There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

.....

Exactly so, which is why I need to reacquaint myself with the subject and trigger my mind to retrieve the knowledge that is in their somewhere by filling it back up again, however, if you distrust my motives before I begin what are the chances that you want to know anyway. It sound like you are looking to go hunting so you are setting traps.

 

[Serenity7855]

I don't see ANY evidence for a God in this thread whatsoever.

Comparing humans to the animal kingdom is kind of grasping at straws if you ask me.

And if you want to be technical about it...

Humans AREN'T smarter than every creature in the animal kingdom.

Animals just speak a different language than we do.

Just because an American may not be able to communicate with an Asian...

Doesn't mean we are smarter than them (and statistically, we aren't).

OK, right?

 

[outhouse]

Every scientific discovery is based on someone's guess.

Stop it.

That is false and absurd. :slap:


Science is based on observation, unlike what you posit, which you have admitted to as "guessing"

 

[Serenity7855]

Stop it.

That is false and absurd. :slap:


Science is based on observation, unlike what you posit, which you have admitted to as "guessing"

Read the post, follow the link. Check out Professor Brian Cox. You are making yourself look silly

 

[Bunyip]

Read the post, follow the link. Check out Professor Brian Cox. You are making yourself look silly

Brian Cox would agree that there was no time when the universe did not exist.

The universe began about 15 billion years ago, there has never been a time when it did not exist - because time began with the big bang. Cox does not support the argument from first cause, you are citing for support a person who rejects your position utterly and saying that others are making themselves look silly for disagreeing with an expert who is disagreeing with you, not them.

I leave you to respond with your usual evasion.

This like the fact that METAPHYSICAL INTUITIONS are not axioms as you claimed completely defeats your argument.

 

[Bunyip]

Every scientific discovery is based on someone's guess. That is how the scientific method works. There is nothing factual in a guess. It is common sense. A new law is defined as, a guess - computation of consequences - comparison to nature. If it disagrees with nature, it is wrong, try again. As Dr. Richard Feynman most eloquently taught us, in his 1 minute lecture. Metaphysics, as Bunyip tells us, is a guess, a hunch. The exact starting point of the scientific method, that is used through the scientific community, is a guess. Indeed, Brian Cox supports Dr Richard Feynman explanation of the scientific method, that is, that it starts with metaphysics, a guess, a hunch, or in Einstein's case, a picture. Who would have thunk it? Knowledge is a wonderful thing, however, it is insufficient on its own. Without an ability to understand it, and apply it, without the mental capacity to comprehend it, it remains just a useless piece of information and shows the difference between a wise man and a intellectual, fool.


[youtube]EYPapE-3FRw[/youtube]
Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube

Yes, it STARTS with a guess, a hypothesis - AND THEN TESTS THAT HYPOTHESIS.

The hypothesis is not proof, it is not evidence, it is not axiom - it is a guess that is then tested experimentally.

You however seem unaware of this next vital step,and have claimed several times that this first guess is an axiom - which is absurd.

Unlike you, science does not stop at the guess and pretend that their guesses are facts or evidence or axiom. SCIENCE uses the guess as a starting point to test against the available evidence.

If science worked as you do - by making guesses and claiming them to be axioms we would never have left the cave.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

Here is how science works (the scientific method)

1. Examine the available evidence.
2. Make an informed guess.
3. Use the guess to construct a testable hypothesis.
4. TEST the hypothesis.
5. Reject, modify or confirm the hypothesis according to the results.
6. Go back to 1 and repeat cycle, often for many years until ultimately your hypothesis may graduate to a theory.

Here is your version
1. Examine the evidence
2. Make a guess (metaphysical intuition in his caee)
3. Claim that guesses are proven and unarguable fact (axiom)
4. Insult anyone who dares to point out that you have missed steps and refuse to engage on point.

 

[outhouse]

Read the post, follow the link. Check out Professor Brian Cox. You are making yourself look silly

There is a big difference between a scientific hypothesis and observed facts used to make said hypothesis, which is night and day different then a guess.


