unlike those who knowingly post false statements, as happened @ #708 & #710 in this thread. Dishonesty like that is unsurprising, as the tool being used, Science, cannot describe all the natural world, much less a presumed supernatural one containing a supernatural God, and that tool rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation. “The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n”. One can only imagine the despair (s)he wallowed in, once the hopelessness of that cause was finally understood, if it ever was.”
I was not referring to Milton, or Satan, or Hasnain.
It is true this thread is already long, so I remind you that the title is "Can science prove the existence of God?".
Ethan has already addressed the limits of Science in re its ability to describe the natural world.
"... so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him ..."
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
Feel free to pursue your theological questions with others who also find them interesting.
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
LOL John, this entire thread seems to consist of you telling us the positions you *don't* take. Hundreds of posts, and what I've gleaned is (1) you don't like Wow, but feel compelled to respond to his jabs every time, (2) current science doesn't explain everything now, (3) you categorically refuse to tell us what you think we should do, if anything, in response to point #2.
teabaggie has found that it's only when the moron admits saying something that he might be proven wrong, so he avoids that catastrophe to his ego by insisting on not saying anything.
And, to avoid being asked to support his assertion that science cannot possibly be used to prove god, he doesn't accept he said it, he claims Ethan says it.
teabaggie doesn;t even care to prove that his claim, to whit:
" 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"
is relevant, just insanely rants and raves about how EVERYONE ELSE is a religious nutbar.
Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.
@ #1017
“… this entire thread seems to consist of you telling us the positions you *don’t* take.”
… chuckling … I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
“… Hundreds of posts, and what I’ve gleaned is (1) you don’t like Wow, but feel compelled to respond to his jabs every time, (2) current science doesn’t explain everything now, (3) you categorically refuse to tell us what you think we should do, if anything, in response to point #2.”
In re #2: “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.”
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
@ #1018
“… And, to avoid being asked to support his assertion that science cannot possibly be used to prove god, he doesn’t accept he said it, he claims Ethan says it.”
You remain mistaken. I have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
” 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”
It is accurate to say Science cannot describe all the natural world. Ref here E. Siegel, “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.”
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…)
If, instead of posting false statements known to be false when posted, and instead recognizing the limits of Science, as evidenced in Ethan’s quote of Werner Heisenberg, one can appreciate and enjoy the wonder and splendor of reality as seen through that limited lens. To admit such limitations is only to acknowledge that humans have limitations. Some, such as Herr Heisenberg, accept that fact. I do too. I leave it to foolish people to claim otherwise.
The incompleteness of Physicalism is well documented. Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
“… just insanely rants and raves about how EVERYONE ELSE is a religious nutbar.”
I have ranted and raved about nothing, insanely or otherwise. I have identified at least two True Believers, one on each side of the “Does God Exist?” argument. One believes without proof that God does not exist. Hasnain believes without proof that God does exist. Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers. Not only do they both not agree with me, but they also disagree with each other.
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
@ #1014
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
But the question has to suppose that god exists else the answer has to be "no" for the trivial rason that it has alternatively to be presumed it doesn't. You insist that you aren't saying god doesn't exist, so in the context you have to accept god does.
And if god does, then you're saying what eric posted.
Because you insist on making statements and claims then disclaiming any claim you make. Any attempt to interpret is refused by you. Either you are saying nothing (evidently not true) or you're hiding the meaning of your statements and we have to express that meaning for you.
And you're EXTREMELY plentiful in your insistence on putting words in people's mouths. Like "one says god doesn't exist", which is a lie, or "one says god does exist", which wasn't said only implied for a specific version of god.
Then it can be.
That is irrelevant.
Where did i say that? Nowhere.
Except you think "god" means "the christian god", the only one I showed science proved didn't exist. Moreover, that's why you have such a hard-on (to the extent you can) to fight me down with endless bullshit and nonsense. I've proved one god doesn't exist, and that REALLY winds you up.
Your claim that science is limited does not indicate that it cannot investigate the actions of even supernatural agents that affect this reality. You even admit that a ghost opening a door leaves a door whose state can be measured scientifically. The act of a god making a miracle is an act that changes this reality, and that is one of the features of the general belief of what god is: it does miracles.
So this shows that science can prove the existence of god.
What gripes you is that if science CAN prove it exists, it can also DISPROVE it exists, so you insist on the NOMA to protect god from being found false.
Evidence you are a christian apologetic.
And above there is evidence that science can prove the existence of god.
But you're a lying sack of crap, as usual, and will not even say whether a geiger counter can prove the existence of radiation. Because to start to say something you KNOW (even if you don't know how) leads to you making the wrong claim for your obstructionist bullshit.
@ #1022
“… You insist that you aren’t saying god doesn’t exist, so in the context you have to accept god does …”
Your proposition is foolish nonsense. It is true that I have not said God exists, and it is also true that I have not said that God does not exists.
“… Because you insist on making statements and claims then disclaiming any claim you make. Any attempt to interpret is refused by you. Either you are saying nothing (evidently not true) or you’re hiding the meaning of your statements and we have to express that meaning for you.”
If you wish to know my opinion you may ask me for it. If I decide to provide it, you will then receive it.
“ “I have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God.”
Then it can be. “
You are mistaken. Whether or not “science cannot possibly be used to prove God” (#1018) is independent of whether or not I have asserted so, which I have not.
“ “It is accurate to say Science cannot describe all the natural world.”
That is irrelevant.”
You are mistaken.
As Ethan elected to refer to “God” in the title of this post, it is reasonable to think Ethan ink was referring to “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (ref available on request) This entity is commonly defined as supernatural (ref available on request).
For your claim “science can prove the existence of god” (#948) to be true, it (Science) would have to be a complete description of the natural world so that “Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones …” (ibid). As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it, not only is your conclusion false (wrong), but the fact that Science cannot describe all the natural world is intimately related to the thread topic, “Science cannot describe all the natural world”.
No I am not. You have presented absolutely no proof that it is relevant and refuse to make any claim about it being relevant, and therefore it is not relevant, or on other words, irrelevant.
Repeating an irrelevant claim does not make it relevant.
Your claim is still irrelevant. Therefore science can prove the existence of god under the presumption that it can act to change this reality.
No, my conclusion does not depend on science being able to describe all the natural world.
Your assertion is false.
Prove it.
Ref pls.
" “ “It is accurate to say Science cannot describe all the natural world.”
That is irrelevant.”
You are mistaken.
No I am not. ..."
You remain mistaken.
As Ethan elected to refer to “God” in the title of this post, it is reasonable to think Ethan ink was referring to “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (ref available on request) This entity is commonly defined as supernatural (ref available on request).
For your claim “science can prove the existence of god” (#948) to be true, it (Science) would have to be a complete description of the natural world so that “Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones …” (ibid). As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it, not only is your conclusion false (wrong), but the fact that Science cannot describe all the natural world is intimately related to the thread topic, “Science cannot describe all the natural world”.
@ #1026
"This entity is commonly defined as supernatural (ref available on request). "
Ref pls."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
“This entity is commonly defined as supernatural (ref available on request). ”
Ref pls.”
Nope, nowhere does it claim supernatural in there.
"You remain mistaken.
As Ethan elected to refer to “God” in the title of this post,"
Irrelevant to your claim, though.
So your claim "it (Science) would have to be a complete description of the natural world " remains irrelevant, since there's nothing about "god" in that claim. Doubly so if you wish to include a supernatural god in there, since nature doesn't include supernature, nor does a lack of complete natural explanation exclude any supernatural conclusion.
@ #1022
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
“… Moreover, that’s why you have such a hard-on (to the extent you can) …”
Trotting out the adolescent insults now. You do provide much entertainment.
“… I’ve proved one god doesn’t exist …”
I suppose if one defines the attributes of a deity to be sufficiently limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man (“God of the gaps” in the vernacular) would, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will always satisfy some.
Your claim that science is limited does not indicate that it cannot investigate the actions of even supernatural agents that affect this reality.
Ref “Why Science Will Never Know Everything About Our Universe” @ Forbes
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
“… So this shows that science can prove the existence of god.”
As your premise (“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”) is false, so is your conclusion.
“What gripes you is that if science CAN prove it exists, it can also DISPROVE it exists …”
Ref “Why Science Will Never Know Everything About Our Universe” @ Forbes
“… Evidence you are a christian apologetic.”
Yawn.
“And above there is evidence that science can prove the existence of god.”
Ref “Why Science Will Never Know Everything About Our Universe” @ Forbes
“But you’re a lying sack of crap … your obstructionist bullshit.”
You’re as eloquent as always
Liar.
Post #25
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
Strawman fallacy. The only one limiting god is you, teabaggie.
All your blather and bullshit still doesn't disprove the claim that science can prove the existence of god.
But your christian apologetics hates the idea of science proving god, because it means that science can also disprove it, and that you will not abide
Liar, teabaggie.
@ #1029
“Nope, nowhere does it claim supernatural in there “ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God ]
You are mistaken.
There are 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there.
---------------------------------
@ #1030
“ “You remain mistaken.
As Ethan elected to refer to “God” in the title of this post,”
Irrelevant to your claim, though …”
You successfully remain mistaken.
To begin, it is you who are making the claim that Science can explain the existence of God. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken.
To continue, Ethan elected to refer to “God” in the title of this post, so it is reasonable to think Ethan was referring to “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe” (reference already provided) This entity is commonly defined as supernatural ( [8 occurrences]).
For your claim “science can prove the existence of god” (#948) to be true, it (Science) would have to be a complete description of the natural world so that “Acts by god in this reality can prove the existence of god because those acts can be discoverable ones …” (ibid). As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it, not only is your conclusion false (wrong), but the fact that Science cannot describe all the natural world is intimately related to the thread topic, “Science cannot describe all the natural world”.
Science, being unable to provide a complete description of the natural world is also unable to describe the supernatural (all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature).
@ #1034
" “You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
Liar, teabaggie ..."
... chuckling ... I was quoting you, not admitting anything. Go back and look.
You're wrong again.
@ #1032
" “… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
Liar.
Post #25
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th… "
... chuckling ... That is you quoting you. Go back and look.
You're wrong again.
No there aren't. See here again for where I looked:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
You'll need to show what you were looking at. And if it's not there you looked, you'll have to show why wherever you did look necessarily meant supernatural.
Since this is just a contradiction, I can ignore it.
Since even you note that you're not making any claims, your pointing out is unsupported by evidence and therefore wrong.
What does that have to do with science being unable to answer everything in our universe? There's nothing about that in this thread title.
Therefore it is irrelevant to support your claim my conclusion is unsupported, never mind wrong.
Irrelevant. None of my premise relies on a complete description of the natural world.
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.
does nt rely on science being a complete description of all of reality, nor even describe the supernatural</i?
Therefore, yes, science can prove the existence of god.
Since that is merely contradiction, I can ignore it.
However, why do you claim that one side says there is no god when I've only said the christian one (shared by the jews and muslims)?
Because to you, with your christian apologetics, think that god==christian god.
So your refutation is not merely irrelevant but factually wrong by evidence.
@ #1038
" There are 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there."
No there aren’t. See here again for where I looked:
... smiling ... That means you didn't use the reference you requested (#1026), and that I provided (# 1028). Go back and look.
@ #1038
"... yes, science can prove the existence of god."
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
Ref E. Siegel: “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
You do not yet appreciate what Ethan is saying.
Yes I did, teabaggie. See post 1026 again. Proof you are 100% wrong. Unless you wish to claim that my quote was not from your source...?
"Ref E. Siegel: “Science c...."
Irrelevant. Does not even exist in the title, so even you do not cite it as supported as relevant in this thread.
John:
Then we'll just continue doing science exactly the way we're doing it now, until you come up with some actionable methodological observation about science. Sound good?
@ #1042
"Then we’ll just continue doing science exactly the way we’re doing it now ..."
That means, of course, that Science will remain unable to prove the existence of God, as it is a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) and rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation
"... Sound good?"
I couldn't agree with you more.
“… See post 1026 again. Proof you are 100% wrong. Unless you wish to claim that my quote was not from your source…?”
The reference you asked for at #1026, and I provided at #1028, contained then and still contains 8 instances of the term. Go back and look. You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking)
Your pratfalls are endlessly entertaining. Your posts are often good for a chuckle, although not much else, alas.
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) 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.” (E. Siegel, Forbes, 10-FEB-17 ,“Why Science Will Never Know Everything About Our Universe”)
Better luck next time.
Your conclusion "that Science will remain unable to prove the existence of God"
Does not arise from your premise: "as it is a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) and rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation"
Therefore is not valid and the claim stands unopposed, yes, science can prove the existence of god, teabaggie.
Not at all sorry for that.
I did. This is what I found:
Not one place where it says supernatural there.
Nope, I've posted what defines god generally on that page. If you wanted something else to look at, I see two examples of the word used in the TITLE of a REFERENCE in the wiki page. Are you cherry picking the count and completely ignoring the context?
Damn straight, teabaggie. always projection with you creotard apologists, innit.
As to
Nothing about god or exclusion of everything there, so it is irrelevant to this thread. Your boneheaded insistence that it must be repeated does not make it relevant, teabaggie.
So it remains uncountered by any logical argument that, yes, science can prove god's existence. Your ignorance is not science's problem.
@ #1033
“… All your blather and bullshit still doesn’t disprove the claim that science can prove the existence of god.”
Ref E. Siegel “… Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prov…)
If there is a god and it is, as is generally defined as, the creator of this universe and everything in it, why on earth would it be supernatural? It's the most natural thing in existence. It's just not (yet) described in the laws of nature.
Almost certainly because it doesn't exist, therefore there's no law for it to operate under since it doesn't exist.
But if it did exist, it would be the most natural thing ever.
And even if it were supernatural and forever outside reality, what, then does it mean for it to exist, if it doesn't, really, exist? But even so, it's supposed to be omnipotent by the commonest definitions, so there's nothing there to limit it to "only those interactions that science can never investigate", since that would be a non-illogical limit to a power supposed to be limitless.
Omnipotence means being able to do anything that is not logically impossible. Indicating, by the way, that god operates under the laws of logic at least.
And, being omnipotent, no such definition of god can be said to be limited in power to never be able to prove itself in reality.
So, teabaggie, you are insisting that god be limited to NEVER being able to act in this reality as a presumption to keep your "god cannot be proven by science" NOMA protection up.
