Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[themadhair]

Theoretical Evidence is used in all fields of science. Anyone that denies this does not truly believe in the scientific method. And that is what PureX's evidence is.

What is about people who reach for science in an attempt to strengthen their theology while being so utterly ignorant as to what science actually is? If you had even the merest comprehension of what theoretical evidence was you realise how silly this argument was.

So I’m calling you out on this. Give an example of theoretical evidence from science and explain why PureX’s ‘evidence’ is comparable. This should be fun….

 

[Beaudreaux]

Not necessarily, your cherry picked definition of evidence is not the only definition scientist use for evidence. Theoretical Evidence is used in all fields of science. Anyone that denies this does not truly believe in the scientific method. And that is what PureX's evidence is.

I long to be educated. Please explain what theoretical evidence is. There's no entry in Wikipedia.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Let's try the same problem with other variables. Let's say I come to my doctor and complain of severe sore throat and cold-like symptoms. I tell him I believe I have Strep Throat. My doctor swabs my throat and sends the sample to a lab where test show NO EVIDENCE of streptococus bacteria. He tells me (foolishly of course) that I do not have strep throat. Because of what I have learned through dialolgue with PureX, I can tell him with confidence that he is wrong. Just because he has found no evidence of Strep throat does not mean I don't have it. I tell him that most medical doctors will disagree with him. Am I right to say this? Is the doctor correct in telling me that I don't have Strep?

Bumping because I'd really like someone to answer this.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Think Einstein's "thought experiment."

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Why, you won't see it.

Why won't you present it?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Who is to say native americans was not inspired by God as well. It is something none of us can prove one way or the other.

Because they don't know God, they don't recognize God, they have no myths concerning a God that is anything like the Judeo-Christian God, they have no stories about some sort of soap-recipe from the sky, they have nothing of the sort. They just have their extensive knowledge of plants and herbs and their medicinal properties acquired through thousands of years of living in the bush.

I cannot seriously believe that you do not find that a more plausible explanation - that the Native Americans came by their soap recipe the same as we discover anything else (without divine intervention) - than a magic soap recipe being beamed down from the clouds into Numbers 19. Because people have come up with plenty of things without God's help. This is evident. And if that is so - and it is - then that makes the source of the soap recipe in Numbers 19 that much more improbable.

You haven't explained how you know this soap recipe came from God. And whether you do or not, it doesn't particularly matter, because we're far off on a digression anyway. PureX's point was that faith healing forms the basis of modern medicine (or at the very least many practices are derived from faith healing). An ancient soap recipe isn't faith healing nor is it the basis of modern medicine.

 

[Enoch07]

What is about people who reach for science in an attempt to strengthen their theology while being so utterly ignorant as to what science actually is? If you had even the merest comprehension of what theoretical evidence was you realise how silly this argument was.

So I’m calling you out on this. Give an example of theoretical evidence from science and explain why PureX’s ‘evidence’ is comparable. This should be fun….

Theoretical evidence is used in almost all branches of science for various reasons. Einstein was a master at using theoretical evidence in physics for example. But I guess Einstein was just a n00b, probably why you have not heard of him.

Also. From Websters online dictionary: Theoretical chemistry is the use of non-experimental reasoning to explain or predict chemical phenomena. And on and on and on. This is kind of silly you would ask for examples, since you supposedly know so much about science.

And that is just what PureX's evidence is. It is reasoning, which points to a possible truth. Is it truth? That is something science has yet to prove or disprove.

 

[PureX]

What is about people who reach for science in an attempt to strengthen their theology while being so utterly ignorant as to what science actually is? If you had even the merest comprehension of what theoretical evidence was you realise how silly this argument was.

But of course, 'themadhair' is not going to explain what theoretical science is to you because it's much easier and more fun for him to sling insults than it is to actually explain something.

So I’m calling you out on this. Give an example of theoretical evidence from science and explain why PureX’s ‘evidence’ is comparable. This should be fun….

See, if HE explains how you're wrong, then that allows YOU to pick apart his explanation. And that won't be any fun for him. So instead he wants to make YOU explain something that he's already declared you know nothing about, so that he can pick at your explanation and insult you some more. Because that's really why he's here ... to point at the ideas of others, and insult them for his own pleasure. He doesn't want to offer any ideas of his own, though, because he's afraid others will do to him what he's doing to them.

 

[Michel07]

The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "GodThis view was also reflected by Albert Eistein in his comment "God did not shoot dice with the universe"

 

[richardlowellt]

The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "GodThis view was also reflected by Albert Eistein in his comment "God did not shoot dice with the universe"

Standard religious argument......"If it's complex and I can't understand the complexity then goddidit" How about Aliens did it. Of course your always left with, if god did it then were did god come from? Remember once there were people who didn't understand were thunder and lightning came from,so-----goddidit.

 

[Willamena]

..."If it's complex and I can't understand the complexity then goddidit" How about Aliens did it. Of course your always left with, if god did it then were did god come from? Remember once there were people who didn't understand were thunder and lightning came from,so-----goddidit.

That's not what he said. He said that "God" symbolizes the mystery.

 

[richardlowellt]

The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider

It "forces" no one, only you


.

Existence is not random.

How do you know?

How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why

At some point science will reveal the answer just like it has with thunder and lightning.

The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God

No the name of the mystery is god only to you and those who accept the way things are without looking for alternative explanations.

 

[Willamena]

At some point science will reveal the answer just like it has with thunder and lightning.

I hope you realize that's an expression of faith.

 

[Michel07]

Standard religious argument......"If it's complex and I can't understand the complexity then goddidit" How about Aliens did it. Of course your always left with, if god did it then were did god come from? Remember once there were people who didn't understand were thunder and lightning came from,so-----goddidit.

I think Einstein was a little bit beyond your logic on this , nothing personal and part of the problem with the science vs religion debate is that there is no scientific concensus on the question. Einstein also said " Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame." Einstein was not a theologian but there was reasoning behind his beliefs.

 

[richardlowellt]

That's not what he said. He said that "God" symbolizes the mystery.

"The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of god" "I can't understand the ordered nature of existence so goddidit" Thanks for your help!!!!

 

[richardlowellt]

I think Einstein was a little bit beyond your logic on this , nothing personal and part of the problem with the science vs religion debate is that there is no scientific concensus on the question. Einstein also said " Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame." Einstein was not a theologian but there was reasoning behind his beliefs.

Einstein also said "I have no personal god"

 

[Willamena]

"The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of god"

. . .Yes?

Symbols are real.

 

[Michel07]

I hope you realize that's an expression of faith.

This is a good point. Atheists must take it by faith that God does not exist because they don't know for sure. So we all have faith. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Michel07]

Einstein also said "I have no personal god"

Like I said, Einstein was not a theologian but the God he did not believe in was a God for only one people.

 

[richardlowellt]

I think Einstein was a little bit beyond your logic on this , nothing personal and part of the problem with the science vs religion debate is that there is no scientific concensus on the question. Einstein also said " Religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame." Einstein was not a theologian but there was reasoning behind his beliefs.

He also said "I do not believe in the god of theology that rewards the good and punishes the evil"