Fmf

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary, I deal specifically in logic and empirical evidence, in fact, as a man of science, I would go as far to say its my stock in trade.

aww thats kinda cute that you believe that.

i would say you stock and trade is scripture. you seem to know your stuff when it comes the yours and other bibles and you can put up a decent argument for why your bible is the more accurate. your understanding of entomology is pretty good.................but (sorry to end on a but) but, your use of logic is your biggest weakness. the problem is that you start off at the end of a thought process and work your way backwards, justifying the conclusion and making the facts fit. you really need to do it the other way around to call it logic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary, I deal specifically in logic and empirical evidence, in fact, as a man of science, I would go as far to say its my stock in trade.

If that is so, perhaps you would like to present some evidence for the existence of your god? I have asked RJ for evidence of his god but he can't get beyond picking his nose with a gormless look on his face. Let's see if the "man of science" can do any better.

Originally posted by Kepler
If that is so, perhaps you would like to present some evidence for the existence of your god? I have asked RJ for evidence of his god but he can't get beyond picking his nose with a gormless look on his face. Let's see if the "man of science" can do any better.

robbie will now attempt to take you on a round-a-bout of meaningless debate with the eventual outcome of trying to put the onus on you to provide evidence that god doesnt exist. thus saving him the embarrassment of wheeling out his usual nonsensical, illogical views such as - the universe is beautiful and there is too much order so it cannot be an accident and so on and also giving you the impossible task of providing physical evidence for something that doesnt exist.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
robbie will now attempt to take you on a round-a-bout of meaningless debate with the eventual outcome of trying to put the onus on you to provide evidence that god doesnt exist. thus saving him the embarrassment of wheeling out his usual nonsensical, illogical views such as - the universe is beautiful and there is too much order so it cannot be an accid ...[text shortened]... o giving you the impossible task of providing physical evidence for something that doesnt exist.

Oh I know that! That's the usual god botherer tactic when confronted with the need to convince someone who works with evidence rather than faith. To be honest, I find it rather amusing when they try to justify something that requires faith by the methods of science.

Originally posted by Kepler
If that is so, perhaps you would like to present some evidence for the existence of your god? I have asked RJ for evidence of his god but he can't get beyond picking his nose with a gormless look on his face. Let's see if the "man of science" can do any better.

I cannot prove that my God exists, you cannot prove that he does not, its a futile argument, have you not come to realise this already?

As has been explained on these forums countless times, the theist draws inferences from an observation of the natural world. These do not constitute proofs in a purely empirical sense, but they are evidence enough to the theist that intelligence and design are present.

What is of course more ludicrous is that the materialist somehow has construed that by observing the universe and how it works that he can say why it has come into existence, as if examining the ingredients of a cake can tell you why it was made and for whom.

To those who have no limited their search for truth to purely material means, science becomes a wondrous experience, a spiritual experience, pervading all the senses, a sense of wonderment, of awe, of majesty and delight, as the theist uncovers the handiwork of the creator. Harmony, design, purpose, beauty, all seem to him to be present and the poor materialist, looking through the same prism, does he really get the same experience?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
aww thats kinda cute that you believe that.

i would say you stock and trade is scripture. you seem to know your stuff when it comes the yours and other bibles and you can put up a decent argument for why your bible is the more accurate. your understanding of entomology is pretty good.................but (sorry to end on a but) but, your use of logic ...[text shortened]... lusion and making the facts fit. you really need to do it the other way around to call it logic.

you mean like concluding that there is no God without the slightest evidence, rich, really rich!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I cannot prove that my God exists, you cannot prove that he does not, its a futile argument, have you not come to realise this already?

As has been explained on these forums countless times, the theist draws inferences from an observation of the natural world. These do not constitute proofs in a purely empirical sense, but they are evidence eno ...[text shortened]... has come into existence, as if examining the ingredients of a cake can tell you why it was made.

If you are a man of science, as you say you are, you wouldn't be trying to prove anything. Evidence does not prove, it forms the basis for a theory explaining the observed facts.

I am more than happy to admit I have no idea why the universe is, as you should know if you have seen any of my exchanges with RJ on the matter. In fact, I am not particularly interested in the why of the universe, it is and that is the end of the matter. This constant searching for the why of things generally leads either to frustration or religion, neither of which will do a scientist much good. More how less why as my physics teacher used to say.

The reason for a cake existing is easy to understand, someone fancied a bit of cake. The miracle is that it still exists! Maybe it didn't turn out well?

Originally posted by Kepler
If you are a man of science, as you say you are, you wouldn't be trying to prove anything. Evidence does not prove, it forms the basis for a theory explaining the observed facts.