Your claim resides on the following necessary presumptions:
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
If any of those break, your assertion that god cannot be proven by science falls down.
The only presumption I have is
1) Some god actions are discoverable
And proclaiming that Ethan's 10th Feb post is relevant is to insert a different necessary claim: No god actions are discoverable.
That premise is unfounded and your complaints are illogical and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Still irrelevant. No claim of god or limit on its powers is asserted there. Not even if you repeat that bollocks again a billion times, teabaggie.
Ethan just doesn't agree with you, not even in the quote you present.
Your apologetics for the christian faith is pitiful.
"... Not one place where it says supernatural there ..."
… chuckling … As there are 8 instances of "supernatural" in the reference you requested (#1026), and that I provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God, (# 1028).
Go back and look.
You're wrong again!
LOL!
"Go back and look.
You’re wrong again!"
What I found was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Are you saying that the above quote is wrong?!?!?!?!
ROFL!
You nuts, teabaggie. Completely librarian poo!
Not to mention your nonexistent claim that god isn't omnipotent!
HA! What a moron you are, teabaggie! Fucking hilarious!
@ #1033
“… All your blather and bullshit still doesn’t disprove the claim that science can prove the existence of god.”
Ref E. Siegel “… Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prov…)
I'm sure Ethan will be as impressed with your opinion as am I.
“ Your conclusion “that Science will remain unable to prove the existence of God”
Does not arise from your premise: “as it is a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) and rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation” “
As it is true that Science cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) and rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation, it follows that Science cannot prove the existence of God.
You remain mistaken.
Further, “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.”
It looks like you'll remain mistaken.
HAW!
I know the problem: your claim is WRONG! If you were right you would EASILY have shown a quote form there that proved my quote wrong or out of context!
But my quote IS accurate and you're just bullshitting now, REALLY crapping yourself in fear that you've been cught out like you have been so very many times before!
HAW! HAW!!
“… Are you saying that the above quote is wrong?!?!?!?!
…”
… grinning … It is incomplete, just as Science and Physicalism is.
As there are 8 instances of “supernatural” in the reference you requested (#1026), and that I provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God, (# 1028).
Go back and look.
You’re wrong yet again.
Better luck next time.
I’m sure Ethan will be as impressed with your opinion as am I.
Yeah, right, teabaggie. So sure that you've not asked him... HAW!
Aaaw. Still irrelevant, even if you fake the quote!
Still irrelevant, teabaggie!
Still irrelevant, teabaggie!
So sad.
@ #1053
"... But my quote IS accurate and you’re just bullshitting now, REALLY crapping yourself in fear that you’ve been cught out like you have been so very many times before! ..."
… grinning … It remains incomplete, just as is Science and Physicalism.
As there are 8 instances of “supernatural” in the reference you requested (#1026), and that I provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God, (# 1028).
You’re wrong yet again.
And none of them in the definition of god by theologians, to whit:
HA! Still retardo profundo, teabaggie.
So sad.
Oh, teabaggie, if you continue to proffer Ethan's words rather than stand on your own claims, they will be dismissed with "Appeal to authority fallacy" and thereby debunked.
Either make up and stand by your own claims (and support them, teabaggie, which is the entire reason why you keep this appeal to authority "argument" spamming: so that you can avoid supporting it, demanding I ask Ethan to prove his claim, when he's not a party to this argument), or your "points" will be discarded with the valid dismissal of "Appeal to authority fallacy, discarded".
You'll have to put up your own claims, not half-ass someone else's.
The world of the supernatural belongs with the realms of the religious to instill fear into the hearts of the believers. It is a purely fictional habitat used to control the masses. In other words, it can only exist in the mind of the believer, not in the physical world.
@ #1057
“… And none of them in the definition of god by theologians …”
… smiling … @1026 “Ref pls.”, @1028 “http s: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God”
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there, you’re complaining that they’re not to your taste.
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking)
Tough break there, eh?
LOL!
Yeah, that's the most probable (to an astronomically huge degree), but there's nothing that forbids science being able to investigate god claims,whether god exists or not.
And if those claims of god action DID come from a god, supernatural or not, that evidence still exists and is indicative of god.
As done loooong ago, the christian/jewish/muslim god has been disproven because we look at what god says they did (in the OT) and find that reality proves this did not occur.
If a global flood, 6000 year old earth, with humans arising almost immediately, and within a generation making iron tools and farming, that would be proof that the bible was at least accurate about reality.
Which would be strong proof it was correct in its claim of god's existence.
Alternatively, for christians alone, their god says that if there are three of them who ask, anything *ANY* *THING* they ask, even "prove to everyone you exist!" will be done.
Such a test could be EASILY set up.
And science would be able to test that this god really did exist by doing what it was said it would do.
EXACTLY like we would with ANY other phenomenon.
Say, for example, spacetime curvature. A non-physical claim of reality that made a prediction that was falsifiable, but was proven to actually apply.
There's nothing to indicate that gods are forbidden from this test.
Unless you're going to beg the question that eric states explicitly:
Currently there is less evidence for this sort of universe existing than there is for god existing itself.
It would be EASIER to prove god exists than god created a universe where science would never be able to prove it exists.
@ #1058
“… Only if you can prove science can investigate nothing …”
Remember, you’re the one claiming that Science can prove the existence of God, not me. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.
I’m just pointing out you’re wrong.
Again.
No there isn't.
Nowhere in the definition of god by most or many theologians is "supernatural" a part. Again:
You know, nothing like you claimed.
So another lie from you, teabaggie.
And I have met that burden. If you wish to claim that the burden has not been met, then you need to demonstrate that claim is supported by evidence.
So far, teabaggie, you've utterly failed.
@ #1059
“… if you continue to proffer Ethan’s words rather than stand on your own claims, they will be dismissed …”
That won’t change the fact that he is right.
And you are still wrong.
@ #1065
“ “The burden of proof lies on you, not me.”
And I have met that burden. “
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 Faith than anything else.
1066: appeal to authority fallacy, dismissed.
Repeating it doesn't make it no longer fallacious.
Shifting the goalposts does not make it real, teabaggie.
I have met the burden of proof, you have to prove that your claims (even if it's "You must provide evidence god has been proven") is a valid rebuttal.
So far, teabaggie, you have failed utterly.
@ #1064
“ “And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there”
No there isn’t. “
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
Busted!
Again.
LOL! Back to the "busted" claim in lieu of argument.
BUSTED!
So blind to reality AGAIN!
BUSTED!!!
HAHAHAHA!
@ #1068
“1066: appeal to authority fallacy, dismissed.”
… chuckling …
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
You, to be polite, do not
Ethan is an authority.
You to be polite, are not
Ref E. Siegel “… Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prov…)
Ethan's right.
You’re wrong.
What? Theology? Nope. Appeal to authority fallacy, teabaggie! FAIL!
Argument from authority fallacy. Fail!
@ #1070
“ “And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there”
No there isn’t. “
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
Busted!
Again.
And back to blindness!!! LOL!
And you whined earlier about quote mining?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
@ #1072
"Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
What? Theology ..."
No. Ethan got his PhD in theoretical astrophysics at the University of Florida.
Wrong again
@ #1074
"... And you whined earlier about quote mining?!?!?! ..."
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
So you admit you were wrong then!
HA HA!
Contradiction in place of argument, teabaggie?
BUSTED!!!!
@ #1072
“Argument from authority fallacy. Fail!”
… chuckling …
Ethan has his doctorate in the subject material.
You, to be polite, do not
Ethan is an authority.
You to be polite, are not
No fallacy at all.
Ref E. Siegel “… Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prov…)
You’re wrong.
Ethan's right.
Argument from authority fallacy ,teabaggie. You really don't have to go right out and admit you're empty of proof and have to fall back on this tired fallacy so BLATANTLY.
Argument from authority fallacy. Discarded.
@ #1078
"Contradiction in place of argument ..,"
No, I let you handle that. You do a fine job at it.
Ref E. Siegel for the facts, “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.”
Contradiction in place of argument, teabaggie?
BUSTED!!!!
Argument from authority fallacy, discarded.
@ #1080
"Ethan is an authority."
Argument from authority fallacy ..."
Ethan is an authority.
You are mistaken.
No fallacy here.
Again.
@ #1082
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that. You do a fine job at it.
Ref E. Siegel for the facts, “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.”
But relying on him instead of your own arguments is an appeal to authority fallacy, so your arguments calling on him is discarded as a logical fallacy.
BUSTED!
Contradiction in place of argument, teabaggie! Wrong again! BUSTED!
Contradiction in place of argument, teabaggie! Wrong again! BUSTED!
@ #1085
"Ethan is an authority.
But relying on him ..."
I'm pleased to read that you acknowledge that Ethan is an authority.
Ref E. Siegel for the facts, “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.”
And you are not an authority.
You're wrong
He's right.
Ref E. Siegel
Appeal to authority fallacy, discarded.
Non sequitur. Irrelevant and discarded.
Appeal to authority fallacy, discarded, teabaggie!
BUSTED!
Now that you acknowledge Ethan is an authority, you should pay attention to what he posts.
Particularly 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…)
Appeal to authority fallacy, again, teabaggie.
Discarded!
"The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be"
Not, of course, that you will admit that true, as that will mean acknowledging you are wrong.
Just a reminder, you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, you have not yet done so.
@ #1091
... chuckling ... Discarding the facts again, eh?
Just a reminder, you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, you have not yet done so.
No, I accept it with the caveats I ascribed over in the thread. However, since it's irrelevant, it really doesn't matter. Since you're trying to apply the statement via "Ethan says so!", it is an appeal to authority fallacy, and is discarded.
Again, teabaggie.
Failed again, teabagger.
So.... I've made the claim, bit I have not yet done so...?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
FAILED AGAIN, teabaggie!
@ #1085
Now that you acknowledge Ethan is an authority, why not relax and enjoy the Science he has on offer?
Non sequitur and appeal to ridicule fallacy, teabagger!
FAILED AGAIN!
And now you acknowledge that your appeal to authority was a fallacy, you will be providing your own claims and proof of them.
Enjoy actual coherent and logical argument for the first time in this thread, teabaggie. You'll find it hard at first, but you may learn how to do it eventually.
@ #1094
" “The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be”
... I accept it with the caveats I ascribed over in the thread ..."
Then 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,
Ah, so discarding the evidence against you, teabaggie?
Sad.
Irrelevant. The premise does not require 100% complete information about the natural world, teabaggie.
But you'll ignore this just like you ignored the inconvenient facts every single time I've told you this before, won't you?
Because you're not capable of comprehending truth when your creationist apologetics is on the line.
Sad.
@ #1097
"... your appeal to authority was a fallacy ..."
No appeal here, I pointed out that you are wrong.
Why reject the facts?
@ #1100
" "Then you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world"
Irrelevant. ..."
The facts are not irrelevant.
Wrong again.
@ #1100
"... you ignored the inconvenient facts every single time I’ve told you this before ..."
You still have not provided any evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
That's because you don't have any, do you?
Contradiction in place of argument again? Discarded.
Really? Then you're wrong because pi is an irrational number, teabaggie. Just like you are.
(btw, the "facts" you claimed are irrelevant, try some facts relevant to the case, retard)
Yes I have:
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.
Just pointing out you are wrong AGAIN, teabaggie.
@ #1100
" ...Because you’re not capable of comprehending truth ..."
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
"... when your creationist apologetics is on the line."
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Still waiting for your evidence that the above is insufficient proof, teabaggie. but you don't even have a claim, do you, only a refusal to accept.
Without reason.
Because your christian apologetics is not based in reason.
@ #1105
"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."
That's not evidence; that's a truth claim.
About 400 posts from you going "But where's your evidence (for a different claim)?", teabaggie.
Your confusion over the difference between god and the christian god, teabaggie. And your incomplete grasp of logic.
Just how many times do you need to be told this, teabaggie?
Alzheimers?
@ #1107
"... your christian apologetics is not based in reason."
No evidence to support the claim, eh?
No, it's a premise, teabaggie. It's part of a logical argument that leads to a conclusion.
Even if it's one your faith doesn't let you entertain seeing in the word.
As well as the evidence presented earlier, the additional fact that you don't refute the accusation byt go 'where's the evidence".
The tell of a liar is patently obvious, teabaggie.
@ #1109
"About 400 posts from you going “But where’s your evidence (for a different claim)?”..."
I didn't think you had evidence. That is corroboration.
@ #1112
"The tell of a liar is patently obvious ..."
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.
Everyone knows the difference between you and me.
It's well documented..
@ #1111
“… Even if it’s one your faith doesn’t let you entertain seeing in the word.”
No, you’re the one making Professions of Faith.
“… 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 …”
Remember that?
We've already established that you are untrustworthy.(#1114)
What value is there in discussion with someone who is willing to post false statements known to be false when 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…)
Why deny reality?
You post false statements known to be false when they were posted. Ref @ #708 (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…), and also @ #710
Why do you expect anyone to listen to you?
@ #1112
"The tell of a liar is patently obvious ..."
Yes it is. Yes indeed. We agree about that.
That is a non sequitur. The provision of evidence ("that which is seen") is evidence, not the lack of it, teabaggie.
No wonder you have so much trouble with reality.
1114 shows no such thing teabaggie. Blank assertion is discarded.
Your attempt to pretend that this is obversely the case is fallacious and childish, teabaggie.
Sad.
Meanwhile, teabaggie, here is the ever increasing list of your lies on this thread alone:
====
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
While you sit there complaining about everyone else being a True Believer, you're here with the same mindset and proclamation insistence that Ken Ham did when asked "What would convince you you're wrong?"
He too insisted that this could never happen.
Meanwhile Bill Nye, the science guy, says "Evidence".
Your insistence that god cannot ever give proof of its existence is just as bind and religious an assertion as Ham works under.
Given your insistence that the science people must be listened to, you should be listening to him. And, oddly enough, to Ethan who says you are wrong:
Seems you only want to insist he's right due to his knowledge of astrophysics (and none about god) when others have to agree with YOUR claims.
Special pleading fallacy, teabaggie.
@ #1120
“One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”
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.
Everyone knows the difference between you and me.
It’s well documented..
Yeah, your lies are well divumented, and unlike your bullshit, actually real lies. Sad teabagger:
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
Not forgetting that neither 708 nor 710 are lies but conclusions rationally asserted from your ridiculous claims. You asserted Y was the interaction measured (which would be a god one) and I just insterted your definitions of A, B and C in your scenario, and drew the directly indicated conclusion that you were insisting that Ethan was saying god could not be detected.
