If God existed would there be proof?

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is arrogance.

No, it's fact.

It's thanks to science that we know how, for example, pollution affects health. How germs cause desease. Etc.
To understand the consequences of our actions, we require knowledge about reality.
Science provides this knowledge.

You claim that mankind can know everything through their own intellect.

I made no such claim. It seems you are inventing things again and are once more building strawmen.

Time and again, this has been proved wrong.
Climste-change is a case in point.

Meaning?
Are you a climate change denier as well now?



So much for your "inquiring mind" then I guess..............................

It is only religion that can solve this issue

"praying" won't reduce CO2 levels.
"praying" won't replace combustion engines.
"praying" didn't discover that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

And reading the quran, or any other religious work, is not going to result in the tech that will be able to effectively replace the burning of fossil fuels to power our machines and societies.

So, no..... religion won't be of any help here.
Science on the other hand......... Science is pretty much the only thing that will provide answers and solutions.

, and mankind continues to posit that they can solve it by "carbon-trading"

No scientist ever has said this.
You seem to be confusing silly politics with science.

and what have you, and so continue on their blind path to destruction.

Again, that's politics. And, ironically, folks like you who think "more religion" is going to solve anything.

psssst: there is a major correlation between religiosity and climate change denial. The more religious people are, the more they tend to be climate change deniers.

You can also rephrase that as "the more religious people are, the more they tend to be science deniers".

Perhaps you should think about that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, so that's the solution.
Get rid of other people

He did not at all say this.

For the last 5 posts or so, you have managed to strawmen people's posts into oblivion.

You should reflect a bit on that and ask yourself if you do this on purpose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't want to know.
All you are looking for is for me to "show you G-d".

He's asking you.

That might be clue number 1 that he actually does wish to know.

Maybe, just maybe, you should just answer the question.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, truth as you use it belong to philosophy as you are in effect you the correspondence theory of truth and that is philosophy.

No. The true statement I gave was an empirically verified fact; it had nothing to do with philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The true statement I gave was an empirically verified fact; it had nothing to do with philosophy.

Yeah, we disagree. You use the correspondence theory of truth and that is philosophy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you a climate change denier as well now?

See my post #597

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, we disagree. You use the correspondence theory of truth and that is philosophy.

How is the claim that there is a large rock on my front lawn a theory of truth?

 

[Sheldon]

A 2020 study published in Scientific Reports, in which both population growth and deforestation were used as proxies for total resource consumption, warns that if consumption continues at the current rate for the next several decades, it can trigger a full or almost full extinction of humanity.
Overconsumption - Wikipedia

There's your evidence. Do you see the word "science"?
Is that good enough for you, or are you going to now quibble about what is science and what is not?
..like the rest of the 'consequence of economic growth' deniers

I have no idea what you're blathering about sorry, how does that evidence your claim that religion had found a solution to climate change? You seem to have run away from your claim, and are now repeating my own point back to me, and even more ironically you're now championing science on climate change, after earlier decrying it, this is just bizarre.

..and don't forget..
Fueled by the consumptive lifestyle of wealthy people, the wealthiest 5% of the global population has been responsible for 37% of the absolute increase in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Almost half of the increase in absolute global emissions has been caused by the richest 10% of the population.
Greenhouse gas emissions - Wikipedia

This is relevant to my point how? We live on a planet with finite resources, and an exponentially increasing human population, can you or can you not see the simple maths involved there?

As for this latest straw man about wealth, it seems you don't understand that 37% of emissions is less than the remaining 63%?

However lets assume some fantasy scenario where this wealth was eradicated, how would that help exactly? Would the population still be increasing at an exponential rate, would resources still be finite? What will happen when the demand for resources increases beyond the resources available, and how do think this can be avoided by eradicating wealth or by religion? Climate change is just one problem we face. If we fail to address the population growth, then anything we do is nothing but a temporary solution.

