water said:
Water,
The statement that brought about the response was a work of someone
whom cared enough to be disrespectful. It's a shame for this person in
particular.
On the circularity of faith
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Water,
The statement that brought about the response was a work of someone
whom cared enough to be disrespectful. It's a shame for this person in
particular.
ellion said:
I wasn't speaking of the spirituality of animals..
You and I are quite unqualified to make such bold assertions so let's keep to the human domain for now. Could you please show me any examples of feral children who have on their own recognized the inherent evil of man? If not, can it be safe to suppose you are making all this up and can provide no reason for these claims?
water said:
I agree this definition is important. How is 'God' being defined at the forefront
of the thread?
water said:
Science isn't really looking for proof of 'God'. Its looking for truth and finds
alot of contradictions to various assertions of 'God's existence. Regardless,
for a life form that is supposed to exist right now at this very moment, the
natural question of 'where is it' comes to mind.
water said:
I wasn't focusing on belief in the original assertion. I was focusing on trust.
A person can choose to upkeep trust (even unconditionally) regardless of
the quantity and quality of the number of times that trust is broken.
water said:
Interesting ideas. I will reply in the form of a question:
Why won't 'God' take you up on an invitiation to go out for a cup of coffee?
§outh§tar said:
yes your right, the the only qalification i have is a gcse in english.
yes you right, i was making it up and if you re read you'll see i plainly say "I IMAGINE ......" so no i wouldnt be able to provide examples of such kids. can you give any examples (apart from mowgli) to support your claims ?
The scientist suspended his already existing knowledge about something, allowing that there be a completely different explanation, with new evidence for a phenomenon, which in turn re-defined the phenomenon.
No, the scientist uses existing knowledge based on observations and experiments to make predictions and test those predictions.
Therefore, in order to test your hypothesis, the assumption and acceptance that gods exist is necessary. Without it, the hypothesis is meaningless.
No, the scientist uses existing knowledge based on observations and experiments to make predictions and test those predictions.
Therefore, in order to test your hypothesis, the assumption and acceptance that gods exist is necessary. Without it, the hypothesis is meaningless.
ellion said:
It's not paradoxical at all. If evidence is found that contradicts existing theory
then theory is remodeled or discarded entirely. Take the Higgs Boson for
example. In 2007 the Hadron Collider will definitively show if it exists. If
it does it becomes evidence that supports many theories. If it doesn't then
some theories will be remodeled and others will be scrapped.
§outh§tar said:
water said:
Q said:
Is it me or was the argument that was originally posted of a non-scientific nature? If it isn't me then someone needs to stop making pointless statements of frustration (in other words addressing that which has already been addressed or addressing a non-issue).
What's the difference between the two (2) statements dear Q?
You're kidding, right?
Is it me or was the argument that was originally posted of a non-scientific nature?
There was no difinitive nature to the argument, or lack thereof.
If it isn't me...
Oh, but it is. For some reason, you appear completely incapable of synthesis and end each non-sentence with a smiley face. Curious...
You're kidding, right?
Is it me or was the argument that was originally posted of a non-scientific nature?
There was no difinitive nature to the argument, or lack thereof.
If it isn't me...
Oh, but it is. For some reason, you appear completely incapable of synthesis and end each non-sentence with a smiley face. Curious...
You are insulting your own intelligence dear Q.(Q) said:
As a sidenote, those are phrases taken out of context, not statements.
If you refer back to the original statements...
... i.e. if a theory predicts A and observation shows B, then B is a different "explanation" as opposed to A.water said:
The scientist suspends his "knowledge" based on the prediction A and allows for the explanation B.
What you did, again, was state the obvious which was already addressed in the statement (not phrase) that the prediction A is contradicted by observation (which is rather obviously inherrent to the phrase "new evidence for a phenomenon" placed in context of the statement).
. i.e. if a theory predicts A and observation shows B, then B is a different "explanation" as opposed to A.
No, prediction A becomes 'null' and a new prediction is made based on B observations.
The scientist suspends his "knowledge" based on the prediction A and allows for the explanation B.
No, the scientist never suspended his knowledge about anything. His prediction was null based on the observations. The theory in which he based his prediction must have been tested to a certain degree of accuracy in the first place. We must therefore ask how the observations made an already tested theory produce null results.
All of this based on existing knowledge.
What you did, again, was state the obvious ...
No, what you did, again, was fail to understand the obvious.
No, prediction A becomes 'null' and a new prediction is made based on B observations.
The scientist suspends his "knowledge" based on the prediction A and allows for the explanation B.
No, the scientist never suspended his knowledge about anything. His prediction was null based on the observations. The theory in which he based his prediction must have been tested to a certain degree of accuracy in the first place. We must therefore ask how the observations made an already tested theory produce null results.
All of this based on existing knowledge.
What you did, again, was state the obvious ...
No, what you did, again, was fail to understand the obvious.
MarcAC said:(It referring to science) Such as?
It's the funniest thing when atheists try to sneak all sorts of gospel into their "logical" framework.
Which religious assertion of 'God' would you like to have a contradiction for?
Not quite sure I want to wade into this thread at this point but.. I can't resist a logic game so...
First things first however: what is this supposed circular argument being discussed??
And yes, I have read the whole thread... no one has explicitly mentioned it.
TIA
First things first however: what is this supposed circular argument being discussed??
And yes, I have read the whole thread... no one has explicitly mentioned it.
TIA