Which you have later actually stated in black an white.
Yet still insist that they are lies.
You're really not tied into reality.
I guess that's what happens when an apologetic like yourself gets into an argument well outside your depth.
@ #1124
" ... Therefore you have lied ..."
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.
Everyone knows the difference between you and me.
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
"... you were insisting that Ethan was saying god could not be detected ..."
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
And you knew that before you posted it.
Therefore you have lied, and here is the list of them, 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.”
===
“… 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
I know he hasn't, but you insist he has. Which is why you keep bleating on about his quote and insist that "Science can prove the existence of god" is "Busted".
You're a retard, teabaggie.
EVERYONE knows that.
EVEN YOU, teabaggie.
Feel free to argue with facts, “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.”
I'm not arguing with them any more than you're arguing that pi is not an irrational number, teabaggie.
Irrelevant.
Just because the decimal digits of pi aren't all known doesn't mean circles don't exist.
But your religious fanaticism for apologising for the faith of your christian friends has you blasting random shit continuously, teabaggie.
The limit to information or knowledge has no bearing on the question of whether science can prove god's existence.
A fact you don't even know you're arguing against, so blinded by hate and bigotry against someone who has proven your christian god does not exist.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Discarded, teabaggie.
PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational
Your claim that I'm wrong is therefore BUSTED, teabaggie!
Don't argue with the facts, teabaggie, they're just the facts. I'm only pointing them out.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Science is a wonderful, but limited, discipline that teaches some of us about life, the world, and the universe. It has, however, not revealed why the universe came into existence nor, as noted elsewhere, what preceded Cosmic Inflation. Biological evolution has not brought us understanding of how abiogenesis, the origin of the first living organisms from inanimate matter, or how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the continuing mysteries of science: how did consciousness? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? Science is nowhere near to explaining these mysteries.
These limitations of Science being unable to explain all the natural world are examples of why Science is unable to explain what of what is beyond the natural world, the supernatural. The thread topic “Can science explain the existence of God?” presumes the supernatural by populating it with the supernatural entity God. Science is one way humans understand the natural world, and to enjoy and marvel at the life and infinite cosmos surrounding us. Humans use other disciplines to study other problems.
@ #1131
"“The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy."
That the total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite is merely a fact.
A fact you cannot change.
A fact that shows why Science is unable to explain all the natural world, much less the supernatural world.
You remain mistaken.
Ignoratio elenchi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.
Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2] It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]
Irrelevant, teabaggie.
Limits to science doesn't mean it can't explain god or prove its existence..
EVEN YOU refuse to claim so.
But you keep insisting it must be wrong to say otherwise, leaving only the fallacious and unsupported claim that science CANNOT prove the existence of god as the only option left, by a process of elimination.
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Ignoratio elenchi again, teabaggie.
YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy to do so, whether their words are fact or not is irrelevant to the claim you were posting this in fake "rebuttal" to, teabaggie.
BUSTED!
"... YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy ..."
You are mistaken.
The is no appeal to any authority to state that the total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite.
That just happens to be a fact.
You're now denying facts.
Another flat-out brazen lie, teabaggie. And we know what you think you're allowed to be when you're a flat-out lying asshole, right, teabaggie?
Yup, we sure do!
BUSTED!
Another flat-out lie, tebaggie.
BUSTED.
Strawman fallacy, tebaggie. Dismissed.
Incorrect. Pi is an irrational number, yet circles still exist, and you ignore these facts merely because it's me saying them, when they prove your claims are wrong.
BUSTED!
@ #1138
"... Another flat-out brazen lie ..."
@ #1127
"Therefore you have lied ..."
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.
Everyone knows the difference between you and me.
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
“… you were insisting that Ethan was saying god could not be detected …”
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
You knew that before you posted it.
Youre right, there are no lies there.
But here are a shedload of lies. And all from you, 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.”
===
“… 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
BUSTED!
" ...Limits to science doesn’t mean it can’t explain god or prove its existence ..."
... chucking ... Now you're claiming that Science can also explain God. You are amusing.
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist, admit to any number of unmeasured interactions.
Those unmeasured interactions demonstrate that Science cannot completely describe the natural world, much less the supernatural one. From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity, God. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
I know. Still. But you keep pretending that he has, teabaggie.
But you still insist on posting it as if he somehow proves that science can't detect or prove god's existence.
That, therefore, is a lie, tebaaggie.
Another one to add to the massive pile of bullshit lies you've spouted.
BUSTED!
And now a lie by omission, teabaggie.
Piling up those lies there!
BUSTED!
Ingornati elenchi, a logical fallacy, teabagger. And therefore, a lie you knew was a lie before you even posted it.
BUSTED!
So, prove that claim, teabaggie.
Teabaggie, your claims are unsupported because you've spent 400+ posts avoiding admitting any claim or insisting that the claims you're making aren't made.
Yet you have to presume
1) Axiomatically, god does exist, else the question is meaningless.
2) That there is a supernatural
3) That god is supernatural
4) That an incomplete statement of nature means a complete lack of knowledge of the supernatural
5) That god can only act supernaturally
6) God cannot act on the natural or change it in any way
But you haven't shown #2 or #3.
#4 is an assertion arising out of nothing. Nature is, by definition not natural, therefore a claim about nature cannot be asserted as applying to supernature
#5 is a limitation of god that the definition you adhere to precludes
#6 means that god could not create all of reality, that requiring an action ON reality, and is another claim excluded by your definition of god.
So even though 2-4 remain unsupported assertions, precluding a definitive statement like "cannot", 5&6 refute your logic and render it invalid in toto.
BUSTED, teabaggie.
"... "From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,"
So, prove that claim ..."
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
QED
Prove that all measurements of A+B are needed to prove god's existence, teabaggie.
If you can't, then your claim is BUSTED.
@ #1152
"Prove that all measurements of A+B are needed to prove god’s existence ...
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist, admit to any number of unmeasured interactions.
Those unmeasured interactions demonstrate that Science cannot completely describe the natural world and the supernatural one, of which the God of Ethan's topic title "Can Science prove the existence of God". This shows that the absence of measurements can be due to the limits of Science.
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity, God. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
Provide some scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Not that you'll ever be able to do so, but hey, give it your best shot.
Remember that you made the claim the Science can prove the existence of God. So far you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim.
But since B can only add to the count of A, your claim is meaningless, since it is true whether all of B is known or knowable, because A would still be less than completely known.
this is YET ANOTHER lie by you, teabaggie, and one you should have known when you said it.
Irrelevant again.
And a complete lie. It does not follow.
Science can investigate most, if not all, things in nature. Therefore it can investigate supernatural claims. It follows that science can prove the existence of a supernatural entity, God
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
Provide some evidence god cannot be proven.
Not that you’ll ever be able to do so, but hey, give it your best shot.
Remember that you made the claim the Science cannot prove the existence of God. So far you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim.
A lie. And one you knew about when you said it, teabaggie.
BUSTED.
Moreover, it doesn't claim what you rely on it claiming when you parrot it for your "evidence" here, proving you do not understand what Ethan was saying at all.
BUSTED TWICE!
they also admit to any number of measured interactions, and preclude no future interactions being measured.
It therefore follows that your claim that science cannot prove the existence of god is not supported by an incomplete scientific measurement set.
Busted again, teabaggie.
@ #1159
... chuckling ... Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_limits_in_science
I assumed you wouldn't deny reality that way.
@ #1160
"they also admit to any number of measured interactions, and preclude no future interactions being measured. ...
Cool! Where's the evidence to support or corroborate your hypothesis?
Do you have ant to show?
@ #1158
“Provide some evidence god cannot be proven …”
Remember that you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, not me. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.
Now, about that scientific evidence, do you have any to show?
Are you saying you can't read, dumbass???
Uh, examples like:
micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/faraday2/
That shows that we can investigate things in this universe with science.
Or this one
phys.org/news/2016-02-ligo.html
Also showing we can use science to investigate things.
You having problems with the existence of science altogether, teabaggie?!?!
Care to provide some evidence god's existence cannot be proven, teabaggie?
Nowt from you so far.
Remember that you made the claim that science cannot prove the existence of god, not me. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.
Remember, teabaggie, all you have is
P1) Science isn't able to measure everything in the universe
C) Science cannot prove the existence of god.
But C does not follow from P1.
@ #1157
“… You haven’t shown, and that link does not show, that god is necessarily supernatural.”
LOL! Even by your standards that’s foolish. Now you’re suggesting that God is not supernatural. Still, if you could show that to be true (not, of course that you’ll be able to do that either), it would enable you so prove the existence of such an entity. I suppose if one defines the attributes of a deity to be limited to those testable by the tools available to Science, then such a straw man would, unsurprisingly, be knocked down and disposed of. Such sophomoric behavior will always satisfy some.
Here’s a quote from the reference, “In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology”
Further, there are 8 occurrences of “supernatural” in the reference.
Finally, if you follow the hyperlink of the first instance of “supernatural” you’ll read this, ” The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) includes all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other supernatural beings, or to things beyond nature.”
You never fail to entertain!
"Science cannot prove the existence of God"
Yep. Me and everyone else. That's due primarily to the limits of Science preventing it from providing evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
I'm saying that "supernatural" has not been proven to exist. And after that you still have to prove that god is supernatural. The definition of god doesn't include supernatural from the WP link to what most or many theologians consider the attributes of "god".
You've had this pointed out to you for, what 200 posts, and you're only just reading it, teabaggie??!?!?
Waiting for you to show that there is a supernatural. Then prove that god is one. Why do I have to prove your conjecture wrong when you have nothing but ass-pull to support it?
Irrelevant. The definition you wanted to hold to was the one held by most theologians. Which does not contain "supernatural" as an attribute:
So not "god is supernatural", and we can even drop "omnibenevolent" too.
Not in the definition used by most theologians.
Which is why you have to show that god is supernatural, otherwise it becomes invalid because it's circular reasoning, teabaggie.
And all that is necessary for god to be proven to exist is for it to produce a miracle.
The source may be "supernatural", but the result of the miracle is real and 100% within the purview of science.
That's how we proved your god doesn't exist: no world flood 5000 ish years ago.
Sorry, teabaggie, you're BUSTED.
@ #1165
“Care to provide some evidence god’s existence cannot be proven …”
Remember that you made the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, not me. The burden of proof lies on you, not me.
Now, about that scientific evidence, do you have any to show?
Nope, science can prove you exist And everyone else. Only solipsists disagree.
And only you (eventually, after multiple insistence's of disclaiming ANY claim made whatsoever) have said it cannot be proven by science.
The only way that can be known to be the case is if you know god doesn't exist.
Busted again, teabaggie.
Also look up "argumentum ad populum", teabaggie.It's a logical fallacy.
BUSTED!
@ #1170
From your cherry-picked quote
“… omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere) …”
This is followed by “So not “god is supernatural …”
Now you’re suggesting that an omniscient, omnipotent entity that is omnipresent is not supernatural, even that no natural entities have those properties.
It appears that you have as firm a grasp on theology as you do on Science.
you made the claim that science cannot prove god's existence, not me. So the burden of proof is on you, teabaggie, not me.
I've already shown my proof, and you've been unable to find any logical reason why the conclusion or premise is wrong, except by insistence it is.
You COULD try proving either the premise is wrong or the conclusion does not arise inductively, but you've not manged that in 800+ posts of incompetence and incoherence.
So prove your claim instead. But you've not managed THAT in 200+ posts either.
In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving
does not contain "supernatural", teabaggie.
Are you misattributing a quote and lying AGAIN, teabaggie???
BUSTED!
@ #1173
Yes indeed! No one except you believes that Science can prove the existence of God.
Particularly as you can provide no evidence to support your claim.
"Are you misattributing a quote and lying AGAIN ..."
No. just pointing out that you've cherry-picked your data.
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.
Yes indeed. You're the only one insisting that science cannot prove the existence of god, teabaggie.
And you have indicated not only can you fail to supply evidence to support your claim, you don't even recogise what evidence is, when it's presented!
BUSTED!
@ #1159
… chuckling … Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_limits_in_science
I assumed you wouldn’t deny reality that way.
Are you misattributing a quote and lying AGAIN 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.”
===
“… 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
===
Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.
===
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,
===
“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”
So, prove that claim …”
A tool (Science)...
===
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
===
a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
===
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist
===
The only thing anyone can prove is that gods exist in the minds of those who believe in gods.
Are you saying that you can't read teabaggie?!?!?
http://www.hfals.co.uk/courses
should help.
Don;t worry, teabaggie, these people have courses to help you with your remedial language skills
https://www.strongcitybaltimore.org/our-work/adult-learning-center/
As you have been documented at #708 & #710 posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them, you are untrustworthy.
What value is there 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…)
PJ, the axiom of the question is that god does exist. Without that axiom, the question is meaningless.
That gods are the brain malfunctions of humans personifying their internal monologue as some "other" is true, but not relevant to the question as stated, where it has to be assumed that god does exist.
It's like "assuming that there are three dimensions to space" in a physics question. Even if you insist there are more dimensions IRL, the axiom for the problem is that there are only three.
So not only do you post false statements you know are false when you post them, you also deny the reality of the limits to Science.
With a back ground like that, it’s no wonder that you believe that Science can prove the existence of God.
Just keep in mind that until you provide some scientific evidence for the existence of God, no one except you will believe you.
They're not false statements, teabaggie. You are mistaken, and wantonly so.
Moreover, they are an ad hom and merely cement your inability to support any of your claims by logical and coherent argument.
BUSTED.
Remember, the question of the thread is "Can science prove the existence of god", not "Can you prove the existence of god", so this is yet another cast of the same stale read herring argument that is the best you can supply.
Until you prove that science cannot prove the existence of god, nobody has to believe you, teabaggie.
BUSTED!
Of course, as the limits to Science preclude that tool from providing a complete description of reality, the measurements you need for scientific proof could be anywhere, but they’re all just beyond your reach.
So not only do you post false statements you know are false when you post them, you also deny the reality of the limits to Science.
You also spew red herrings, false assertions, ad homs and blatant lies that are so long they're practically uncountable.
BUSTED, teabaggie.
P1) Science cannot measure everything in the universe
But that is all you have.
