RamblinglyVeryBored's Page

More from RamblinglyVeryBored

Forum Posts

Comments

Recommendations

Posted on: Why Science cannot disprove a God
at 11/18/2009 7:13pm

Jack, first it is not my beliefs. Merely an amusing tidbit where some of the science like to claim science can disprove ... more(+)

Jack, first it is not my beliefs. Merely an amusing tidbit where some of the science like to claim science can disprove God. The author of the post was someone else, thus the copy/paste comment.

I didn't say all athiest. I said some scientific minded people, mentioned athiests being some of them, and pointed at even a few scientists. So yes, it remains, there are some who attempt to force the whole "religion and god" are fake and stupid, etc. Proof of this is all over this website. If the religious don't make a stupid comment first, some other user makes a stupid comment about religion.

Mick,
You add all these little assumptions and try to use them as some form of arguement.
I'm sorry you don't understand what I say. No where am I "holier" than anyone else.
No, I am not the only person to understand human nature, or trolling.
I'll constantly state that over and over.
You'll constantly say I am lying, that I believe I am better than someone else.
We already did this lil round n round.
That seems to be something you constantly try to push onto people.
Nor did you take the stand point that "it's a non-issue".

But see, now you've changed it to your opinion. Before, you weren't arguing that is was your opinion or your belief. You even stated as much. close(-)

Posted on: Why Science cannot disprove a God
at 11/17/2009 11:34am

You're the one claiming science can disprove God.
You've been unable to prove so.

But this is you ...
If you cannot ... more(+)

You're the one claiming science can disprove God.
You've been unable to prove so.

But this is you ...
If you cannot prove it or provide evidence it makes you wrong.
That is how you treat others after all. Without evidence, its just your own beliefs.
That is your own personal belief.

I gave proof in the beginning, a very feasible explanation. You chose to ignore it, wished to debate otherwise, but unable to provide any sort of insight or evidence that proves your point. Effectively, you've became like what you accuse of Jack.

How are you more qualified than everyone who says science cannot disprove God?
Including the scientists who uphold that?
What makes you more credible than them?

You're not.
Instead you have your own belief system which is tied to science where you get to dictate what you want to believe. Like everyone else.

Btw. You can say semantics. But it's been what I have been saying the whole time (its in the first post after all), and it wasn't until that post you chose to say "Oh now you're just talking Semantics". So its amusing you sat there discussing but waited until the end to claim semantics.

As for the agree to disagree thing.
Nah, I don't have to agree to disagree with you.
It much more amusing to simply post this:

usamick posted 13 November 2009, 12:47 pm ET: Although it cannot be proven that any God does actually exist, it can very much be proven that all the Gods that we are aware of were inventions of mankind, therefore, there are no Gods that we know of that are real.

That's the fun part. You cannot prove they were inventions of mankind. You can prove stories got passed down from one to another and some share kindred. But you cannot prove where the authors got their ideas, where they came up with them, if they heard a voice in their head, if an alien told em, if a cat told em, or some magical being in the sky told them. That, cannot be proven. But you seem to believe otherwise. close(-)

Posted on: Why Science cannot disprove a God
at 11/16/2009 5:30pm

Science leaves it at there is no evidence of God.
It does not say, because of that, there is no God.
Just no evidence ... more(+)

usamick wrote:Aren't we confusing two different arguments here?

I am saying that because there is no evidence as far as Science is concerned there is no God.
It is not imcumbant upon Science to disprove. It is incumbant on those who say there is to prove it.

Science can keep an open mind and if some evidence arrives, adjust it's position.

So in the case of your Monkey (or your Cats), Science can say "using everything we have to measure with, there is NO Monkey". I would have to provide some evidence that would help Science to understand what I am seeing.

I'd not assign my own personalized beliefs to it. I'd leave it as an interesting variable in life.

It has nothing to do with personal beliefs.

Science leaves it at there is no evidence of God.
It does not say, because of that, there is no God.
Just no evidence of.
That is where personal beliefs come into play. close(-)

Posted on: Why Science cannot disprove a God
at 11/16/2009 2:01pm

Let us say we did use every possible way. Even experimental ways like hacking into your brain to focus on new memories, ... more(+)

usamick wrote:
If I told you there was a purple monkey on your shoulder all the time. Would you accept that without question or proof? I doubt it. It would not be up to you to disrove it, because you know it's not there using every measurement you have. I would have to prove to you that it was there. Would I not?

