Talking about god...

[superluminal]

Supe

in the meantime it might pay to be familiar with a series of writings before you boldly stomp forth and declare what they do and don't contain

Nothing in your precious writings points to a single way to test or observe this god they all speak of. You yourself know this. Therefore, unsupported rhetoric. QED.

Then do it! What do you have to lose? Show us a testable god hypothesis! You just about said outright that your writings contain such experiments. Show us!

 

[S.A.M.]

Bullcrap. Theism by definition is not testable in any way. Atheism is fully falsifiable. Show me your god and we give. You win. Easy.

Ok

H[sub]0[/sub]: There is a God
H[sub]a[/sub]: There is no God

Prove it

Hypothesis development

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centrepiece of his discussion of methodology.

Karl Popper, following others, developing and inverting the views of the Austrian logical positivists, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. It must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not yet been made.

 

[(Q)]

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no God
H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God

Prove it

Those are not hypotheses,

 

[Reiku]

And this is a round-a-bout (ab><ba).

 

[S.A.M.]

Those are not hypotheses,

They are hypotheses alright, just not testable; that is why they are not science.

All this atheistic contamination of science is highly improper :bugeye:

 

[superluminal]

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no God
H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God

Prove it

False dichotomy. Again with the theistic brain damage.

H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God
is the theist assertion

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no God
is not what atheists say. This is what we say

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no compelling evidence for a god(s)

We have to prove nothing, because we assert nothing. We only note a lack of support for your assertion.

You prove H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God.

 

[lightgigantic]

First of all explain how you know this

None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.

Thi is a methodological stance, not an attribute. Statements were made like "The universe is big, it's soo complicated, We don't understand quantum mechanics, life is cool..." followed by "therefore I beleive in god".

Surely you see the absurdity of this?

In a world where virtually every natural phenomenon we've investigated has yielded substantially to our investigations, it's a completely worthless assertion to say "god did it".

the problem is that you somehow tie this in to substantiate the claim that no universal god exists

None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.

Surely you can see the absurdity of this?

"The world is complex, we know something of it, therefore its useless to suggest a universal god is involved"

Just remember. Your god(s) have the awesome attribute that they cannot be:

- observed

incorrect
most religions are reformed or established and their lineage continued by persons acting on such a platform

- tested

incorrect
most religions have normative descriptions

- investigated

incorrect
the subject of the investigation of god is a primary discipline of theism

- validated

incorrect
god is validated by qualified persons, as indicated in the opening point

- invalidated

incorrect
meeting the above criteria, even on the platform of theory, what to speak of practice, enables notions of god to be invalidated
(for instance if I say I am god and I have a tooth ache, it begs the q why an omnipotent being is challenged by such trifling affairs)

Now that's omnipotent.

I would say that is a poor foundation of theory

Nope. I'm challenged.

figures

 

[S.A.M.]

False dichotomy. Again with the theistic brain damage.

H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God
is the theist assertion

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no God
is not what atheists say. This is what we say

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no compelling evidence for a god(s)

We have to prove nothing, because we assert nothing. We only note a lack of support for your assertion.

You prove H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God.

Sorry hon, all experiments are conducted to prove that there is (hopefully, no) evidence against a hypothesis. Look it up

if I say there is no effect of such and such a thing, I gotta design experiments to prove it.

Karl Popper, following others, developing and inverting the views of the Austrian logical positivists, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. It must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not yet been made.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then do it! What do you have to lose? Show us a testable god hypothesis!

erm I just did

You just about said outright that your writings contain such experiments. Show us!

I gave a hypothesis - whether you check it or don't check it is your business - feel free to continue poking your tongue out or whatever

 

[superluminal]

the problem is that you somehow tie this in to substantiate the claim that no universal god exists

I won't even read the rest of your false dichotomy post.

We claim no such thing. You claim a god exists. We ask you to prove it. End of story.

Your entire set of arguments as theists rest on a strawman construct.

Game over.

 

[S.A.M.]

I won't even read the rest of your false dichotomy post.

We claim no such thing. You claim a god exists. We ask you to prove it. End of story.

Your entire set of arguments as theists rest on a strawman construct.

Game over.

I suggest you look up the definition of truth vs belief.

 

[superluminal]

erm I just did


I gave a hypothesis - whether you check it or don't check it is your business - feel free to continue poking your tongue out or whatever

Where? What? State your hypothesis clearly or stop lying.

 

[superluminal]

I suggest you look up the definition of truth vs belief.

I already know. You should reasses your reliance on faith and strawman arguments.

 

[S.A.M.]

I already know. You should reasses your reliance on faith and strawman arguments.

Is it true that there is no God? Do you believe it?

 

[lightgigantic]

I won't even read the rest of your false dichotomy post.

We claim no such thing. You claim a god exists. We ask you to prove it. End of story.

Your entire set of arguments as theists rest on a strawman construct.

Game over.

that just leaves you with your three negative claims

1. None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.
   
2. Nothing in your precious writings points to a single way to test or observe this god they all speak of. You yourself know this. Therefore, unsupported rhetoric. QED.
   
3. You don't even know that your god(s) exist.
   
   maybe its time for you to quit poking your tongue out and scratch your nose or something ...

 

[(Q)]

They are hypotheses alright, just not testable; that is why they are not science.

All this atheistic contamination of science is highly improper :bugeye:

You're getting more confused, science is a method, theism and atheism are not methods.

 

[superluminal]

Sorry hon, all experiments are conducted to prove that there is (hopefully, no) evidence against a hypothesis. Look it up

if I say there is no effect of such and such a thing, I gotta design experiments to prove it.

Saying there in no effect, dear, is not a hypothesis, its an observation.

"Look! That building is on fire!" (hypothesis)

"I don't see any smoke from that building" (observation)

Get it? I just asked my 4 year old grandkid. She gets it.

 

[Reiku]

All of you should have known this would have been a fruitless debate?

 

[superluminal]

Is it true that there is no God? Do you believe it?

Nope. Not even remotely.

 

[lightgigantic]

Where? What? State your hypothesis clearly or stop lying.

shall we repeat it again

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

IOW persons who are engrossed in attachment, fear and anger are not following the prescribed hypothesis