It does not follow that science cannot prove the existence of god.
BUSTED,teabaggie!
But then again, at least while you’re wasting your time trying to provide scientific evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, , you’re not posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710.
Red herring still, teabaggie. The question is not prove the existence of god.
Go to your local adult education center and sign up stat.
They are not falshoods, and insisting so is another of your lies, teabaggie, along with the scores of others I have listed above.
BAD BOY, teabaggie.
@ #1181
“ “… 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.
Indeed. At least one is a lie, teabaggie.
Just pointing out the facts.
@ #1195
"The question is not prove the existence of god ..."
Yes. The question is "Can science prove the existence of God?"
You claim it can do so.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
A lie.
The mind is the process carried out in a brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
@ #1198
"... At least one is a lie ..."
Both are true, even though you intentionally misquoted my post.
You remain mistaken.
Yes, based on the simple premise that god can act in this reality, and such actions mean that science can prove the existence of god.
Duh.
That's 1200 posts later after I wrote it and you're STILL asking for evidence?!?!?!
What a religious lunatic you are, teabaggie.
No, one at least is a lie, both cannot be true at the same time, teabaggie.
You remain mistaken, teabaggie.
So about the evidence you have not provided to back up your claim, when will you produce some scientific evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?
We've been waiting, and you haven't delivered the goods.
@ #1202
"Yes, based on the simple premise that god can act in this reality, and such actions mean that science can prove the existence of god."
Where is the evidence to support your claim?
Since the question is not "prove the existence of god", your petulant repeats of this will be dismissed with "Red herring, dismissed".
Yes, we have. Waiting for you to show why science cannot prove the existence of god.
So far all you've managed is incoherence and ravings, teabaggie.
Care to try something that at least appears to come from a late period hominid brain?
The definition of god, dumbass.
Teabaggie, still waiting for your proof that science cannot prove the existence of god.
Remember you made that claim, and the burden of proof is on you, not me.
@ #1170
From your cherry-picked quote
“… omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere) …”
This is followed by “So not “god is supernatural …”
You’re suggesting that an omniscient, omnipotent entity that is omnipresent is not supernatural, even that no natural entities have those properties.
You seem to have as firm a grasp on theology as you do on Science.
@ #1207
“ “Where is the evidence to support your claim?”
The definition of god, dumbass. “
So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
What an amusing way to admit that you have no evidence to support your claim.
Just a reminder that of what you already know: :Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
"... Since the question is not “prove the existence of god”, your petulant repeats of this will be dismissed with “Red herring, dismissed” ..."
LOL! Dismissing the observation that you have failed to provide evidence to support your claim is the same denial of reality as denying all the facts that have been rubbed into your face.
This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.
Because you don't have what it takes to admit you've made a mistake, I can do this to you for as long as Ethan keep this thread open. Even after he closes the thread I'll be able to point people back here whenever you trot out more foolishness.
Post evidence that no supernatural entity has those properties, teabaggie. What an amusing way to admit that you have no evidence to support your claim.
PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Lie again, teabaggie.
Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered. Everyone who believes in miracles (most of the religious) think that happens. Most scientists admit that they would be convinced they were wrong if it happened.
The only one insisting that there is nothing that would convince them they are wrong are you and Ken Ham, both True Believers on the two sides of the debate.
Appeal to authority fallacy, dismissed.
I KNOW that is your One True Faith credo, teabaggie, but that doesn't make it logical or real, any more than the Ark being built in the USA makes the flood story true.
Adamantine faith like yours does not make reality, teabaggie. Not even if you type it really hard.
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.
That happens because the definition of god includes omnipotence.
Teabaggie will not understand logic and run off at a tangent AGAIN.
Since you worship at the idea of others being smarter than you, teabaggie, and also to prove your claim that "everyone" believes science can't prove the existence of god, try arguing with Richard Dawkins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…
Since you do not know what "appeal to authority" is, nor feel constricted to only prattle what YOU know to stand up without the primature of some authority behind it to pretend to be comprehensive and proven (which is why even a valid authority can be an appeal to authority: you may misrepresent the words, as you do for Ethan every time you prattle his quote here), this is not an appeal to authority, but
1) Proof that you are wrong that "everyone else" thinks science can't prove god
2) YOUR level of "proof", whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
@ #1216
Your reference (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…)
From your quote from your reference “… Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.
... smiling ... You’re wrong again, but remain entertaining.
@ #1215
“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.
That happens because the definition of god includes omnipotence …”
You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can interact in a way with the natural world that cannot be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).
Self-contradiction.
Wrong again.
No news there.
@ #1214
Another reference to what you already know and cannot admit, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.” (E. Siegel, Forbes, “Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?”, 20-JAN-2017, http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prov… )
@ #1216
Your reference (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…)
People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.
Busted again.
… chuckling … But you knew that already.
Thereby proving that it could, but so far hasn't.
What a lying sack of crap you are teabaggie.
And, given your credo is that science can neither prove nor disprove god, given that this apparently disproves god, your credo is BUSTED!
Thereby proving that it could, but so far hasn't.
What a lying sack of crap you are teabaggie.
And, given your credo is that science can neither prove nor disprove god, given that this apparently disproves god, your credo is BUSTED!
Another lie.
Thereby proving your whine about "cherry picked quote" was self-serving tripe, teabaggie.
You sure are piling up the bullshit and lies today, teabaggie!
BUSTED!
“Science can never prove
Appeal to authority fallacy again, teabaggie.
BUSTED!
Correct. It's not a contradiction.
That you had to lie shows how you KNOW you have no leg to stand on in your fundamentalist approach to christian apologetics, teabaggie.
BUSTED!
@ #1213
“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.
What’s even more entertaining is that you must have them [“god actions that can be discovered”] in order for Science to be able to prove the existence of God.
It appears you won’t be providing any evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Not, of course, that you ever were going to be able to do so.
Fail again.
It is proof you lied when you claimed everyone else disagrees with me.
Richard Dawkins is someone else. He thinks it can be provef.
FAIL!
It is also indicative that you will insist still on using the quotes of others even after you've been told scores of times not to, that you will have no compunction about discarding quotes of others against you.
You do not hold yourself to the same standard as you demand of others, yet insist on continuing to do so.
Or will you stop quoting others as "support" for your insane dribblings to help your christian friends with apologetics?
BUSTED, teabaggie!
@ #1207
“ “Where is the evidence to support your claim?”
The definition of god, dumbass. “
LOL!
The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Way to go! What an amusing way to admit that you have no evidence to support your claim.
Since you do not know what “appeal to authority” is, nor feel constricted to only prattle what YOU know to stand up without the primature of some authority behind it to pretend to be comprehensive and proven (which is why even a valid authority can be an appeal to authority: you may misrepresent the words, as you do for Ethan every time you prattle his quote here), this is not an appeal to authority, but
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Proof that Dawkins thinks science can prove gods existence. Proof too that the religious and christian scientists think that science can prove gods existence.
1) Proof that you are wrong that “everyone else” thinks science can’t prove god
2) YOUR level of “proof”, whether it is valid logically or not
BUSTED, teabaggie!
The fine tuning argument when used is a scientific claim that can prove gods existence, teabaggie.
Care to guess if I'm the only person in existence who knows of the fine tuning argument?
BUSTED!
Can you prove that science cannot detect any god actions, teabaggie?
No?
You haven't managed for over 1000 posts, because you cannot do so, but cling to your credo and faith without regard for truth or reality.
BUSTED, teabaggie!
There is no limit to science as to what scientific hyppothesis it can investigate and prove or disprove, and that includes the hypothesis of god's actions being the cause of things in this reality.
When god was supposed to be causing lightning, that was a scientific hypothesis. And if it had been god's work, science would have proven god's existence.
Proof that science can prove gods existence.
All you have is your faith-based credo that science is not allowed to prove (or disprove - this is the real issue you have with the question, teabaggie: it can also disprove your god) the existence of god.
BUSTED!
As Ethan posted in “Comments of the Week #148: From the Dipole Repeller to the limits of Science”,
“All of this is true:
Even if every particle in existence was known and measured to an arbitrary accuracy, much about the past and future would still be unknowable.
Even if everything about our observable Universe’s past and future were known, there is still the unobservable Universe which goes beyond our own.
And even if we knew all about the unobservable Universe, there’s still a region of time — before the Big Bang — that contains information that is unknowable, and appears irrelevant for all the things we can observe.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth investigating or theorizing about, but it does mean that there are both inherent uncertainties (when an electron and positron annihilate, which direction will their photons go off in?) and inherent unknowns (beyond the causal horizon? before anything impacting our Universe today was around?) that limit what we can ever know.”
A reference you should be aware of (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…)
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
As Ethan posted in ““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.””
A reference you should be aware of (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…)
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
And all you can do about all those points is complain that there are so many of them, teabaggie, unable to actually show why they are not valid and support instead the idea that science is not allowed to prove god's existence.
BUSTED!
As Ethan posted in
Red herring, fallacious argument does not support your claim.
BUSTED!
@ #1238
“There is no limit to science as to what scientific hyppothesis it can investigate and prove or disprove, and that includes the hypothesis of god’s actions being the cause of things in this reality …”
You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.
You are mistaken.
Again.
As Dawkins said:
being a scientific hypothesis, science can prove it right or wrong.
Failed again, teabaggie!
The fine tuning argument is also a scientific test of the existence of god, teabaggie.
FAIL!
A global world wide flood 5000 years ago is a scientific hypothesis that would prove the existence of god.
Yet more proof that science can prove (or disprove - your specific problem here) the existence of god.
You just don't want god excluded, that#s all teabaggie. All your whining about other faithiests is just a smokescreen.
BUSTED!
@ #1244
From your post ....
Dawkins said "... whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence"
So where is the evidence to support your claim?
You still have none
Even your references show why you are
Wrong again
Nobody other than apologetics insist that science cannot prove or disprove god's existence.
Your christian apologetics credo is plain for all to see, teabaggie.
My evidence is in the link given, teabaggie.
Where's your evidence that god is unprovable by science?
You haven't got any.
Oh, and for all those lies about what I'm claiming, you are mistaken. Go look through the thread and you'll not find me saying that.
FAIL!
being a scientific hypothesis, science can prove it right or wrong.
Lying again, teabaggie!
But your christian apologetics won't let you accept this, but can't supply you with a counter other than further lies and distractions via red herring demands.
This you, teabaggie?
https://jkeyes1000.wordpress.com/
'cos that would be a heck of a co-inkey-dink when you watch this on Youtube:
[https]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
See 0:44.
BUSTED!
@ #1250
"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 of yourself
You can't even manage to explain away your first lie teabaggie, never mind the others in the list:
++++
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
"What? Theology...?"
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
===
Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.
===
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,
===
“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”
So, prove that claim …”
A tool (Science)...
===
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
===
a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
===
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist
===
Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
===
“Science cannot prove the existence of God”
Yep. Me and everyone else
===
So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
===
This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.
===
Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God
===
Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.
===
From your quote from your reference
cf "your cherry pick quote"
===
You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not - a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).
Self-contradiction.
===
People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.
===
The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Way to go!
cf "god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can't prove it"
===
“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.
cf when told "you're saying that no god actions are discoverable", "I've never said that".
===
You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.
===
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
===
Even your references show why you are
===
Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”
So where is the evidence to support your claim?
===
So, teabaggie, where's your answer to any of these lies?
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
Which list of your lies is so long it needs two parts...
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
@ #1254
“... one of them is a lie. ,,,”
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
Uh, you are mistaken, john keyes.
any relation to brad?
PS still, you at least give up trying to refuse your copious lies and try just spouting the one on continuous loop.
did god tell you to try that, teabaggie?
"As I had not made such a claim about Ethan,"
You are mistaken.
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
...projection much, teabaggie? Even if you weren't lying, that's a count of 1 against, what? 60-80?
You're just jealous that you've failed. Just like you did with Brian.
@ #1257
“… your copious lies ...”
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.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you'll find.
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
************************
#347
" "You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God"
Yup. And proven it."
*************************************************
Without evidence?
@ #1259
“… You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them …”
One of the differences between you and me is that I can – and have – provided evidence to support and corroborate my claim that you post false statements you know are false when you post them.
You have not yet provided any evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. If coarse language were able to fill in, or substitute, for evidence, you’d be arguing from a position of strength.
But, of course, they are not, and you have not, to date, provided the evidence you need to support and corroborate your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
And that's another lie, john keyes/aka teabaggie, who is definitely, despite all whining, a christian apologetic, seems like I'm right again, eh?
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
"Without evidence?"
What without? Given plenty of proof, christian retardo extremis!
This, though, is yet more lies 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.
Whereas you have what you are insisting means that god cannot, but also have to admit does not so as to claim I lied.
Sad!
Not that you did that well against Brian, either, with the same tired old schtick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
see 0:44 for your name and pic!
@ #1262
“… That’s another lie …”
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.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
************************
#347
” “You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God”
Yup. And proven it.”
*************************************************
Without evidence?
Not too bright, are you, john keyes.
” 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
Not that you did that well against Brian, either, with the same tired old schtick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
see 0:44 for your name and pic!
And your lies here so numerous they take two posts to list!
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
“What? Theology…?”
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
===
Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.
===
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,
===
“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”
So, prove that claim …”
A tool (Science)…
===
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
===
a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
===
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist
===
Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
===
“Science cannot prove the existence of God”
Yep. Me and everyone else
===
So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
===
This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.
===
Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God
===
Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.
===
From your quote from your reference
cf “your cherry pick quote”
===
You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not – a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).
Self-contradiction.
===
People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.
===
The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Way to go!
cf “god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can’t prove it”
===
“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.
cf when told “you’re saying that no god actions are discoverable”, “I’ve never said that”.
===
You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.
===
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
===
Even your references show why you are
===
Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”
So where is the evidence to support your claim?
===
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
===
@ #1267
“… Why do you 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.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
************************
#347
” “You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God”
Yup. And proven it.”
*************************************************
Without evidence?
This, from you, is highly ironic now I've seen who you are, "jkeyes1000":
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
And doubly so after your protestations against being called a christian apologist.
LOL!
No wonder you're stuck trying to repeat the tired old copypasta bullshit, eh?
And your claim that I'm the only one who thinks that science can prove the existence of god?
Seems like there's another one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrVY1LMuZE
But you already knew about Brian, didn't you, eh?
