• 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

firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Why does this matter?
Click to expand...
Because the OP is describing a metaphysical being which could never ever be put to testing using the scientific method. Do you know why? Because according to the philosophy of science it's a category error to even discuss it. But a physical being can be put to scientific testing. Do you know why? Because it's physical. So even if the being is hiding in some far away planet, it's still physical so it's within the category.

I understand that this is taught in the church of the spaghetti monster and repeated by the four horsemen like parrots, but it's just an evangelical statement that has duped you and anyone who uses it. It's childish and nonsensical.
 
AppieB

AppieB

Active Member
anotherneil said:
I appreciate your point of contention, here, but the OP essentially did explicitly make the claim that God exists, and the point is that if the OP is trying to imply or make the claim that "since science does not disprove God, God exists" then it is false.

This thread is in the "Religious Debates" section of the forum, which suggests that the OP would be making an argument.

There is no argument explicitly being made, in which case you could argue that this is a strawman.

The argument implied seems to be that "since science does not disprove God, God exists", but if this is a strawman, then that would mean that the OP is not implying that, and all that's left is some claims with no argument, thus nothing being debated, or proposed to debate, by the OP.

I can't come up with a good explanation for what the situation is with the OP, other than this, but I'd be interested in hearing about other possibilities.
Click to expand...
I agree. But it is definitely not Whataboutism.
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
No point building a strawman and then going on and on about it. Just leave it.
Click to expand...
No. It wasn't my intention to build a strawman, and if I apparently did inadvertently build one, then I'm going to examine what happened. I examined this claim that I made a strawman argument and found that if I did, then this thread has a bigger issue to contend with than a strawman that I think is inherently rendered moot by the bigger issue anyways. You seem to have decided to forgo providing a rebuttal to my examination of my supposed strawman; do you have a rebuttal to offer, or not?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Hmm. So is spaghetti physical?
Click to expand...
From the sacred texts:

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
Click to expand...

So the FSM is invisible and can pass through normal matter, but can also interact with matter as he sees fit. Does this qualify as physical? I don't know.
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
I didn't say "you intended". That's another strawman.
Click to expand...
Oh - wait! Now I'm not so sure that you understand what a strawman argument is. It's starting to seem like you just like using "strawman" as a label to arbitrarily apply to things. Maybe I ought to take back what I said pertaining to my supposed strawman argument.

fposter,small,wall_texture,product,750x1000.jpg
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
Click to expand...
This is essentially just describing something to the effect of a game of telephone with the constraint that the phrase or message being passed on must only be a position or argument, not what a strawman argument is.

It's only part of what a strawman argument is; the other part that's missing is that a strawman argument is also specifically designed with the intent of being refuted (in order to make it appear that a person's actual position or argument is refuted).

My statement regarding any intent on my part does not and can't serve the purpose of trying to alter your actual position or argument in order to refute it, and it can't do this either, since I expressed that it was my position - thus specifically meaning that it would not be your own position or argument. You're confusing and conflating my position with somehow being a substitution in your own position or argument.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
This is essentially just describing something to the effect of a game of telephone with the constraint that the phrase or message being passed on must only be a position or argument, not what a strawman argument is.

It's only part of what a strawman argument is; the other part that's missing is that a strawman argument is also specifically designed with the intent of being refuted (in order to make it appear that a person's actual position or argument is refuted).

My statement regarding any intent on my part does not and can't serve the purpose of trying to alter your actual position or argument in order to refute it, and it can't do this either, since I expressed that it was my position - thus specifically meaning that it would not be your own position or argument. You're confusing and conflating my position with somehow being a substitution in your own position or argument.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense .. you are engaging in an argument about an argument.
..anything other than engaging with the OP .. which, of course, cannot be refuted. :)
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
This is essentially just describing something to the effect of a game of telephone with the constraint that the phrase or message being passed on must only be a position or argument, not what a strawman argument is.
Click to expand...
This is from Bo Bennett.

By my friend. Cheers.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
Just like the flying spaghetti monster can't be disproven by science cannot be refuted.
Click to expand...
Not 'just like' .. that is merely a jest by atheists, who suggest that God is 'just like'
a fictional tale .. while clearly, they are not the same at all.

No history .. no Scripture .. just bull****
We are not interested in childish comparisons.
 
muhammad_isa

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
anotherneil said:
They're the same in the sense that they're both fictional tales.
Click to expand...
Nope!
The Bible is firmly based on the facts of history, not on myth and fiction.

That is not to say that it is wholly accurate.
The Qur'an is similarly based on the facts of history.

Naturally, some people are believers, whilst others are not.
That does not make them 'fiction' .. that is merely an unfounded accusation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top