Let us say we did use every possible way. Even experimental ways like hacking into your brain to focus on new memories, deciphering your visual receptors, and testing in general to see if this was ground in reality or merely a mind trick. (We're pretending you're not lying ) Especially making sure we cut out the possibility of you being mentally ill in some manner.

You were discovered to be healthy. Nothing wrong with you.

With all the hypothesis and tests we came up with we were still unable to prove what you were saying.
We'd then have to conclude, currently, we have no methods of proving what you see.
So, we'd have no theories built off evidence, other than the evidence of nothing was conclusive.
We'd have to make educated guesses and get them peer reviewed.
Then it depends what kind of person is writing the review.
Some will see you with a new/unknown mental illness, some will conclude you're lying, some would go Hmm I really don't know, and others would be all over you trying to learn anything and everything about this monkey.

I, personally, would shrug and tell you sorry man. You're seeing something no one else does. You're not sick or insane, we checked that. I'd believe you were seeing something, but what and how is to date unknown in a scientific way. So, I'd at least hear you out, understanding the human brain is a very complex place that we fully do not understand yet. Document it and file it away for future reference because you never know what could occur in the future. A mix of the last two is basically what I'd be. I'd not dwell too deeply into it, but advise you to never stop looking into it until it is figured out.

I'd not assign my own personalized beliefs to it. I'd leave it as an interesting variable in life.

And knowing me ... from time to time ... offer the monkey you told me about, a bite to eat as a little something to make me snicker at the unknown. close(-)

Posted on: Why Science cannot disprove a God
at 11/16/2009 1:23pm

I agree you shouldn't just use "God did it" to answer things which are still unknown.

But there's a twisted ... more(+)

I agree you shouldn't just use "God did it" to answer things which are still unknown.

But there's a twisted side to it.

People believe all science does is answer how God did it. When the details are fleshed out, there is still the remaining belief that is how God did it and we finally figured out another one of its processes. So we know the process we have all the scientific evidence of it, but, it is still God did it & this is how.

Life itself is a miracle to many. One which science still cannot for sure answer. Yes, there are theories that most of us in science accept as the reason. But not everyone prescribes to a theory which is chosen by a collective number of people who say "Yes, this is the best explanation". Since life's creation is debated, science is still unsettled on the issue. People will always dwell there and toss in, God.

The rest of us who do not prescribe to a God, play games of "My scientists vs Your scientists".
In other words, we choose to accept different theories.
I happen to enjoy some of the early scientists theories on life's existence/creation. Ones which are not tied to a God. close(-)

Commented on: Today's Top Athletes: Human or Android?
at 2009-11-17 12:43:39

If all this is because of our brains, our intelligence, our science and technology ... which breaks down to tools ... ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: POLL: Your View of Human Evolution
at 2009-11-17 10:31:23

Oh I dunno.
To everyone?

In theory, if this was all posted on a forum and you guys could all see it in a row. No need ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: Vatican Ponders Alien Life
at 2009-11-16 18:32:55

Look at everyone.

Sitting there shrewdly putting religion down.

Speaking of aliens and the religiously blind view of ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: The Future of Human Evolution
at 2009-11-16 18:29:15

I told you all.
An animal species can feel when an issue is about to arise in the world. It prepares for it ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: Critics Challenge 'Dog Whisperer'
at 2009-11-16 17:44:46

No, ego.

They should be listening to the proof/evidence.

Treat type dog training only works so well. In same cases, ... more(+)

 close(-)

2009-10-29 | in Space | by LiveScience

2012 Cataclysm
Our skeptic, Ben Radford, takes on three authors to calibrate the claims of planetary disaster in 2012.

2009-10-26 | in Environment | by LiveScience Staff

Scientists: Greenhouse Gas Cuts Should S
A new report finds there's plenty you can do.

2009-10-07 | in Animals | by Jeanna Bryner

Albatross Snags Scraps from Killer Whale
Killer whales help some albatross snag dinner.

2009-09-29 | in Environment | by LiveScience Staff

Major South Pacific Quake Spawns Tsunami
A major earthquake struck in the Somoa Islands region of the South Pacific Ocean.

2009-10-07 | in Strange News | by Benjamin Radford

A Closer Look at the Shroud of Turin
Evidence is mounting that the holy relic is a fake.