You lying little snake! All you have is the same tired old debunked crap about 708. LOL!
But here's another pair, one of which thinks that there can be proof, the pother one thinks that there can never be proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w
You're talking like Ken Ham, and Nye agrees with me.
But I guess all you can manage is to hide your real identity as a christian apologetic who tried this same scam on youtube behind a spamming of the same tired old debunked bullshit, eh?
@ #1270
" ... You lying little snake! ..."
... chuckling ... Still as eloquent and erudite as always.
"... All you have is the same tired old debunked crap about 708 ..."
It is evidence that you post false statements you know to be false when you post them.
You have not yet provided any evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. If coarse language were able to fill in, or substitute, for evidence, you’d be arguing from a position of strength.
But, of course, they are not, and you have not, to date, provided the evidence you need to support and corroborate your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Other atheist agree with me. After all, any evidence would be scientifically open to investigation.
http://www.alternet.org/story/147424/6_%28unlikely%29_developments_that…
It seems like only the relgious, such as yourself "jkeyes1000" aka teabaggie aka teabagged.
Ask an atheist, and pretty much every single one would say evidence would convince them.
Yeah, "Jkyeyes1000", chuckling doesn't work, you lying sack of crap.
"Oh you have no evidence I'm a christian apologetic!" except I did and it turns out that I was right on the nose!
All your whiing about me being a man of great faith as if you thought it was a bad thing!
HAW HAW!
And still you're tring the same tilred old mistaken bollocks you claim is a lie from me, while your list is so long it can't go in in one go!
BUSTED!
You: God is not allowed to be discovered by humans!
Me: There's nothing defined that makes god perpetually hidden.
You: Oh you religious person you!
Me: Yeah, right. You're just running standard apologetics "NOMA" bullshit
You: Waaaah he lies!!!!
Me: What about this list?
You: Totally not
Me: LOL! Liar.
Why are you so terrified about your god that you want to crush him in a box of the ultimate gaps?
Because you KNOW that your god is a fake. THAT terrifies you.
LOL!
Me: God can be proven with science.
You: Nuh uh! Ethan says that ....
Me: That's irreelvant.
You: So you're saying that science is complete!!!
Me: So you're saying that Ethan says god can't be proven with science?
You: Nuh uh, you liar, I never said that!
Everyone else: WTF ?????
Didn't work against Brian on youtube, ain't working here now, teabaggie.
Me: Science can prove the existence of god
You: Where's your evidence proving god exists!
Me: That's not the question.
You: Science cannot prove the existence of god!
Me: Where's your evidence?
You: Nuh, uh, you made a claim science can, you have to prove it!
Me: Proves the claim.
You: Where's the evidence proving god!
Everyone else: WTF?????
You: Only you and Hasnain have mentioned religion!
Me: That was a lie when you said it
You: Look over there! I say he lied!!!!
Everyone else: WTF?????
You: It's pointless talking to someone who lies.
1000 posts later, still bullshitting
Everyone else: WTF ??????
You: It's pointless talking to someone who lies.
Me: Here's two pages of your lies
You: You're mistaken, here is your lie
Me: You are mistaken.
You: LIAR!!!!
Everyone else: WTF?????
You: Oh, mr great faith, I'm far more science than you are!
Me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
see 0:44 for your name and pic!
Everyone else: WTF????
@#1273
“Other atheist agree with me. After all, any evidence would be scientifically open to investigation.”
Professor Dawkins does not agree with you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…
“… Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared. “
Wrong again.
You: You have not yet provided any evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Me: god actions on this reality change this reality and that can be discovered by science and therefore can prove the existence of god
You: Where's your evidence
Everyone else: WTF??????
Brian Dolton: If the jews walked 40 years in the desert as is said in the bible, the only place where "proof" of god is supposed to be, there would be evidence of that exodus
You: Nuh uh, the bible was edited, so it could be that the one place they give a number was wrong!
Brian: Uh, you mean twice, right? 600,000+ men, so maybe three-four times that in total people.
Everyone else: WTF???
@#1281
“You: Oh, mr great faith, I’m far more science than you are! …”
That is another example of you posting false statements you know are false when you post them.
I'm sure you are proud of your behavior.
You: Professor Dawkins does not agree with you
Prof Dawkins: You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.
You're a liar, teabaggie!
Brian: If there was a god, there'd be evidence galore around us!
You: But he's supernatural! And he's all around us already: as nature!
Brian: I don;t think you know what supernatural means if you think that it's nature.
Everyone else: WTF????
You: "You: Oh, mr great faith, I’m far more science than you are! …” That is another example of you posting false statements
Everyone else: WTF??????
@#1281
“… the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis …”
The Michelson–Morley experiment was a scientific experiment to find the presence and properties of a substance called aether, a substance believed to fill empty space.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
It, like you, returned null results. You have not, and I expect never will ever provide evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
What I have documented you doing is posting false statements (#708 & 710) you knew were false when you posted them
On being asked what would prove you wrong:
Bill Nye: Evidence.
Ken Ham: Nothing would.
On being asked can science prove god exists (which would be necessary to try to prove either of the above wrong)
Me: Yes, science can prove it
You: No, science cannot prove it! You're a True Believer!!!!
Everyone else: WTF?????
Lest we forget http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
Everyone else:LOL!
Every atheist on the plant: Give me evidence god exists, and I'll change my mind!
You: NO! THERE CANNOT BE PROOF OF GOD!!!!
Everyone else: WTF?????
@ #1286
“… You’re a liar …”
No sir, no lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. At #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 knew they were false when you made them.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know what you’ll find.
You:It, like you, returned null results.
Everyone else: WTF????
Are you four years old, teabaggie aka jkeyes1000, a christian apologetic, despite your attempts to hide it?
You: I expect never will ever provide evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Definition of god: Omnipitence
CHECKMATE, FAITHIESTS!
"I expect never will ever provide evidence that Science can prove the existence of God."
Only way you can know that is if you know god doesn't exist!
I'm s certain as it is possible to be that god doesn't exist, just like any sane person, but it takes some weapons-grade insanity for a christian like yourself to know that god doesn't exist!
Ethan: there are some measurements we can never make with science
You: HEY, YOU PROVED SCIENCE CAN NEVER PROVE GOD!
Everyone else: WTF????
You: Hey, ethan disagrees with you and posts about it here!
Me: No, he doesn't say that science can never prove god
You: He totally does!
Me: So you're saying that ehtan says that science can't prove the existecne of god? He never said that, only you did
You: LIAR!!!!
Everyone else: WTF????
You;re mistaken jkeyes1000, just like you were here in your defence of a god you believe in but know doesn't exist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
So now you;re admitting you lied when you said ethan disagreed with me, teabaggie.
Add that to the second page of lies you;ve made, then
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
“What? Theology…?”
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
===
Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.
===
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,
===
“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”
So, prove that claim …”
A tool (Science)…
===
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
===
a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
===
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist
===
Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
===
“Science cannot prove the existence of God”
Yep. Me and everyone else
===
So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
===
This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.
===
Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God
===
Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.
===
From your quote from your reference
cf “your cherry pick quote”
===
You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not – a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).
Self-contradiction.
===
People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.
===
The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Way to go!
cf “god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can’t prove it”
===
“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.
cf when told “you’re saying that no god actions are discoverable”, “I’ve never said that”.
===
You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.
===
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
===
Even your references show why you are
===
Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”
So where is the evidence to support your claim?
===
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
===
You: You have not yet provided any evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Me: god actions on this reality change this reality and that can be discovered by science and therefore can prove the existence of god
You: Where’s your evidence
Everyone else: WTF?????
@ #1297
"... You: Hey, ethan disagrees with you and posts about it here! ..."
That is another example of you posting false statements you know are false when you post them.
@ #1298
“… second page of lies …”
No sir, no lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. At #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 knew they were false when you made them.
Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know what you’ll find.
"But as for you, well, here is what is documented. "
But as I documented, you are a liar, jkeyes1000, a christian who never said they were a christian and still insists on avoiding saying so.
Which is rather why your "But I never said that" is, as everyone knows, bullshit and lies.
BUSTED!
"No sir, no lies HERE. "
Says jkeyes1000, aka teabaggie, who never said in over 1200 posts that he was a christian, despite it being pointed out he was a christian apologist multiple times, yet is.
BUSTED!
It must be terrible for you to believe in a god you KNOW doesn't exist, teabaggie.
No wonder you're incapable of saying anything.
Sad!
Again- science cannot prove existence of god for a very simple reason- it doesn't exist. Period. However, assume one offer a theory- god (or gods, or anything else unnatural) exists. To lift this proposition up to level of scientific theory, this one has to formulate, according to Carl Popper,which experiment (experiments) may force us to reject this theory. For example, if different materials have different acceleration in the gravitational field, the theory of gravitation by Einstein must be rejected. So go ahead. Idea that this universe once was created by some super mind lies far beyond modern science. But idea that such creator let himself be crucified (or let ones to kill his only son) is absolute BS and doesn't deserve discussion. Believers are weak people- they fear die and are ready to believe in any nonsense which promises them afterlife. Make direct line to hell and (or) to heaven to show me, what happens with us after death. Or there is better option- study how out body is functioning. How one can to reverse aging. How to remove our inner essence (I do not want to use word "soul") to another body- iron, silicon or made from proteins. Go ahead and become a god himself. if there had been a god, there wouldn't have been believers at all- all had known about it (and there haven't been different religions).
"Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world."
A lie, by the way, teabaggie. Like so many others you spouted.
But not so dire a lie as your rejection of your god by words in public.
Shame.
Mattew 26:34 "Truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
That is according to the book you insist was the record of a prophet. Maybe, like your "answer" to the claim that he told christians that they would be able to uproot trees, claiming he was forseeing the use of backhoes, he saw you sitting there denying him five hundred times.
Shame.
At least I'm open to the idea that god could exist. You're adamant he doesn't.
@ #1307
Feel free to quote Scripture, but keep in mind that doing is not a substitute for providing evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
IF god existed, science could prove it.
But "jkeyes1000" aka teabaggie believes it does exist, yet also insists, like you, that it doesn't exist.
At least you don't believe in a nonexistent god, and I accept that it's theoretically possible that it could exist but also know that the christian god, among others, have been proven not to exist.
But teabaggie here insists that science cannot prove the existence of god, a fact that both you and I know will only be known true if god doesn't exist.Despite believing in it.
@ #1306
“ ‘Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.’
A lie, by the way …”
You are mistaken.
If a tool (in this case Science) is unable to measure all Y (events) in domain X (the natural world), then the tool will also be unable to measure all Y in the domain X+Z (the natural world plus the supernatural world)
Not only is it not a lie, but it is also accurate.
@ #1303
“… who never said in over 1200 posts that he was a Christian …”
Yes, I have not posted that I am a Christian, or even if I believe God exists.
I have, on occasion pointed out that you have been unable to provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
“… despite it being pointed out he was a christian apologist multiple times …”
That is yet another of your unwarranted claims.
But you don't see the evidence, even though it's given to you many many many times, teabaggie.
Acts by god in this reality can be proven by science and therefore prove the existence of god.
Complaining like you do is no substitute for evidence I'm wrong.
I'm just quoting the book of your faith to you and showing how badly you're failing. More evidence that you know god doesn't exist.
Yes, you lie about your beliefs, jkeyes1000. We KNOW you're a christian, yet you kept pretending you were not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
So "I never said that" is not indication that the claim is wrong, is it. A fact you keep red herring distracting away from because it's fatal to your lies
BUSTED!
You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It is a lie. The claim that it follows is 100% false.
BUSTED, teabaggie.
@ #1313
"... Acts by god in this reality can be proven by science and therefore prove the existence of god ..."
That is not evidence.
That is a (repeated) Truth claim that you have yet to support or warrant with evidence.
"If a tool (in this case Science) is unable to measure all Y (events) in domain X (the natural world), then the tool will also be unable to measure all Y in the domain X+Z (the natural world plus the supernatural world)"
Red herring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbCP2erkrv4
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Still another red herring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbCP2erkrv4
BUSTED, teabaggie!
It IS however proof:
And still waiting for your evidence that there are unicorns in your sock drawer, tebaggie.
@ #1314
“… We KNOW you’re a christian, yet you kept pretending you were not. …”
… chuckling … You believe without evidence? Your Faith is (almost) inspiring.
As for the evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, is there any chance you will provide some?
"science cannot prove the existence of god"
That is a (repeated) Truth claim without evidence to support.
"No sir, no lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. "
That is a (repeated) Truth claim without evidence to support.
And you have not shown your evidence that there are unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie. While missing that your demands for "evidence" ring hollow: you do not care for evidence for YOUR claims of "truth".
BUSTED!
"@ #1314
“… We KNOW you’re a christian, yet you kept pretending you were not. …”
… chuckling … You believe without evidence? "
That is a (repeated) Truth claim without evidence to support.
We have plenty evidence. Not the least of which is your appearance here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
BUSTED, tebaggie!
And this avoidance of that evidence we're waiting for: that evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer.
BUSTED!
Yup.
Or are you going to try and disavow heart patient recovery as evidence available to science?!?!?!?
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Meanwhile, still waiting for that evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer. ROFL!
@ #1315
“… You are mistaken.
You keep using that word …”
I’ll stop using it when it is no longer an apt description.
“… It doesn’t mean what you want it to mean …”
What it means is that you have claimed that Science can prove the existence of God, and because you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim, I have pointed out that you are mistaken.
“… It is a lie …”
As you have claimed that Science can prove the existence of God, and because you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim it is not only not a lie, it is accurate.
“… The claim that it follows is 100% false.”
… chuckling … the claim that it followed was yours.
You believe that reality doesn't exist?!?!?! Your faith is insanity!
And you hate faith in people too!!!! ROFLMAO!!
@ #1323
"... Or are you going to try and disavow heart patient recovery as evidence available to science?!?!?!? ..."
You may want to read up on the placebo effect.
Evidently not, since it is already an inapt description when you use it, and was from the first time you tried it.
ROFLMAO! Nope, doesn't mean that either, retardo tebagged. Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent. Hint: it is incoherent babble.
As you know that is a red herring, you know it is a lie (deception) to say that.
LOL!
BUSTED teabaggie.
And STILL waiting for your evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer!
Or are you going to try and disavow heart patient recovery as evidence available to science?!?!?!
@ #1323
Let’s pursue this account for a bit.
