Log in or Sign up

This Board Rocks has been moved to a new domain: CarolinaPanthersForum.com

All member accounts remain the same.

Most of the content is here, as well. Except that the Preps Forum has been split off to its own board at: http://www.prepsforum.com

Welcome to the new Carolina Panthers Forum!
Dismiss Notice

for atheists/agnostics

Discussion in 'Religion & Spirituality Forum' started by LarryD, Mar 3, 2008.

Page 12 of 16

Oct 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM #111

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,531

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

For Golden Hammer:

From this very thread, post #26:

Nope...there is plenty of evidence of a creator. I am not a biblical literalist, so there are parts of the bible I believe to be parable or instructional. There is plenty of historical evidence that supports Jesus existence, and what he said was true has not been disproven. I believe in a purpose for life as opposed to it being some cosmic accident. It's more logical to me.
Click to expand...

From http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149760&page=2

post #23

I have a multitude of evidence for my belief system. You can't disprove any of my belief system any more than doubters who have tried for almost 2000 years. There are tenets that are inherently neither provable nor disprovable, and one just has to decide where he/she stands on those issues. But contraray to what you believe, there isn't a pile of evidence against Christ's message.
Click to expand...

Here is your buddy Sly in the Skin Color thread:

I see evidence of God every day if not every second.

Life alone is ample evidence because the universe is far far far more predicated toward the inanimate. I mean you people claim that evolution is the result of biological advantage passed through mutation but how can a rock pass a genetic mutation? Or more simply, what caused the first gene and why?

Add symbolic thought into the picture....there is no evolutionary case for it. Yet it exists.
Click to expand...

There are other instances, I just don't have the time or inclination to hunt them all down. Doesn't matter anyway, because all I am doing is a little dance for you when you know that you and others have said it on multiple occasions.
Oct 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM #112

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,531

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

hasbeen99 said: ↑

Oxymoron. Proof is subjective by definition.
Click to expand...

you just made that up, didn't you? Why do I waste my time with you guys when you cease to be entertaining?

A mathematical proof is subjective?
Oct 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM #113

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,531

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

vpkozel said: ↑

You have to prove it for it to become a law. There can be competing hypothoses until that point. You only want to consider yours as valid while discounting one that includes god. At this point, both are equally valid.
Click to expand...

I know you love semantics, so let me advise you for a moment, which I am sure you will appreciate fully. "Laws" are not what science provides. Science provides evidentiary-based, supportable, reproduceable THEORIES.

You hypothesis of God's existence has ZERO supporting evidence and is not reproduceable in any way.

I am having deja vu all over again.

Sure - just the same way that I would have to accept any religion's God. Of course, the FSM really doesn't have any proof other than a website.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, because he has not been proven NOT to exist, right?
Oct 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM #114

hasbeen99 Fighting the stereotype

Age:

52

Posts:

21,242

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Jan 7, 2003

Location:

Clovis, CA

tharan000 said: ↑

you just made that up, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Nope. Proof, by definition has to be "persuasive or convincing". People are not convinced by the same types or quantities of evidences. Therefore, proof is subjective.

tharan000 said:

A mathematical proof is subjective?
Click to expand...

No. When applied to mathematics, the definition and nature of the word changes.
Oct 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM #115

vpkozel Professional Calvinballer

Age:

57

Posts:

35,060

Likes Received:

1

Joined:

Jan 7, 2003

tharan000 said: ↑

I know you love semantics, so let me advise you for a moment, which I am sure you will appreciate fully. "Laws" are not what science provides. Science provides evidentiary-based, supportable, reproduceable THEORIES.
Click to expand...

Hypotheses become theories which become laws.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
Click to expand...

You hypothesis of God's existence has ZERO supporting evidence and is not reproduceable in any way.
Click to expand...

It has lots of supporting evidence, you just decide to discount all of it.

I am having deja vu all over again.
Click to expand...

Well, you are wrong about this a lot.

Doesn't matter, because he has not been proven NOT to exist, right?[/QUOTE]
Oct 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM #116

slydevl Asshole for the People!

Age:

52

Posts:

29,009

Likes Received:

1

Joined:

Feb 6, 2002

Location:

Madagascar

tharan000 said: ↑

/sigh

How many different ways must I say it? How many more times must I repeat it? You don't have to DISPROVE a hypothesis. It is the burden of the presenter to PROVE its validity. Otherwise, you absolutely must admit that my Flying Spaghetti Monster has equal validity to your god (which is actually true, though I won't make you admit by default).
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is that the universe was not created by an intelligent force. You cannot prove your hypothesis either.

I for one agree that FSM is possible and has validity. In fact, in the face of an absolute lack of evidence, every possibility has validity. This includes the Judeo-Christian God.
Oct 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM #117

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,531

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

slydevl said: ↑

Your hypothesis is that the universe was not created by an intelligent force. You cannot prove your hypothesis either.
Click to expand...

No that is NOT my hypothesis. I don't have an hypothesis on the single-point origin of the Universe. I think the question itself is a category error.

I for one agree that FSM is possible and has validity. In fact, in the face of an absolute lack of evidence, every possibility has validity. This includes the Judeo-Christian God.
Click to expand...

LMAO, nice Sly. It is good to know you have joined the congregation. I'll be looking for that donation any day now.
Oct 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM #118

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,531

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

hasbeen99 said: ↑

Nope. Proof, by definition has to be "persuasive or convincing". People are not convinced by the same types or quantities of evidences. Therefore, proof is subjective.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about colloquial proof. That is an oxymoron, you are correct there. And this brings a good point: religion should contain itself to the world colloquialisms and stay the fuck out of science and logic. Stop parading around and pretending to be what you are not. Simply be what you are, and no one will have any issues with you.

No. When applied to mathematics, the definition and nature of the word changes.
Click to expand...

All physics theories have a rigorous mathematical proof associated with their definition or they would still be hypotheses. "Proof" derives its definition from logic, not the other way around. In other words, the only "changing" that is done is done by non-scientists misusing the word.
Oct 8, 2008 at 4:08 PM #119

vpkozel Professional Calvinballer

Age:

57

Posts:

35,060

Likes Received:

1

Joined:

Jan 7, 2003

Edited by BV: Reference to deleted post

Sure - there is much archelogical and historical evidence that supports many of the events in the Bible - including the events surrounding Jesus.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2008
Oct 8, 2008 at 5:26 PM #120

slydevl Asshole for the People!

Age:

52

Posts:

29,009

Likes Received:

1

Joined:

Feb 6, 2002

Location:

Madagascar

Most people learn the difference between proof and evidence in elementary school science classes.

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 12 of 16

Share This Page

Sign up now!Don't miss out!

Recent Threads

Single Greatest Song Of All Time
tharan000 replied Nov 15, 2024 at 12:52 AM
2024 Week Eleven NFL Pick-em
presidence99 replied Nov 14, 2024 at 11:19 PM
32 carries for 188 yards
dig-it replied Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM
Around The League 2024
dig-it replied Nov 14, 2024 at 10:43 AM
Panthers vs Saints Running...
dig-it replied Nov 12, 2024 at 6:16 PM
2024 Week Ten Pick-em
Art Vandelay replied Nov 12, 2024 at 11:17 AM
Songs That Some TBR Members Like
barry49s replied Nov 11, 2024 at 10:10 PM
Panthers vs Giants Running...
dig-it replied Nov 10, 2024 at 6:46 PM
General Managers
stirs replied Nov 10, 2024 at 5:54 PM
Canales Cucks
CoachMcFly replied Nov 10, 2024 at 5:12 PM

Loading...