I already know Feynman, and you had better stop perverting his work! :slap:

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity

Here is how science works (the scientific method)

1. Examine the available evidence.
2. Make an informed guess.
3. Use the guess to construct a testable hypothesis.
4. TEST the hypothesis.
5. Reject, modify or confirm the hypothesis according to the results.
6. Go back to 1 and repeat cycle, often for many years until ultimately your hypothesis may graduate to a theory.

Here is your version
1. Examine the evidence
2. Make a guess (metaphysical intuition in his caee)
3. Claim that guesses are proven and unarguable fact (axiom)
4. Insult anyone who dares to point out that you have missed steps and refuse to engage on point.

I have not said that a guess is a fact. Those were word you either falsely and deliberately attribute to me or you have been incapable of comprehending my post as a result of a lack of sufficient knowledge. I know not which one it is, perhaps both. Point 4 is definitely your field of expertise.

 

[outhouse]

Every scientific discovery is based on someone's guess.

IS FACTUALLY WRONG

You don't get it.

Do you have a clue what observation is?????


Observation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity.


HHMMM do not see any guess in that definition.



You should practice what you preach, you have only brought guesses to the table.

 

[outhouse]

I have not said that a guess is a fact..

Yes you did. Are you claiming your ignorant of how saying scientific discoveries are guesses which many are observed FACTS, contradicts your own statement :slap:

 

[Serenity7855]

There is a big difference between a scientific hypothesis and observed facts used to make said hypothesis, which is night and day different then a guess.


I already know Feynman, and you had better stop perverting his work! :slap:

Your post is dishonest. You obviously did not know about Feynman as you are insisting that the scientific method does not start with a guess when quite obviously it does. If you were to have watched the clip you would have known that. You said it starts with observation, the second step. You really are intellectually redundant on science, aren't you, yet giving an impression that you know what you are talking about, you don't do you?

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes you did. Are you claiming your ignorant of how saying scientific discoveries are guesses which many are observed FACTS, contradicts your own statement :slap:

I said that scientific discoveries begin with a guess.

 

[outhouse]

I said that scientific discoveries begin with a guess.

Based and begin are the same words now???????? :sarcastic

 

[Bunyip]

I have not said that a guess is a fact. Those were word you either falsely and deliberately attribute to me or you have been incapable of comprehending my post as a result of a lack of sufficient knowledge. I know not which one it is, perhaps both. Point 4 is definitely your field of expertise.

Yes you have - several times, you have stated that metaphysical intuitions are axioms, which is to say that guesses are unquestionable facts. In fact you went on to say that guesses are how science works to defend your position.

I am not putting words into your mouth - do you need me to post the quote numbers where you have told that lie? I beleive you have done so at least three times.

 

[Serenity7855]

IS FACTUALLY WRONG

You don't get it.

Do you have a clue what observation is?????


Observation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity.


HHMMM do not see any guess in that definition.



You should practice what you preach, you have only brought guesses to the table.

No, Feynman brought the guess to the table. Who should I believe, you or him, close, but I will go with him.

Observation is a part of step 2 - computation of consequences. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[outhouse]

Your post is dishonest.

Seems your don't like the smell of what your cooking.


Your purposely perverting science, off topic no less, because it offers no support and goes against ancient mythology.

 

[outhouse]

No, Feynman brought the guess to the table. Who should I believe, you or him, close, but I will go with him.

Observation is a part of step 2 - computation of consequences. You couldn't be more wrong.

Way to go Mr out of context!

You have brought guesses to the table and only biased opinion as evidence.


It is you perverting science not us.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

I ask again, do you want me to post the quote numbers for the times you have tried to pretend that metaphysical intuitions are axioms?

Or would you rather retract?

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes you have - several times, you have stated that metaphysical intuitions are axioms, which is to say that guesses are unquestionable facts. In fact you went on to say that guesses are how science works to defend your position.

I am not putting words into your mouth - do you need me to post the quote numbers where you have told that lie? I beleive you have done so at least three times.

No, I have not. I have said that metaphical leads to axioms, as in the BB. I said that the BB cannot be proven to have happened but that there is enough available evidence to make it an axiom. You are attributing words to me that I do not believe are true. Just stick with the science instead of trying to discredit me.