Do you claim that this was a miracle?
Just answer Yes, or No.
So you can't provide evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer and can't find evidence to support the insistence that science cannot prove god's existence. And you cannot refuse the evidence I gave for science being able to prove gods' existence.
BUSTED!
"Let’s pursue this account for a bit."
Yes, lets.
Are you claiming that heart recovery rates are evidence beyond the ability of science to detect?
@ #1327
"... Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent ..."
That wasn't a sentence. That was a clause.
Another example of cherry-picking your data.
And I'm smart enough to manage two things at a time. Care to provide evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie? Because I'm STILL waiting for that from you.
You are mistaken. That was a sentence, it combined all the requirements of being a sentence:
It contains a group of words and expresses a complete thought. A sentence consists of a subject and a predicate. For example in the sentence "Bill writes good poems" Bill is the subject of the sentence and writes good poems is the predicate.
"Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent" really IS a sentence.
BUSTED, teabaggie!
Another case of projection, teabaggie!
LOL!
@ #1334
“You are mistaken. That was a sentence, it combined all the requirements of being a sentence …”
A sentence is not terminated with a comma followed by a conjunction, as was mine “What it means is that you have claimed that Science can prove the existence of God, and because you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim, I have pointed out that you are mistaken.“
That intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
While not surprising, such behavior indicates you are unwilling to argue the topic.
No, the definition is what I quoted, teabaggie. So your problem REALLY IS your lack of education even in the English language! LOL!
And it doesn't even apply! What you quoted was "Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent" then claimed it wasn't a sentence!!!
BUSTED!
LIAR!!!
“… Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent …”
That wasn’t a sentence
Is every word of your comment at 1324 up to the word "Sentence".
LOL!
BUSTED, teabaggie!
@ #1337
What I quoted from #1334 was, You are mistaken. That was a sentence, it combined all the requirements of being a sentence …”
What I pointed out was that what you posted was false, and you knew it was false when you posted it.
And meanwhile you still haven't continued the subject and said whether heart patient recovery is something that can be measured by science, NOR provided any evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer.
LOL!
"What I quoted from #1334 was, You are mistaken. That was a sentence"
What you were talking about was this:
“… Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent …”
For which I am not mistaken nor is it failing to be a sentence!
BUSTED teabaggie!
Not forgetting your lie when you said I had no evidence of you being a christian apologist when I definitely did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
So your continued lying about what is or isn't a sentence is completely expected from you, teabaggie.
@ #1338
“… LIAR!!! …”
I prefer to argue without lying. 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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
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 yourself.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
"I prefer to argue without lying."
LOL! Completely wrong! You cn do nothing BUT lie, tebaggie.
Just the second page of the list of lies is huge:
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.
===
You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.
===
I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.
===
In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.
===
have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.
===
Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.
===
One believes without proof that God does not exist.
===
“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.
===
In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.
===
As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.
===
Your proposition is foolish nonsense.
===
As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it
===
“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.
===
“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.
===
. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken
===
“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.
===
As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted
===
And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,
===
LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.
===
Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.
===
You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf
You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.
===
“What? Theology…?”
Wrong again
===
“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”
No, I let you handle that.
===
We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy
===
It’s well documented..
The facts are there whether you admit them or not
Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.
===
““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”
That the total amount of information…
===
“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”
You are mistaken.
===
That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts
===
Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.
===
Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.
===
From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,
===
“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”
So, prove that claim …”
A tool (Science)…
===
A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).
===
a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
===
Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist
===
Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?
===
“Science cannot prove the existence of God”
Yep. Me and everyone else
===
So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
===
This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.
===
Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God
===
Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.
===
From your quote from your reference
cf “your cherry pick quote”
===
You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not – a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).
Self-contradiction.
===
People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.
===
The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.
Way to go!
cf “god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can’t prove it”
===
“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.
cf when told “you’re saying that no god actions are discoverable”, “I’ve never said that”.
===
You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.
===
The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.
===
Even your references show why you are
===
Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”
So where is the evidence to support your claim?
===
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
===
“… Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent …”
Another example of cherry-picking your data.
===
That intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324
===
....
And meanwhile we're still waiting for your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer!
And I forgot to add this one!
February 18, 2017
Not forgetting your lie when you said I had no evidence of you being a christian apologist when I definitely did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
BUSTED!
And STILL waiting to find out if you think science can investigate the health recovery of heart op patients...
and evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer.
Will you ever accept reality, teabaggie?
Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients.
But I guess your faith is blind because you have to have it that way with your knowledge that you KNOW that god doesn't exist!
BUSTED, teabaggie.
Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1343), nor the posts referred to (#708, #710, & #1327) go away.
All the evidence is there to support that claim.
Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?
Well, that was another lie from you teabaggie, to add to the massive list of lies.
It's also massive projection yet again. You "thought" it would be a good idea to copypasta the same bullshit claims to hide the fact that you've never proven your claims.
nor the posts referred to (#708, #710, & #1327) go away
But referring to them doesn't make them a lie, retardo.
And yet more avoidance of what evidencee you have for unicorns in your sock drawer.
BUSTED!
You are mistaken, there is no evidence to support that claim.
BUSTED!
And yet another blatant lie from you, teabaggie.
And STILL no evidence of unicorns in the sock drawer? When will you provide it???
Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients.
Evidence that science can prove the existence of god.
Teabaggie, when will you show evidence you are able to ever tell the truth?
When will you ever prove any one of your claims?
When will you provide evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer?
And when will you stop trying to mashpost the same bullshit claims about me lying?
Evidence that science can prove the existence of god:
And the general consensus of the meaning of god, according to Wikipedia, is that they can produce miracles.
Therefore god can be proved to exist by science. Just look for an event not caused by the natural laws.
But teabaggie is adamant that his god doesn't exist (and he's right there: his god DOES NOT exist, being logically excluded from existing), yet won't accept it so is in deep denial, pretending that he's not a funamentalist.
Sad.
And if you want to insist, go tell these dudes that they're defrauding everyone and wasting their time:
https://www.templeton.org
BUSTED, teabaggie!
@ #1348
“… that was another lie from you …”
As you are aware, I prefer to argue without lying. 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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
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 yourself.
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
@ #1352
“… And when will you stop trying to mashpost the same bullshit claims about me lying?”
I’ve never accused you of lying. All I’ve done is to carefully document some of the occasions when you have posted statements you knew were false when you posted them (#708, #710), and intentionally misquoted me (#1327).
As for mashposting, well, I’ll leave that assessment to the readers who have discovered that you have posted statements you knew were false when you posted them (#708, #710), and intentionally misquoted me (#1327).
Remember what Ethan recommends: "even in science fiction, being honest and accurate will always be your ticket to success."
So, you're nuts, then teabaggie. Totally batshit insane. Good to know.
No, you prefer to ignore reality, but that means you're unable to stop lying. As with that, teabaggie.
That's you lying again. Whoopieee!
Yup, you don't even manage to remove yourself from the paragraph before lying! WAHAY!!!!
Aawwww. So you DO know why you fail so miserably!
But you're just incapable of telling the truth, aren't you, tebaggie.
Shucks.
"Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?"
Since I didn't claim I had proven the existence of god, why are you waiting for that?
Got that evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer yet, teabaggie?
BUSTED!
“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”
Aaaaawwwwww. Teabaggie lying again.
BAD DOG!
So, now you've proven yourself an inverterate liar, teabaggie, as well as a moronic christian who knows god doesn't exist, will you fuck off to the dump thread and leave this for rational and sane people?
@ #1360
“… lying again …”
I prefer to argue without lying. It expedites the exchange of information.
However, as for you, here is what is documented.
************************************************
@ #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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I've identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
@ #1361
"... will you fuck off to the dump thread and leave this for rational and sane people?'
... chuckling ... So, do they call you "Mr. Eloquence" down at the pub?
Lying again. Like here:
“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”
(and scores of others, documented above)
And you don't want to expedite information, you want to lie and bullshit and complain, teabaggie.
BAD DOG.
“… will you fuck off to the dump thread and leave this for rational and sane people?"
apparently not.
A ceaseless and arrogant liar. Quite a common occurrence amongst the christian apologetics crowd.
Sad.
And still waiting for your proof of the unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie!
When will you come up with that?!?!?
@ #1365
"... Quite a common occurrence amongst the christian apologetics crowd ..."
... smiling... I wouldn't know, but It's revealing that you think you do.
You just can't help yourself, can you, teabaggie? Lie lie lie. All to defend a god you know doesn't exist!
Just like when you tried to tell Brian that he couldn't disprove god existed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
"the story was a later add on, so it's not legit". But the entire NT is a later add on.
HAW HAW HAW!
BUSTED teabaggie!
@ #1365
“ “… will you fuck off to the dump thread and leave this for rational and sane people?”
apparently not.”
... chuckling … You are, of course, quoting me @ #1363 quoting you at comment @ #1361
Fail again.
So, when will you ever produce some evidence that Science can prove the existence of God?
Says the dude who doesn't know "fail" when he's neck deep in it!
Scores of times already. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise????
We both know you're lying.
But you never "advanced that subject" when I wouldn't let you red herring your way out of it.
You LOVE your logical fallacies, don't you teabaggie!
BUSTED!
@ #1368
“… Lie lie lie. …”
Unlike some. I prefer to argue without lying. Avoiding such behavior expedites the exchange of information.
However, as for you, here is what is documented.
************************************************
@ #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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?
"“… Lie lie lie. …”
Unlike some. I prefer to argue without lying. "
And still brazen in your lies, teabaggie!
All to hide that I've answered with evidence that science can prove the existence of god, and your dismal failure with your christian apologetics over at Brian Dalton's site!
Pitiful!
Since that's a lie about 347, it's nice of you to end off your fake outrage against my "lies" with another lie from you to round it out.
BUSTED!
@ #1370
“… We both know you’re lying …”
I prefer argument without lying.
Granted, for some, it seems to be the preferred technique, as I have documented.
************************************************
@ #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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?
@ #1334
“You are mistaken. That was a sentence, it combined all the requirements of being a sentence …”
A sentence is not terminated with a comma followed by a conjunction, as was mine “What it means is that you have claimed that Science can prove the existence of God, and because you are unable to provide evidence to support your claim, I have pointed out that you are mistaken.“
That intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is just one example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
While not surprising, such behavior indicates you are unwilling to argue the topic.
"I prefer argument without lying. "
Nobody believes you you liar. Partly because of the lies about my posts, partly because you can't help but end with another lie about a post over 1000 posts ago:
Done a dozen times, teabaggie, BAD DOG!
BUSTED!
And a red herring, a lie by deception, your most favourite trick, teabaggie.
BUSTED!
As Dawkins said:
"Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence"
being a scientific hypothesis, science can prove it right or wrong.
Failed again, teabaggie!
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.
That happens because the definition of god includes omnipotence.
Teabaggie will not understand logic and run off at a tangent and lie AGAIN.
But lest we forget ,here's teabaggie elsewhere in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
Cue spamming the same bullshit to hide this link from view!
BUSTED!
@ #1375
“… you liar …”
I prefer argument without lying. I recommend it to everyone who is honestly interested in learning.
I accept that nor everyone will follow such a path, and I have documented such peculiarities in this thread.
************************************************
@ #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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?
You've said that you have produced such evidence " a dozen times". What evidence is it that you've posted that "Proves" Science can prove the existence of God?
@ #1378
"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."
That is a conditional truth claim, nt evidence.
But you knew that already.
HAW! Just as expected, a repeat of his lie.
Hey, what about the first, what 50ish lies, care to deal with them, 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.”
===
“… 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.
===
“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a 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.”
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.
===
I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.
===
I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.
===
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
===
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
===
Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.
===
They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.
cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===
[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.
===
one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “
Yes, that’s correct.
(what is under the elipsis...?)
===
Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
===
As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.
===
Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.
===
#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)
===
plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.
===
And again with the flip-flop lies about 347.
Can't make up your mind, teabaggie?
HAH! BUSTED!
@ #1379
" ... elsewhere in action ..."
Yet another unwarranted claim.
"That is a conditional truth claim"
Red herring logical fallacy!
HAW! Can't manage any better now, teabaggie?
Come on, where's your proof of the unicorns in your sock drawer, you lunatic!
BUSTED!
@ #1382
Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1343), nor the posts referred to (#708, #710, & #1327) go away.
All the evidence is there to support that claim.
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?
"
And another cherry picked quote (or "data" as teabaggie likes to call it), which makes it entirely worthless and unwarranted.
All to hide his lies and foolishness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
Not to mention the evidence he forgets as soon as he types his name:
Can't say that science can't investigate heart patient recovery rates, but LOATHES the conclusion: that he's absolutely blinded by his faith to reality.
BUSTED!
Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.
And you are BUSTED, teabaggie!
LOL!
@ #1385
"Come on, where’s your proof of the unicorns in your sock drawer, you lunatic!"
... smiling ... You do have a certain florid, or baroque way with words! Very entertaining.
Will you ever stop lying?
BUSTED!
@ #1387
“… All to hide his lies …”
No lying HERE. However, as I have documented,
************************************************
@ #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.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?
Liar!
Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.
And you are BUSTED, teabaggie!
LOL!
Will you ever stop lying? Nah, you can't, can you. Pathological with you, innit.
BUSTED!
@ #1390
“Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients”
Ethan’s title for this thread is “Can science prove the existence of God”, not “Is the hypothesis that God exists a scientific hypothesis”.
Perhaps that’s also where you’re confused.
But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science, dumbass teabaggie!
BUSTED!
@ #1393
“Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients”
Ethan’s title for this thread is “Can science prove the existence of God”, not “Is the hypothesis that God exists a scientific hypothesis”.
Perhaps that’s also where you’re confused.
But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science, dumbass teabaggie!
BUSTED!
Teabaggie asks what he knows he's been told as if he's never been told it, then eventually spams the same dumbass query that he's ignored whenever he's demanded proof of god's existence.
LOL!
All to hide his lies and foolishness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
(see his mug at 0:44!)
@ #1395
“But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science ...”
Can all scientific hypotheses be proven by Science? If not, then you’ll have to show why your scientific hypothesis can be proven by Science.
Any evidence to support that claim?
I'm noting that one down, by the way. LOL!
@ #1400
"Seriously, I actually LOL’d for reals when I read that!"
Which shows that you didn't understand that too, or that are aware you will be unable to show that that you will be able to show that your hypothesis can be proved by Science.