I am more than happy to admit I have no idea why the universe is, as you should know if you have seen any of my exchanges with RJ on the matter. In fact, I am not particularly int ...[text shortened]... one fancied a bit of cake. The miracle is that it still exists! Maybe it didn't turn out well?

On the contrary a theory is formed and then subject to falsification, through empirical evidence. This is the way of proving or disproving the hypothesis, based on what can be observed. Its forms the very basis of the scientific method.

for example we see it in chess, I have a theory on a specific variation, I test that theory by subjecting it to falsification, this proves whether the variation is sound or otherwise. The evidence proves the validity or otherwise of the hypothesis (proposed variation), does it not.

by the way i use the term 'a man of science', humorously because i know it annoys the materialists who like to think that there is no rational explanation for the existence of God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary a theory is formed and then subject to falsification, through empirical evidence. This is the way of proving or disproving the hypothesis, based on what can be observed. Its forms the very basis of the scientific method.

And where does the theory come from? Do you just make it up on the basis of nothing at all? And how do you prove the theory by falsification?

Falsification can only prove false and that relies on a counterexample. My theory is that all Robbies are Scottish. I happen to know one who comes from Wales so that's another theory down the tubes. Until I met Robbie Jones my theory was valid and explained the limited evidence, I know some Scottish Robbies but I had no hope of proving its truth by accumulating Scottish Robbies. All that one could say is that one is more certain. Until the awful day the Welsh Robbie serviced my car.

Didn't catch your edit in time so here's an edit of mine. I don't think there should be a rational explanation for god. Anything supernatural that can be subjected to the scientific method is no longer supernatural, it is just another natural phenomenon to be investigated. God would become distinctly ordinary then. Of course, there would be the added bonus that we would finally know which version is the true one. Will the real god please stand up.

Originally posted by Kepler
And where does the theory come from? Do you just make it up on the basis of nothing at all? And how do you prove the theory by falsification?

Falsification can only prove false and that relies on a counterexample. My theory is that all Robbies are Scottish. I happen to know one who comes from Wales so that's another theory down the tubes. Until I met Robbi ...[text shortened]... ne could say is that one is more certain. Until the awful day the Welsh Robbie serviced my car.

yes there is usually a basis, if i may continue the chess analogy, we see a weak diagonal, it has a queen on c4, a rook on f7 and a king on g8, we can see that there is some kind of potential to exploit the juxtaposition of these pieces, this observation forms the basis of our hypothesis, but it must still be subject to falsification, for our opponent may be threatening mate in one or there is some other dynamic. To say that we are not trying to prove anything is not quite accurate, we are trying to subject our hypothesis to falsification, realising that in the process we hope to prove its validity or otherwise.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes there is usually a basis, if i may continue the chess analogy, we see a weak diagonal, it has a queen on c4, a rook on f7 and a king on g8, we can see that there is some kind of potential to exploit the juxtaposition of these pieces, this observation forms the basis of our hypothesis, but it must still be subject to falsification, for our oppone ...[text shortened]... esis to falsification, realising that in the process we hope to prove its validity or otherwise.

You still can't prove a scientific theory correct. It is a theory, not a theorem.

Chess is one of those areas where you can prove your theory correct, although I'd say that it isn't science. I offer a draw, you say no. OK, we carry on if you win you prove your theory correct. If we end up with a draw, my theory is correct. If I win then we were both wrong!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes there is usually a basis, if i may continue the chess analogy, we see a weak diagonal, it has a queen on c4, a rook on f7 and a king on g8, we can see that there is some kind of potential to exploit the juxtaposition of these pieces, this observation forms the basis of our hypothesis, but it must still be subject to falsification, for our oppone ...[text shortened]... esis to falsification, realising that in the process we hope to prove its validity or otherwise.

What is JW's take on original sin?

Originally posted by Kepler
You still can't prove a scientific theory correct. It is a theory, not a theorem.

Chess is one of those areas where you can prove your theory correct, although I'd say that it isn't science. I offer a draw, you say no. OK, we carry on if you win you prove your theory correct. If we end up with a draw, my theory is correct. If I win then we were both wrong!

Ok I was unaware of these distinctions. Yes its not strictly a science, not strictly an art, i suspect that it lies somewhere in between. But its great for analogies.

Black beetle does an awesome chess analogy 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
What is JW's take on original sin?

It was an attempt to establish independence from God, which as men of science, we can now observe the disastrous consequences of.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you mean like concluding that there is no God without the slightest evidence, rich, really rich!

we've been over this time and again. if you are a man of logic you would understand why this is so illogical..

you are reducing proof of your gods existence down to the weakest possible argument. claiming that there is no proof that he doesnt exist, is popping him in the same box as tooth fairies and gnomes.

the onus is always on the person making the extraordinary claim, a man of logic would understand this.