 

[Sheldon]

See my post #597

How is religion the only solution to climate change, are you ever going to justify this bizarre claim? Only you seem to be backtracking spectacularly since then.

 

[rational experiences]

In one self a human we fight our own ego. In self presence in a quiet way.

Science does it externally in a self destructive opinionated word throwing contest.

O earth exists so does everything else in space. Believe it or not you never invented it's presence.

O earth an entity of it's own body evolved it's owned heavens.

You never invented it either.

If spirituality for saving self innocence life was taught it was because we needed it. Not because some lunatic decided to forcibly apply it.....wait a minute who forced science the practice upon natural life?

I wasn't a lunatic says the scientist I was innocent.

How about revisiting the teaching one self innocent human and be honest for once egotists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As for this latest straw man about wealth, it seems you don't understand that 37% of emissions is less than the remaining 63%?

Errr, no.
Almost half of the increase in absolute global emissions has been caused by the richest 10% of the population.

and..
The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute. The top 1% were responsible for 15% of emissions, nearly twice as much as the world's poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7% and will feel the brunt of climate impacts despite bearing the least responsibility for causing them.
How the rich are driving climate change

However lets assume some fantasy scenario where this wealth was eradicated, how would that help exactly?

Eradicated?
I should hope not. Some people don't have food to eat or shelter, while others jet all around the world.

Climate change is just one problem we face. If we fail to address the population growth, then anything we do is nothing but a temporary solution.

That's always the scapegoat of the rich. "there's too many people".
If everybody lived like the rich did, there wouldn't be any!

It's the financial system that is primarily causing climate-change,
and NOT population, as you claim.
I would agree wth you that if everybody adopts a western lifestyle that it is not sustainable, but that is a different thing.
The fact is, that most people are not prepared to give up their privileged way of life.
They support a corrupted financial system based on usury, which ensures their status.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They support a corrupted financial system based on usury, which ensures their status.

No, it is not 'usury'. I hold one share of Reliance Industries.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it is not 'usury'. I hold one share of Reliance Industries.

What's not usury?
What has "Reliance Industries" got to do with the political system and the G7?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a partner in their progress (as you would prefer it), not usury.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is the claim that there is a large rock on my front lawn a theory of truth?

How do you know, that it is true, that there is a large rock on my front lawn? The way you answer that decides, which theory of truth you are using.
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How you used your example up thread relates to one of theories and in your case it is the correspondence theory.

 

[night912]

Lol and they haven't determined that it is. So science is useless to explain it.

I never claimed that science have determined that it is possible. So between the two of us in this conversation, you were the only one that claimed something to be true, when in fact, it is actually fasle.

That is impossible according to science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't want to know.
All you are looking for is for me to "show you G-d".

I do want to know. Hence my question.
I guess you don't know then? You're just making stuff up?

 

[Kfox]

How do you know, that it is true, that there is a large rock on my front lawn

I know because I empirically verified it's existence

The way you answer that decides, which theory of truth you are using.
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

How you used your example up thread relates to one of theories and in your case it is the correspondence theory.

Correspondence theory is not based on empirically verified facts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do want to know. Hence my question.
I guess you don't know then? You're just making stuff up?

We have free-will to either ignore what G-d teaches, or take it with a pinch of salt, or take it seriously.
It is our responsibility to deal with these issues.
It is better to give charity than do nothing, but it is even better to reform the financial system
If not, we cannot make any progress with climate-change and disease.

It is not just a technological issue.
It is fundamental and occurring due to ecological imbalance driven by usury.

Unfortunately, human nature being as it is, countries like China and Russia have decided to fight by employing "a tooth for a tooth" [economically], and are getting carried away with the evil.
It's spiraling out of control.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know because I empirically verified it's existence


Correspondence theory is not based on empirically verified facts.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"...
Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified) ..."

Truth is a statement verified by empirical observation of reality. That is what you are saying, i.e. the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality. And you specified the relationship - empirical observation.