Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

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

Yes; Einstein didn't take symbolism literally (as some are want to do).

 

[richardlowellt]

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

The difference being faith in science is grounded in reality, it has solved many mysteries so one would be confident that it will continue to do so.

 

[Michel07]

But that's not the faith I was referring to. I was referring to what you had said about science.

I'm sorry but were you not answering to post 572?

 

[Smoke]

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.

That definition is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Theoretical chemistry actually relies upon a tremendous amount of evidence and accumulated knowledge; one cannot be a theoretical chemist by simply making things up in one's head, deciding that what one would prefer to believe about chemistry is what's most likely to be true, or relying on hunches, guesses, or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A theoretical chemist must have advanced knowledge of chemistry, physics, and mathematics even to make a beginning in his work.

And that is just what PureX's evidence is. It is reasoning, which points to a possible truth.

Sadly, that is just what PureX's "evidence" is not.

 

[Willamena]

The difference being faith in science is grounded in reality, it has solved many mysteries so one would be confident that it will continue to do so.

Right; it is grounded in what makes sense. Science, in its "reality", makes sense to you, and God doesn't. God, in its "reality", makes sense to others.

 

[Willamena]

I'm sorry but were you not answering to post 572?

Yes; thank you. Must have clicked the wrong icon.

 

[Michel07]

Yes; thank you. Must have clicked the wrong icon.

No problem.

 

[richardlowellt]

Right; it is grounded in what makes sense. Science, in its "reality", makes sense to you, and God doesn't. God, in its "reality", makes sense to others.

There is no "reality" when dealing with a god figure, those who persist in presenting this being under the guise of reality are delusional.

 

[Willamena]

There is no "reality" when dealing with a god figure, those who persist in presenting this being under the guise of reality are delusional.

Or symbolizing.

 

[PureX]

There is no "reality" when dealing with a god figure, those who persist in presenting this being under the guise of reality are delusional.

LOL, now there's an open mind! No bias there, no-sir-ee.

 

[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?

[ Rebump] PureX, please address this question.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I take it on faith that God does not exist in exactly the same way that I take it on faith that Santa Claus does not exist.

What you seem to be saying is that there is no real difference between believing a claim and rejecting belief in it.

 

[themadhair]

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.

I see you are still mistaking observation and attacking argument for insult. You might want to look to that.

See, if HE explains how you're wrong, then that allows YOU to pick apart his explanation.

Truthfully, if I did explain it to him he really wouldn’t understand. It is evident by his previous postings that he has no understanding of science or scientific methodology, and neither do you come to mention it. That’s not an insult but an observation. One of the concepts that can come under theoretical evidence is predictive power – and if you remember you debased that concept when you tried to integrate it into your theology.

And the reason why I asked Enoch07 the question is precisely so he could put his foot in it. In order to even begin to apply the concept you have to have a starting framework – and that framework has to be built upon an empirical evidentiary-supported edifice. Only then can you start introducing theoretical evidence, and even then you still have to be producing predictions/postdictions for it to constitute such. But in his desire to support your argument he misinterpreted and misapplied a scientific concept and ended up looking foolish in the process. Neither of ye have any interest in science bar debasing it into what ye think is a support for your positions – so why should I waste time on writing to explain these concepts when neither of ye give a **** about them?

How insulting this post must be if you fail to differentiate between observation/criticism and insult.

 

[PureX]

I see you are still mistaking observation and attacking argument for insult. You might want to look to that.

Truthfully, if I did explain it to him he really wouldn’t understand. It is evident by his previous postings that he has no understanding of science or scientific methodology, and neither do you come to mention it. That’s not an insult but an observation. One of the concepts that can come under theoretical evidence is predictive power – and if you remember you debased that concept when you tried to integrate it into your theology.

And the reason why I asked Enoch07 the question is precisely so he could put his foot in it. In order to even begin to apply the concept you have to have a starting framework – and that framework has to be built upon an empirical evidentiary-supported edifice. Only then can you start introducing theoretical evidence, and even then you still have to be producing predictions/postdictions for it to constitute such. But in his desire to support your argument he misinterpreted and misapplied a scientific concept and ended up looking foolish in the process. Neither of ye have any interest in science bar debasing it into what ye think is a support for your positions – so why should I waste time on writing to explain these concepts when neither of ye give a **** about them?

How insulting this post must be if you fail to differentiate between observation/criticism and insult.

Well, I will observe that you are an idiot because even after countless posts pointing out that this is not a science issue, nor is it a science debate, nor does any scientist anywhere think that science could or should be used to resolve the issue of God's existence, you still just can't seem to understand this. And instead. all you do is wait for someone else to actually post an idea, so that you can pick at it as an excuse to insult them, while you puff yourself up as some sort of scientific wonderboy. Too bad this discussion isn't really about science, maybe you wouldn't look like such a turd.

 

[PureX]

[ Rebump] PureX, please address this question.

The problem with your analogy is that you have tests that show that there is no streptococus bacteria in your throat. That IS evidence. It's evidence because there is a finite search area, and a specific item to search for. The search was done and a conclusion was rendered. In the theological debate regarding the existence of God, the search area is far beyond our reach, and the item being searched for is not specified. As a result, no search can be done, and so no evidence whatever exists.

No evidence is no evidence.

 

[themadhair]

Well, I will observe that you are an idiot because even after countless posts pointing out that this is not a science issue, nor is it a science debate, nor does any scientist anywhere think that science could or should be used to resolve the issue of God's existence, you still just can't seem to understand this.

Tell that to Enoch07 who was the one trying to introduce science into this discussion. Call him the idiot if you are being genuine. When you and Enoch07 bring science into these discussions I will continue call you both out for it as you debase and misrepresent both what it is and how it operates.

So since the only people bringing science into this debate has been yourself and Enoch07, and doing such apparently renders one an idiot, I guess ye both now have egg on your faces.

 

[themadhair]

In the theological debate regarding the existence of God, the search area is far beyond our reach, and the item being searched for is not specified.

Wonder why that is? Oh that's right - it's 'dynamic'.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Are you suggesting by analogy that PureX is mistaken in his understanding of what "God" is (as you are mistaken in self-diagnosing strep throat)?

 

[Enoch07]

Tell that to Enoch07 who was the one trying to introduce science into this discussion. Call him the idiot if you are being genuine. When you and Enoch07 bring science into these discussions I will continue call you both out for it as you debase and misrepresent both what it is and how it operates.

So since the only people bringing science into this debate has been yourself and Enoch07, and doing such apparently renders one an idiot, I guess ye both now have egg on your faces.

Nothing is being misrepresented. You just refuse to accept anything that could prove your narrow minded view of existence is incorrect. The amount of insults you have thrown around is proof of that, because you cannot provide counter arguments other than and I quote "your an idiot". Excellent way to debate a subject.

And Smoke yes theoretical chemistry does use vast amounts of evidence etc. But it also uses theoretical evidence. My point is not how much or how important theoretical evidence is used. The point is that it is indeed used and accepted in almost all branches of science.

 

[richardlowellt]

LOL, now there's an open mind! No bias there, no-sir-ee.

Ok, I'll open my mind, show me the "reality" of a god. And please, not the reality that works for you.