Science and God

[mikkel_the_dane]

I already know that I cannot prove anything, apart some analytical propositions. You seem to challenge me to rebut something whose conclusions I agree with.

Ciao

- viole

So what about metaphysical naturalism and no gods. Still no reasoned arguments?

 

[viole]

You don't give any reasoned argument. You just make unsupported claims.

My reasoned arguments are based on the fact that there is as much evidence of a supernatural world as there is of mickey mouse having created the universe. If you want me to be agnostic of mickey mouse, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My reasoned arguments are based on the fact that there is as much evidence of a supernatural world as there is of mickey mouse having created the universe. If you want me to be agnostic of mickey mouse, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. And we are doing metaphysics. Not science.
Here it is for science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

If you start by assuming a natural world, you can't say anything about a supernatural world. But you can, because you know that there no gods.

 

[Darkforbid]

Yes. However that seems to go up when you are a real good scientist. What is the % in case of the national academy of science?

Ciao

- viole

No one knows, the question that they were asked was 'do they believe in a God that communicate with them directly'

Look it up, the questionnaire was judged not fit and designed to misslead

Just like your attempt here

 

[viole]

No one knows, the question that they were asked was 'do they believe in a God that communicate with them directly'

Look it up, the questionnaire was judged not fit and designed to misslead

Just like your attempt here

I can assure you that I do not misslead. I am not even sure what it means.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkforbid]

My reasoned arguments are based on the fact that there is as much evidence of a supernatural world as there is of mickey mouse having created the universe. If you want me to be agnostic of mickey mouse, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

Then why call yourself a gnostic atheist that sounds very mickey mouse to me

 

[viole]

Then why call yourself a gnostic atheist that sounds very mickey mouse to me

Why. I know there is no mickey mouse either. And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.

But again, if you think being agnostic about mickey mouse is rational, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why. I know there is no mickey mouse either. And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.

But again, if you think being agnostic about mickey mouse is rational, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

And here we go again. No reasoned argument yet. Only unsupported claims. And now we have moved to ontology, no less. What does that have to do with science?

 

[viole]

And here we go again. Yet no reason argument yet. Only unsupported claims. And now we have moved to ontology, no less. What does that have to do with science?

Science? I make it very clear I use science only when necessary. Here it would be like using a nuclear device to kill a mosquito.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science? I make it very clear I use science only when necessary. Here it would be like using a nuclear device to kill a mosquito.

Ciao

- viole

Okay, then use a reasoned argument.

 

[Darkforbid]

Why. I know there is no mickey mouse either. And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.

But again, if you think being agnostic about mickey mouse is rational, let me know.

Ciao

- viole

What makes you certain god does not exist?

 

[Darkforbid]

Okay, then use a reasoned argument.

Hey, that not fair! You can't ask for the impossible

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes you certain god does not exist?

If I recall correct, she is not certain. Yet she Knows. But still no reasoned argument other than there is no positive evidence for gods, therefore there are no gods.

The problem is that it is an invalid deduction.
Premise: There is no positive evidence for gods.
Conclusion: There are no gods.

Lack of evidence doesn't logically lead to non-existence, because it could be unknown for at least one god.
The missing premise is this one: No positive evidence is non-existence.
The problem is the "is". It is not empirical, it is logical.
No positive evidence means it is unknown.

 

[viole]

What makes you certain god does not exist?

I am not certain that god does not exist. Where do you the idea that I am?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not certain that god does not exist. Where do you the idea I am?

Ciao

- vioe

Yet you know for metaphysics and ontology. Please explain.

 

[Darkforbid]

I am not certain that god does not exist. Where do you the idea that I am?

Ciao

- viole

Do you actually understand the word you use? 'And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you actually understand the word you use? 'And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.'

Spot on.

 

[Audie]

Do you actually understand the word you use? 'And since your god, whatever that is, and mickey mouse enjoy the same ontological status, then I can equally claim to know that your god does not exist either.'

The meaning is plain enough for this ESL student.
You are mixed up.
Do you need it put in sheltered English?

 

[Darkforbid]

The meaning is plain enough for this ESL student.
You are mixed up.
Do you need it put in sheltered English?

Yes, please explain in sheltered English

有一些内容请

 

[shunyadragon]

I credit God as able to bestow freewill.

I credit God to bestow what God bestows.

He turned Man loose upon this planet.....
go forth, be fruitful, multiply,....dominate all things
male and female
no names
no garden
no law
that would be Day Six.

I consider Genesis mythology handed down over the millennia from Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite cuneiform writings. Life and the universe have been around for billions of years.

. . . and of course Man would over run the planet and it's resources
loooong before any spirit could survive the last breath

so......Chapter Two
NOT a retelling of Chapter One

a science experiment to alter the mind and body of Man

and a test to make sure the alteration took hold

it did

release into the environment

and here we are

OK, if that is what you believe, but dos not address my previous post.