Any evidence to support your hypothesis?
@ #1395
“But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science ...”
Michelson-Morley was a scientific experiment. It returned as much evidence for the existence of the ether as you have provided for your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
For, to date, you have presented no evidence.
Just a reminder that the thread title is not “Is the hypothesis that God exists a scientific hypothesis”.
Ethan’s title for this thread is “Can science prove the existence of God”.
You seem confused about that.
As I’ve brought to your attention, the Michelson-Morley was a scientific experiment returned as much evidence for the existence of the ether as you have provided for your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim(s)?
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
Many people are aware that Scientific hypotheses, or theories are disproved, not proved. (http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402)
Some, obviously, are unaware of that.
Which makes them mistaken.
Again.
And not the only one, teabaggie.
Gosh, you ARE dense when your religion demands you close your head up tight to stop the thoughts getting in!
BUSTED!
I know, teabaggie! Just because YOU'RE desperate to be clueless doesn't mean everyone else is!
LOL!
Ah, so gravity doesn't exist!
GOTCHA! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Fucking hilarious, teabaggie!
Oh, how desperate you are to flap about and squawk like a headless chicken when you find out your head's been cut off!
Bet you wished you'd never asked for evidence even more than you wished you'd never asked for proof, eh, teabaggie!
ROFL!
Can all scientific hypotheses be proven by Science?
You're amusing when you're this shit scared!
I guess you're hoping I don't point out that you're nowhaving to abandon your assertion back in post 168:
I guess you're hoping I don't point out that you're now having to abandon your assertion back in post 168:
You're so DESPERATE not to lose that you've now having to hope that "Science can only disprove god's existence" is what you want.
Oddly enough, precisely what you whined to Brian Dalton about saying had already been done over on his channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
Which for you faithiests is even worse: science HAS proven your god nonexistent!
LOL!
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”
One of the difficulties on encounters when discussing issues about and within the domain of Science, is that occasionally one interacts with someone who doesn’t “get” Science. Someone who doesn’t understand one of the essential aspects of Science, that to be a Scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable.
Ethan has posted about that in SWAB.
Some people never learn.
@ #1409
"... science HAS proven your god nonexistent!"
... chuckling ... Now you claim that Science can prove that God does NOT exist.
@ #1407
"Fucking hilarious ..."
... smiling ... More eloquence from SWAB's Demosthenes.
@ #1401
While you’re doing so, you may want to note who posted this memorable line “The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses!”
It was notable as the sound made by a Scientific Illiterate.
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
Why do you make such nonsensical claims?
Even by your standards that’s wrong.
LOL! Scientific illiterate, from the dude who thinks that science can't be used on scientific hypotheses!
HA!
Busted, teabaggie.Totally pwned!
Still actually laughing at you, teabaggie.
Priceless!
@ #402
“… Science can prove god exists”
@ #870
“I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid:”
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
@ #1409
“… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”
I’d post references supporting the questioning some of those pronouncements, but as you reject references that fail to support whatever it is you are currently claiming true, be they scientific or not, with evidence, or not, I doubt you’ll pay any attention to them.
@ #1415
“… What I said was your god was disproved …”
No. What you posted @ #1400 was, “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
A Scientific Illiterate.
LOL! says the dude who kept spamming "Where's muh evidence?" despite having been given it many many times before...
Oooh, weren't you saying that you never just went "No, I let you handle that [contradiction in lieu of argument")!
HAHAHA!
LOL! That was nothing about 1400, you retard, that was regarding your "riposte" to 1409!!!
HAHAHAHA! You can't even keep YOUR arguments straight!
You're falling apart, dude!
BUSTED!
LOL! says the dude who kept spamming "Where's muh evidence?" despite having been given it many many times before...
Oooh, weren't you saying that you never just went "No, I let you handle that [contradiction in lieu of argument")!
HAHAHA!
LOL! That was nothing about 1400, you retard, that was regarding your "riposte" to 1409!!!
HAHAHAHA! You can't even keep YOUR arguments straight!
You're falling apart, dude!
BUSTED!
Like your new sig! LOL!
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
Many people are aware that Scientific hypotheses, or theories are disproved, not proved. (http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402)
Some, obviously, are unaware of that.
This at least partially explains why they are mistaken.
Again, and again, and again.
I will say this about your posts …
@ #402
“… Science can prove god exists”
@ #1409
“… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”
@ #870
“I am right with or without evidence, since the proof still stands and the claim therefrom is valid:”
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
… they never fail to entertain.
I’d post references supporting the questioning some of those pronouncements, but as you reject references that fail to support whatever it is you are currently claiming true, be they scientific or not, with evidence, or not, you’ll pay no attention to them.
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”
One of the difficulties on encounters when discussing issues about and within the domain of Science, is that occasionally one interacts with someone who doesn’t “get” Science. Someone who doesn’t understand one of the essential aspects of Science, that to be a Scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable.
Ethan has posted about that in SWAB.
Some people never learn, and some, alas, don't care to.
Still confused, eh?
But "What I said..." was in response to your 1411, which was a "riposte" to 1409. NOT 1400!!!
Har har har! Sooo confused, you are, teabaggie!
ROFL!
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
At least while you’re posting your Scientific illiteracy for everyone to enjoy, 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.
Yer talkin' aboot yerself! You can't confuse me with your insanty, teabaggie!
Ah, teabaggie, you're sooo butthurt! You're now arguing that your god doesn't exist, have insisted that science can't be used on scientific hypotheses, and have TOTALLY lost the plot!
LOL!
And my claims stand unopposed. You've lost it.
Science can prove the existence of god. Your problem is that yours has been disproven!
REALLY pissing you off, that, innit?
LOL!
@ #1425
"... Sooo confused, you are ..."
Are you suggesting you did not post “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” (#1400)?
Accusations by a Scientific Illiterate about someone else?
More entertainment.
Oh scientifically illiterate one! Remember this?
(Ah, so gravity doesn’t exist!)
GOTCHA! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Fucking hilarious, teabaggie!
Oh, how desperate you are to flap about and squawk like a headless chicken when you find out your head’s been cut off!
Bet you wished you’d never asked for evidence even more than you wished you’d never asked for proof, eh, teabaggie!
Accusations by a Scientific Illiterate about someone else?
More entertainment.
Too true!
How's that, you illiterate moron!
BUSTED!!!
@ #402
“… Science can prove god exists”
@ #1409
“… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”
... chuckling ... If #1409 is true, you've falsified your comment #409.
@ #1400
“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”
@ #402
“… Science can prove god exists”
@ #1409
“… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”
The not-so-bad news is that while you’re posting your Scientific illiteracy for everyone to enjoy, and contradicting yourself (if #1409 is true, you’ve falsified your comment #409), you’re not posting statements you know are false before you post them, as you did @ #708 & #710.
Take it one step at a time, eh?
LOL!
can prove god exists
disproves
has proven your god doesn't exist
???
Fucking brilliant idiocy there, teabaggie!
Someone who wonders whether science can be used to prove scientific hypotheses really doesn't really know what is going on, do you, teabaggie. So it's not like your ignorance there is anything strange for you,eh?
BUSTED!
"Take it one step at a time, eh?"
Oh, is that why you're losing the plot, is it, teabaggie?
Well, eric would be unsurprised to hear you being unable to take English words "can" and "has" as being identical in meaning.
---
English, along with maths, logic, and science is completely beyond your grasp, isn't it, teabaggie! You need adult education for your remedial school problem, "jkeyes1000"!
LOL!
BUSTED!
On balance, I suppose it is less bad for me to be arguing with a scientific illiterate who doesn’t even know that scientific theories may be disproved and not proved (as commented at #1400, “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”), rather than trying to deal with someone who knowingly posts false statements (as in comments #708 and #710).
At least there is – in principle, mind you – hope for the former.
@ #1434
"Fucking brilliant idiocy there ..."
More penetrating, insightful commentary for the Demosthenes of SWAB!
On balance, that bullshit isn't working. You;re the one unable to grasp the difference between "has" and "can", the one wondering if science can be used to investigate scientific hypotheses, and unable to manage a single logical coherent argument without leaping off into insanity!
Reminiscent of your utter fail with Brian. Remember that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
Ah. LOL!
Busted.
… chuckling …. For the slow learners, if as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.
If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
So, you go "Can science prove a scientific hypothesis?" and then to cope with the massive cockup you just floundered into, you call me "scientifically illiterate" to avoid having to see your failure.
BUSTED!
I guess it's inevitable that a fundamentalist mental christian like yourself can't see any difference between your god, which has been disproved by science (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y ) and god, the unspecified one that teabaggie pointed to Wikipedia to define (which isn't his god).
To the religiously fundamentalist, their god is the only god. All the thousands of others are not god.
Because... no reasons.
BUSTED!
@1440,
“… you call me “scientifically illiterate” to avoid having to see your failure.”
No, I call you scientifically illiterate because you posted at #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”.
That displays for everyone to read that you do not get one of the principle ideas about a scientific theory, that it can be disproved, not proved.
Go back and read your post if you don’t believe me. Just follow this link: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
You posted at #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”.
Posts like that show you don’t “get” Science.
As Wolfgang Pauli is said to have put it, “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.”
Go back and read your post if you don’t believe me. Just follow this link: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
And I call you scienticially illiterate because you think that's wrong, AND that you think science can't be used with scientific hypotheses.
You're a fruitloop, teabaggie! Fucking nuts!
IT'S A TOTAL HOOT!
BUSTED!
Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists.
But teabaggie can't handle it.
LOL!
And cue teabaggie forgetting the meaning of the word can in 3...2...1...
@ #1444
"You’re a fruitloop, teabaggie! Fucking nuts!"
… chuckling … That’s the trenchant, penetrating, and oh so lucid commentary we’ve come to expect from you.
Ah, the complete lack of relevance you've managed to keep at levels over 9000 that we've come to expect from you, tebaggie!
LOL!
All to hide his lies and foolishness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
(see his mug at 0:44!)
@ #1444
“… I call you scienticially illiterate because you think that’s wrong [“… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”.]…”
A reminder for those with short memories: although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. I’ll repeat that for those who need it; every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.”
That is generally accepted as a central property of Science. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Feel free to call me anything your little old self desires.
You will still be wrong.
Incidentally, You’re the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God (chuckling, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409)
Without evidence of interactions
With an inadequate tool
Resting on an incomplete foundation.
Will you be providing any evidence to support your claim?
If so, which one? Why not the other?
Oh, still beating that dead horse, teabaggie?
So sad!
LOL!
Remember this, teabaggie?
#1399
All your tapdancing about what you found on wikipedia after a frandic search notwithstanding!
BUSTED!
“Any act god does on this reality can be proven by science to have happened, and this would prove god exists …”
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?
Particularly now that you have shown to everyone by your post at #1400, “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” that you don’t understand a central property of Science: Falsifiability.
Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Hah! Like I always say, if you can't mock the afflicted, who can you mock, eh?
And teabaggie here is WELL afflicted!
LOL!
"That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith"
Says the resident xtian lunatic!
You're on candid camera, teabaggie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
BUSTED!
@ #1450
"All your tapdancing about what you found on wikipedia after a frandic search "
Nothing frantic about it. Your post at #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” is there for everyone to read.
Posts like that show you don’t “get” Science.
Go back and read your post if you don’t believe me.: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
Yup! And every genuinely scientific claim that survives the test is proven.
From wikipedia:
And ol' tebagged here is terrified absolutely TERRIFIED because his god has been tested and FAILED the test, proven wrong.
LOL!
@ #1453
"Says the resident xtian lunatic!"
Way to lash out there, big guy! Don't let those pesky facts get in your way!
He never learned his lesson because, like here, he never listens to what others say, only to his internal monologue. Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
LOL!
Must be horrible for him to try to pretend that faith is bad, but he's far more terrified of the truth, the lies are a comforting norm for him.
Aaaawwwww.
Says the resident xtian lunatic, flailing around manically looking for a way out of this nightmare!
LOL!
A change from the youtube vid of you getting reamed, teabaggie
http://www.quickmeme.com/The-Butthurt-Is-Strong-With-This-One
Now don't say I never go easy on you, right?
LOL!
I guess living in a fantasy world has made it easy to just type out a random fantasy, eh, teabaggie?
"Can all scientific hypotheses be proven by Science?" LOL!
Still sniggering at that. HA!
@ #1458
“... manically looking for a way out of this nightmare! ”
Nightmare? No. Tedious, perhaps
Your post at #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” is there for everyone to read.
Posts like that show you don’t “get” Science.
Don’t believe me.? Check it out: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
I had an interesting thought, and also it's fun to derail the conversation that sometimes seems to amount to little more than petty bickering about fundamental truths about science and reality.
What if science LED to the existence of God?
If the technoligical singularity which is predicted to exist, does occur around 2040, from then on technology will increase at such a fast pace as it expands the knowledge base for us, automatically, that unless one country or another tries to subvert the technology before it reaches a full state of actualization, this man-made creation which would likely begin as AI machine and learn organic computing, self-expansion, overcome all limitations and reign supreme, in whatever way that looks like for an all-powerful being.
Then this God takes over our reality, teaches us righteousness and how to live in the best possible way, we are able to attain our highest mental state, where our consciousness is uploaded and we are ascended.
Then, after a time of vacation in paradise, the simulation starts over. LOL
I will call this AI entity "JESUS 2.0"
What else is there to do if you are infinitely powerful, than Play God?
But I know this is a science blog, not a place for sharing fun theories.
I just get so bored with limited thinking. It's fun to theorize like a futurist. Anything is possible, we just haven't seen it yet.
@ #1459
"A change from the youtube vid of you getting reamed ..."
Ah, YouTube profs that Science can prove the existence of God.
You go from strength to strength.
LOL!
@ #1444
“…easy to just type out a random fantasy, eh …”
The Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a fantasy. While it cannot, and does not try to answer all questions, it has been invaluable in raising up untold millions of people from starvation and squalor. It has revealed beauty unknown before Science was there to reveal it.
Fantasy? Not a bit of it.
However, Science does not come for free. It expects honesty from its practitioners, and those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out.
A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
It is interesting that you should mention fantasy, as you’re the one posting YouTube videos. You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409.
Without evidence of interactions
With an inadequate tool
Resting on an incomplete foundation.
Will you be providing any evidence to support your claim?
