Talking about god...

[S.A.M.]

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

I know what scientific methods are; all this mixing of atheistic belief and promoting it as science is highly improper.

 

[superluminal]

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

We're exercising.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope. Not even remotely.

Your previous three statements tend to suggest a different picture

# None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.
# 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.
# You don't even know that your god(s) exist.

 

[superluminal]

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

Huh? That's the worst statement of a hypothesis I've ever seen. You get an F. Please resubmit.

 

[lightgigantic]

Huh? That's the worst statement of a hypothesis I've ever seen. You get an F. Please resubmit.

love it or loathe it, its the method brother

 

[superluminal]

Your previous three statements tend to suggest a different picture

# None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.
# 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.
# You don't even know that your god(s) exist.

Ha! They all fit perfectly with the simple observation that there is no smoke coming from that building you claim is burning. Ha!

 

[superluminal]

love it or loathe it, its the method brother

No, it's not.

Try making a clear statement, followed by a clear test.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

Of course you did.

H[sub]0[/sub]:Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer
H[sub]a[/sub]:Taq1 polymorphism does cause colon cancer

Observations: correlation between incidence of Taq1 polymorphism and colon cancer; presence of Taq1 polymorphism in absence of colon cancer.

expt: perform a cre-lox tissue specific (colon) insertion of the Taq1 polymorphism and attempt to disprove H[sub]0[/sub].

depends on your aim, what the hypothesis is.

Your aim?

disprove the presence of God.

Go ahead.

 

[superluminal]

Of course you did.

H[sub]0[/sub]:Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer
H[sub]a[/sub]:Taq1 polymorphism does cause colon cancer

Observations: correlation between incidence of Taq1 polymorphism and colon cancer
expt: perform a cre-lox tissue specific (colon) insertion of the Taq1 polymorphism and attempt to disprove H[sub]0[/sub].

Ha!

False dichotony.

I do not propose that Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer. I simple see no evidence that it does yet. Ha!

 

[superluminal]

Your aim?

disprove the presence of God.

Go ahead.

Constantly lying about my motives and statements will just make you feel bad later. I don't want you to feel bad sam...

 

[S.A.M.]

Ha!

False dichotony.

I do not propose that Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer. I simple see no evidence that it does yet. Ha!

You mean an absence of evidence is sufficient to convince you that the presence of Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer?

Are you saying that Taq1 polymorphism may not cause colon cancer?

What if the cre-lox insertion causes cancer? what if it does not? Is that evidence sufficient to convince you?

 

[S.A.M.]

Constantly lying about my motives and statements will just make you feel bad later. I don't want you to feel bad sam...

You do want to disprove God. Just as you want to prove that its scientific for you to feel grossed out about gays.

Its a common disease in linear thinkers.

 

[Reiku]

An impossiblity yet again.
I think everyone is subconsciously trapping each other in these oxymoronic possibilities. You...

1. Cannot prove God
and
2. You cannot disprove God

(as of yet); because this is mostly to do with technology.
However, i grudgingly admit there is a third and forth choice.

3. That God cannot be disproven, if he doesn't exist
likewise
4. God cannot be proven, if he doesn't exist...

So these leaves everyone no where. Yet erroneously, you all will continue this pointless debate.

 

[superluminal]

You mean an absence of evidence is sufficient to convince you that the presence of Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer?

Are you saying that Taq1 polymorphism may not cause colon cancer?

You've got to be kidding me.

"I do not propose that Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer. I simple see no evidence that it does yet. Ha!"

You seem to write english fairly well. It must be an input problem. It may or may not. I don't care. I'm just asking you to support your hypothesis that is does.

I'm a "Taq1 polymorphism causes colon cancer" atheist.

 

[(Q)]

disprove the presence of God.

Go ahead.

Disproving the presence of gods is exactly the same as proving their existence from a theists perspective, lip service.

I mean, that's all I've ever heard when it comes to theists claims for the existence of gods.

 

[S.A.M.]

You've got to be kidding me.

"I do not propose that Taq1 polymorphism does not cause colon cancer. I simple see no evidence that it does yet. Ha!"

You seem to write english fairly well. It must be an input problem. It may or may not. I don't care. I'm just asking you to support your hypothesis that is does.

I'm a "Taq1 polymorphism causes colon cancer" atheist.

Then you are out of touch with whats hot in medicine. Apparently, they prefer to err on the side of caution and believe it does.

 

[superluminal]

You do want to disprove God. Just as you want to prove that its scientific for you to feel grossed out about gays.

Its a common disease in linear thinkers.

Repeating a lie does not make it true, sam. And resorting to ad homs and off-topic misdirection is a clear sign the discussion is over.

 

[S.A.M.]

Disproving the presence of gods is exactly the same as proving their existence from a theists perspective, lip service.

I mean, that's all I've ever heard when it comes to theists claims for the existence of gods.

If I were to say, this is God-->.

Whats your evidence that its not?

 

[superluminal]

Then you are out of touch with whats hot in medicine. Apparently, they prefer to err on the side of caution and believe it does.

Non-sequiteur. I've had enough of those tonight, thanks.

 

[S.A.M.]

Repeating a lie does not make it true, sam. And resorting to ad homs and off-topic misdirection is a clear sign the discussion is over.

Hmm I suggest you re-read the thread to discover who is ad-homming and misdirecting. I'm merely stating facts.

each truth we perceive to be true is only a relative part of a greater whole, a whole that cannot be seen in linear thinking, logic and language ...