AppieB
Active Member
You can't?It's childish .. a person with a degree in theology can explain why.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God can not be disproven by science
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
What is a "magical pixie" ?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I won't .. it's a childish game. I will let you think "you've won", if it pleases you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you are changing the goal posts. And it is not the best method for the non-natural world, i.e. the social world.
You have further to show with observation as per evidence that reliability matters.
We are playing what the world is versus how that matters. For the first one science is a part of it. For the second one science doesn't work at all, because the methodology of science is in part objective and what matters, is subjective.
So I think and feel that science matters as a part of how to live as a human.
AppieB
Active Member
Then why refer to a person with a theology degree? Should that impress me?I won't .. it's a childish game. I will let you think "you've won", if it pleases you.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I am not aware that anybody has a degree in the subject of magical pixies, or spaghetti monsters,
so I hardly think that they are particularly relevant.
AppieB
Active Member
Which non-natural world? What is the social world? And what knowledge did we acquire with what method?
I agree. If you read back then you would see Blü 2's following statement in regard to his comment about science: "objective reality, the world external to the self." He wasn't talking about "what matters" or the subjective. So the one who was moving the goal posts was you. I was just putting them back.
AppieB
Active Member
Why is any degree relevant when making an argument?I am not aware that anybody has a degree in the subject of magical pixies, or spaghetti monsters,
so I hardly think that they are particularly relevant.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
All of the world for which there are no objective referents for the given words.
There is no self in the natural objective world as you admit, so you are using a word you don't acknowledge, yet you use it and thus acknowledge it.
The same with the subjective as it can't have an objective referent.
And further the we you use is social in part and not just independent of the selves. You really have to learn when you are subjective and talk about humans in the social world of selves.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
"I am not aware that anybody has a degree in the subject of magical pixies, or spaghetti monsters,
so I hardly think that they are particularly relevant."
Why is it not possible to get a degree in magical pixies or spaghetti monsters?
Of course, you know the answer .. you merely seek to deflect the topic from God to "insert your nonsense here".
AppieB
Active Member
Was has this to do with anything I said? The one who is deflecting is you by not adressing the things I said, but make other statements that are irrelevant.
AppieB
Active Member
So who is moving the goal posts when we talked about science as the best method of inquiry of "objective reality, the world external to the self."?
Explain to me why this statement is false or why there is no evidence for this.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Best has no objective referent and thus no evidence, so it is false as per evidence. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Look up the 2 relevant words objective and referent, if you have to.
AppieB
Active Member
Really?! Now we're talking semantics and you don't understand what is being meant when talking about "best" method of inquiry?
Is this what you have to offer? I don't want it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That you don't want is subjective and without evidence and thus false as it is in the social world and not independent of the self. So you don't want you, as you are a self without objective evidence.
AppieB, I have been doing this for close to 30 years now, and you are not the first in effect "naive" objectivist I have come across.
I do believe that natural science is the best methodology for the objective part of the world, but I have no evidence for it. And neither have you, because if you had, you wouldn't answer as you did.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
OK .. but I still see magical pixies and spaghetti monsters as irrelevant to the topic.
Aren't they?
Though it isn't necessarily about God and the FSM having equivalent merit. It's a way of exploring the argument that a lack of disproof is enough in and of itself to justify belief.
This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which
I know for a fact, is not true.
No logical reason... as in you think there's empirical evidence for God, or you think the existence of God can be established some other way?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
...
This effectively means that people must have no logical reason for their religious belief .. which
I know for a fact, is not true.
Then you are lying about me, as I have no logic behind my religious beliefs. So please apologize.
AppieB
Active Member
I'll make it very simple without referring to magical pixies or spaghetti monsters.OK .. but I still see magical pixies and spaghetti monsters as irrelevant to the topic.
The fact that X (whatever X is) can not be disproven by science is not evidence or an argument for the existence of X.
AppieB
Active Member
I'm sorry, is this the same person who couldn't distinguish a fact about a subjective opinion with the subjective opinion itself?
So why do you believe it?
And did you made the comment that there is no evidence for it?