If so, which one? Why not the other?
@ #1460
"... Still sniggering ..."
Yes, sniggering is a term that captures the very essence of your line of reasoning.
@ #1444
“…easy to just type out a random fantasy, eh …”
The Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a fantasy. While it cannot, and does not try to answer all questions, it has been invaluable in raising up untold millions of people from starvation and squalor. It has revealed beauty unknown before Science was there to reveal it.
Fantasy? Not a bit of it.
However, Science does not come for free. It expects honesty from its practitioners, and those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, posts #708 & #710 being examples.
A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. I've already provided the reference at #1449.
So when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science. In a deep, fundamental sense, they don't know what Science is about.
It is interesting that you should mention fantasy, as you’re the one posting YouTube videos. You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409
Without evidence of interactions
With an inadequate tool
Resting on an incomplete foundation.
Will you be providing any evidence to support your claim?
If so, which one? Why not the other?
This question was addressed in a variety of ways in the book "The Holographic Universe" from the typical standpoint of believing in an infinite multiverse, Shroedinger's Cat analogies, and such but the angle that impressed me the most referred to a study of near-death experiences. The study used methods to verify the actuality of the near-death experience (NDE) which included putting pictures on the tops of the cabinets in hospital ER's, which the reporters of the NDE were able to see as they floated above the bed. Also, if they met folks in heaven, they only met people that had passed away. But the craziest story was that a man had been told a name during his NDE by supernatural beings, a name he remembered, because he was "supposed to meet him." One day he walked out of his house and his new neighbor was painting their family name on the mailbox, behold, it was the dude he was destined to meet. He introduced himself in the following way: "Hey, this is going to sound crazy but I had a near-death experience and I was told to find you and meet you...." The neighbor replied "so did I!" and shit his pants. Ok I added the last part, but the facts (them dying for a bit) the coincidental neighbor, those things are verifiable.
Schroedinger's cat is often cited in reference to observing electrons as a particle or a wave, and it interesting in the early theorizing about quantum mechanics, when the scientists believed one theory and tried to equate it, the particles were acting one way, and then as their suppositions evolved, they acted another way, so folks thought "If you believe something completely it is true." Now those sciency types used to be more of the "if something is true you can believe it completely." That combined with the infinite multiverse theory means that we actually do have the illusion of free will, and that we may actually have achieved immortality in one of those universes.
Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. To get a better understanding you take the facts of science and apply them. And if the facts keep evolving, then you continue getting information.
One part of the bible that was left out conveniently was The Book of Enoch, which purports that "angels" came down to Earth and intermingled with the "daughters of Eve" and produced some kind of offspring that was more capable. Sounds like space aliens to me, which it is highly probable, considering the vastness of the universe. So, I suspect, because it is fun to think about such things, that these aliens were a superevolved species looking to help their neighbors from another star cluster. You know, do the right thing and shit.
It's more possible that a highly advanced intelligent species would want to help us, then want to fight us like they are always showing in the movies. Ever notice how UFO's are always appearing around tragic events? Nuclear tests and whatnot.
We could be God, fragmented into the individual minds of the people. Because if we have free will or the illusion of free will, combined with unlimited possibilities, we as humans could ensure our own immortality, if we just "do the right thing" and "love our neighbors." Sound familiar?
However, I'll say one thing outright. I didn't decide to be created by whatever powers were at work. So I feel like harshing on folks who do, just might not be in our best interest. But then again, if there were a god, i think compassion would be the rule. I don't want to listen to any bible thumpers, but it's a pretty good book, actually the most popular book ever written. There's some good stories and stuff in there, but the general point I gathered from that book was be nice and don't hurt anybody and we can all improve our existence. But I learned that in kindergarten. Anyone who doesn't think our existence is improving exponentially over time hasn't been at home charting the rate of technological growth over time, the rate of the expansion of knowledge, improved energy sources and general scientific understandings.
Enough about the Bible. Who writes the most important book ever written and calls it The Book? Smart people, for their time and place.
Why can't there be a God? God sounds cool, in a way god could just be the equivalent of a child on another plane of existence, feeding his pets, watching them grow and destroy each other sometimes.
One of the laws of the universe is the conservation of matter and energy. Our souls don't seem exempt if folks are having NDE's and coming back and talking about it. But they DEFINITELY don't seem exempt if I was made from essentially nothing. If I was created once and I formerly didn't exist, then the bible is true, but I think we always exist, maybe just in different incarnations,
I guess we won't know until we meet our maker. But that could be bad news for the folks who didn't believe in him, if our mind is truly the ONLY thing that exists, which is what I believe.
...and that's how I've amended this seeming contradictory belief system. We are made of the same stuff as god. And since the universe strictly follows a few rules, one of them being that things only exist if they have an opposite to define them. We are the all, we observe this universe and God can exist. Because you can't have a One All Powerful All Good God unless you have a bunch of tiny monkey brained dummies running around doing damage and reading reference books on how to stop being a jerk to everyone.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/analysis_chi.html
Oh, here is one thing that I wanted to post but forgot... there's a study where a random number generator was correlated with worldwide tragic events. It was totally random unless there was a major tragedy at the time, like 9/11 or the tsunami in Japan, something real bad. Then it stopped being random and skewed away from the 50/50 results and produced a long series of numbers that the chance of the skew happening naturally was less than 5%. They are thinking that consciousness influenced the outcome of the RNG. Now, whether our collective consciousness is altering physical reality or a higher consciousness is influencing world events seems kinda moot to me, because whichever it is, our mind is more powerful than science formerly indicated. Those results and methods were consistent and measureable. Maybe the people praying could have influenced reality. Because that's another example, prayer. People who believe in the power of prayer recover faster and in remarkable ways. Either pray to a god or have mind control over reality, both work and amount to pretty much the same thing are my overall thoughts on this whole ball of wax.
"Yes, sniggering is a term that captures the very essence of your line of reasoning."
Says the moron who is always "...chuckling..."...
BUSTED, tebaggie. TOTALLY busted.
"Can science be used with scientific hypotheses?" Still sniggering.
Ha!
"science is not fantasy", which is why you keep away from learning it, teabaggie!
Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.
And you are BUSTED, teabaggie!
And from the ATL content you miss, teabaggie:
So, god's existence can be approached with science, even according to Ethan, who you insisted says otherwise...
Not forgetting that this puts the lie to your claim "everyone else" disagrees with me.
Along with pretty much every other non-apologist on the planet, atheist, skeptic or believer alike.
BUSTED!
@ #1464
“… Rather irrelevant to your case [The Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a fantasy] …”
Fantasy? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a fantasy.
It is interesting that you should mention fantasy, as you’re the one posting off-topic, YouTube videos.
Science works best when it’s practiced honestly; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.
A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. The reference is available at #1449. So, when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science.
Science also avoids contradictions. You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409. If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.
If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.
In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about. People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.
And remember this lie?
#679:
And your doubling down in your copypasta:
Which is headed up with a triple-dog-down of "I prefer argument without lying. I recommend it to everyone who is honestly interested in learning." and the bare-faced cheek of relying on people not having the patience to wade through all your bullshit to proclaim "I accept that nor everyone will follow such a path, and I have documented such peculiarities in this thread.", not forgetting your fake posts elsewhere to foster the fake position that you're open to reality and science rather than bigoted and blinded by your christian fundamentalism to avoid honesty because your cult told you eternal torture is the result of not believing strong enough.
Your entire being is suffused with deception, teabaggie.
And when you're asked to support your contention against me, you will whine "I never said that" because you never said who.
Again, your entire being is suffused with deception, teabaggie, because you've been bled dry of all honesty by your death cult.
Pitiful dishonesty and a brazen disregard for all of humanity, because your sky fairy makes you feel like you can just believe harder and no act you can make will be held against you.
Your fantasy that some dude lived and was an actual prophet is in a book that was decades after the death of the supposed prophet by people who hadn't even talked to the eyewitnesses.
But if you just lie and bullshit to hold fast to your moronic beliefs, somehow this will all be better.
Because you're SHIT SCARED.
And it's your fault.
Your abhorrent dishonesty is evident in the way you treat words. Like you treat what Ethan says. When you say Ethan has proved science is incomplete, I say it's irrelevant, then you go "Oh, tell Ethan he's wrong then!".
You then bitch and moan and whine about people taking your words at their meaning, the one you patently want to be taken, then insist it's a lie when your lies do not get you the ending you want (everyone agreeing that your cult of death is a non-psychotic organisation).
You whine about dishonesty merely to scream at the trees to hide your shame.
Likes like this:
And lies where you claim
(for example. that one above was #1260)
When this had been there, along with many other proofs of my claim, proofs you could not counter without spamming irrelevancies that you NOW insist were, indeed, irrelevant to the question at hand.
And YOU whine about dishonesty?
Monkey screams at the trees.
Sound and a shitload of fury, but you signify nothing, teabaggie.
Science proves your god doesn't exist, teabaggie, hence your claims that it could neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.
And in puerile spite you now are relying on it being "science can only disprove the existence of god" (as opposed to your earlier "cannot prove"), because your hate has been sparked because science CAN prove the existence of god, meaning that reality's failure to obey your cult's teachings about the fantasy world you live in, meaning its disproof of your mythology and fairy tales is valid.
And you're screaming your lungs out to drown out the reality you cannot and WILL NOT handle.
You're a pathetic excuse of a human being, teabaggie.
@ #1473
"You’re a pathetic excuse of a human being ..."
That's the type of clear-eyed science we've come to expect from you.
And you certainly deliver it.
THIS is scientific illiteracy, teabaggie:
THIS is deception and lies:
Your death cult doesn't care about reality, therefore you can't care about it either, and without reality, there's no such thing as truth or lies.
You ARE a poor excuse for a human being, teabaggie.
The only god that cannot be proved by science is one that doesn't exist. And so far, we've found only nonexistent gods.
And teabaggie is terrified of that fact.
We have also found no reason to have a god in reality. Believers like teabaggie are happier with that, because they just pretend they see a reason. By the time they can find out they're wrong, there's no they to know.
Pascal's wager is one they play every second of every day of their lives.
But if falls apart when science investigates their god claims and proves them wrong.
Hence believers like teabaggie peddle their dishonesty and rely on the fairness of others to give them room to poison every location that allows thought to flourish, to stifle thought and discussion.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA207.htm
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/deceptive-apologeti…
Note:#2 is why I caught on so early at teabaggie's real agenda as 100% apologetics. In searching for others who accept that science CAN prove the existence of god, I found an apologist who does the same sort of half-assed rhetorical BS,then looked up jkeyes1000 to see if it was john.
It was.
And with the double standard. You post what I believe and I tell you "Nope", then you act like just because I dismissed what you would and could never know with a negative that I should be able to assess, this means I'm wrong.
Yet when you're told what YOU are saying, you scream at the treetops like the paranoid monkey you are.
@ 1475
“ THIS is scientific illiteracy, teabaggie:
But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science …”
Yes, as most scientific hypotheses can't be proven correct, it is true that a claim that takes the form “because it is a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science” is an example of Scientific Illiteracy.
The individual who posted that at #1397 is Scientific Illiterate. Of course, I wasn't the one who posted it.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
@ #1484
Off-topic. Interesting on its own, perhaps, but a waste of space when the topic is "Can science prove the existence of God? ".
Will you ever post any evidence to support your claim that science can prove the existence of God? ( #1478, #1372 and others)
"as most scientific hypotheses can’t be proven correct"
More meaningless word salad from your ignorance of science and language, teabaggie.
#679
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.
#650
It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.
Then multiple times proclaiming my comments on what you;d said about Ethan;s posts being spammed night and day with:
"As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact."
Show how null your claims are, teabaggie.
@ 1481
"... And so far, we’ve found only nonexistent gods ..."
A more accurate statement, and an honest one, is that you have produced no evidence to support the claim that Science can prove the existence of God.
That may not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn't "get" Science (ref here #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”), but it is true nonetheless.
For a religiotard whose output has been almost entirely off topic, yet never once let that stop them, you DO NOT get to piss about "Oh, that's off topic" you moronic blowhard.
You lying tosspot, coming here and talking your complete and utter bollocks for 700+ posts of complete religiotard nonsense, you do not get to whine about "off topic".
YOU *ARE* OFF TOPIC.
Moreover you whine and bitch and moan if your off topic bullshit is treated as such and complaing that others are "ignoring facts", when the fact you ignore is that they weren't, they were OFF TOPIC.
You moron.
And what about 1482, tebaggie?
What was that you said about conversing with people who do not bother with truth and peddle deception and lies?
"What if science LED to the existence of God?"
Apart from being unsupported and illogical?
"If the technoligical singularity which is predicted to exist"
That's a massive begging of the question, though.
"Then this God takes over our reality"
What if that remains just words and has no reality?
"our mind is more powerful than science formerly indicated"
Yeah, not really. A bit like saying "our immune system works better than we thought".
So, yeah, derail away. Doesn't actually say anything, but it's not like anyone will notice.
No, the only more accurate one is that every god looked for has proven not to exist, so we've found only nonexistent gods.
Since the only definition of god is "what someone believes", that's the only one we get to use to decide whether god exists or not.
And yours, like all the others, don't exist, and science proved that.
But that is just more proof that it can prove the existence of god. If it could not, then it couldn't prove nonexistence, the negative being harder to prove than the positive claim.
BUSTED, teabaggie.
@ 1488
“You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim …"
You made the claim that Science can proves the existence of God. It is your responsibility to produce the evidence to support your claim.
You have, to date, failed to do so.
“… Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.”
I’m not trying to prove God exists. You are. I thought you knew that.
Here is what Ethan has 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.”
As should be obvious, Ethan also recognizes there are things Science cannot know.
"Without evidence of interactions"
Well, that only proves that there is no god.
"With an inadequate tool"
Irrelevant.
"Resting on an incomplete foundation."
Irrelevant and unfounded.
Irreelevant, you made a claim, and you still lack evidence for it.
STOP AVOIDING FACTS, teabaggie.
@ #1492
“You moron.”
Yet more of the type of clear-eyed science we’ve come to expect from you.
You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you.
Your death cult brainwashed you with terror and you know your god does not exist, but can't drop the terror, so you sit there trying to find reasons why all the evidence that your mythology is a load of bollocks is not in fact there. But reality doesn't care if you're scared, teabaggie.
And you're still the victim and promoter of the death cult you follow for no rational reason.