atheist nemises was just joking

[Metacrock]

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

BT:Again you have completely mis-interpreted everything I have said. I'm not demanding anything. Rather I am pointing out that the lack of evidence for the actual existence of God indicates that God is conceptual. I wish you could get my position right and then address my actual points rather than criticizing what you incorrectly assume is my position.

ahahahah Again! you just glaze right over the problem without even acknowledging it. you are still just asserting your original argument without any acknowledgment of the problem that scinece isn't suited to epistemological or metaphysical questions.

Meta:I use the analogy of the ruler trying to use a ruler to find air pressure. BT says you have to use a barometer, and thus makes my point for me. Science is no the right tool so what's next? Philosophy, the inverter of scinece.

BT:Science is how we know that God is a concept rather than something that exists outside of the mind.

[/quote][/quote]

But only for things that it's suited to find. Its' not suited to find God becuase God is the basis of reality, scinece can only find empirical things! It does't fit.

stop ignoring the issue! say something about it! this is the fifth time you have dropped the argument.

you know what? In high school debate (national forensic league) and in college debate (NDT and CEDA) you don't win an argument by ignoring it. When you ignore an argument you lose it automatically. you have lost this one five times over.

[fleetmouse]

when metacrock starts using big multicolored fonts the letter forms make me think of huge purple veins standing out on his forehead.

[mdsimpson92]

when metacrock starts using big multicolored fonts the letter forms make me think of huge purple veins standing out on his forehead.

Lol

By the way, Big Thinker, Fleetmouse just posted a thread with a series of videos that actually discusses the History of the Philosophy of Science and the rise and fall of Logical postivism. I actually learned a few things from it. At least about Quine.

By the way, thanks for the videos, Fleetmouse.

[bigthinker]

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

Can you be more specific? What argument have you made?

(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

Science is capable of telling us if there is evidence of God or not. So far, not.

(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

First of all, there are two parts of this. The first part deals with whether or not science is the right tool. Science deals with and assesses evidence. As it stands, there is no evidence that supports the actual existence of God. This is a scientific conclusion, since science deals with evidence. The second part deals with the nature of God. As it turns out, there is sufficient evidence that God is a concept, a belief, a character that exists in the minds of those who believe in him.
So it turns out that science tells us that there is no evidence for the actual existence of God AND that the evidence that does exist indicates that God exists as a concept.

(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

Nope, I am not making that leap. Sorry, try again. Meta, it would be much easier for you if you simply read and comprehended my statements. If you are confused about anything all you have to do is ask.

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

That is correct, the reason is because God does not actually exist, God is a concept.

[bigthinker]

when metacrock starts using big multicolored fonts the letter forms make me think of huge purple veins standing out on his forehead.

Lol

By the way, Big Thinker, Fleetmouse just posted a thread with a series of videos that actually discusses the History of the Philosophy of Science and the rise and fall of Logical postivism. I actually learned a few things from it. At least about Quine.

By the way, thanks for the videos, Fleetmouse.

Thanks for the info.
I should correct my earlier position; its not that I'm not interested in philosophy, I'm not particularly interested in the history of philosophy.
But I'll look for that post and check out the videos.

[Metacrock]

when metacrock starts using big multicolored fonts the letter forms make me think of huge purple veins standing out on his forehead.

ahahahaah lOL. I love color.

[Metacrock]

Meta

go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,[/quote]


BT

Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

Meta

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

[Metacrock]

Six times he as arrogantly proclaimed the positions I've disproved as the only valid ones and yet passed on answering my augments. he even asked in that last exchange what the argument was, even though I've pointed it out every single time.

If that doesn't prove that he hasn't understood anything I've said what does? I think I'm being pretty clear. I think the ruler/air pressure thing says it all. He turns right around as though nothing was said and speaks of barometers and says "we need the right tools."

did you catch his assertion that his opinion counts as scinece? When he made the illogical and stupid move from scinece does evdience to "therefore lack of scientific evidence is proof of untruth" then makes a proclamation that "scinece has proved there's no God." yet there was no scinece used It was nothing more than his opinion that there's no scientific evdience.

earlier up there I made the argument that he's just doubting anything that supports his opinion as "scinece." that means his use of the term is meaningless. For "science" just means "this supports me." No scientific evidence could ever count against his view becasue then it ceases to be scinece.

What other group uses science to confirm it's cherished doxa without critical thinking and when the evdience doesn't support it they declare it invalid science?

the creationists! The thinks just like them.

[mdsimpson92]

when metacrock starts using big multicolored fonts the letter forms make me think of huge purple veins standing out on his forehead.

Lol

By the way, Big Thinker, Fleetmouse just posted a thread with a series of videos that actually discusses the History of the Philosophy of Science and the rise and fall of Logical postivism. I actually learned a few things from it. At least about Quine.

By the way, thanks for the videos, Fleetmouse.

Thanks for the info.
I should correct my earlier position; its not that I'm not interested in philosophy, I'm not particularly interested in the history of philosophy.
But I'll look for that post and check out the videos.

I hope you enjoy (or at learn get something from) the videos. It should cover the developement of science as a whole as well.

[bigthinker]

Six times he as arrogantly proclaimed the positions I've disproved as the only valid ones and yet passed on answering my augments. he even asked in that last exchange what the argument was, even though I've pointed it out every single time.

If that doesn't prove that he hasn't understood anything I've said what does? I think I'm being pretty clear. I think the ruler/air pressure thing says it all. He turns right around as though nothing was said and speaks of barometers and says "we need the right tools."

did you catch his assertion that his opinion counts as scinece? When he made the illogical and stupid move from scinece does evdience to "therefore lack of scientific evidence is proof of untruth" then makes a proclamation that "scinece has proved there's no God." yet there was no scinece used It was nothing more than his opinion that there's no scientific evdience.

earlier up there I made the argument that he's just doubting anything that supports his opinion as "scinece." that means his use of the term is meaningless. For "science" just means "this supports me." No scientific evidence could ever count against his view becasue then it ceases to be scinece.

And besides, there are no such views that are valid. Like I've said, science IS the way we come to KNOW things. Everything else is jut belief and if it has any correspondence to reality it is coincidental. Of course if you lack the objective standard of science (which is how we KNOW things) then you have no way of knowing whether your beliefs are correct or incorrect.

What other group uses science to confirm it's cherished doxa without critical thinking and when the evdience doesn't support it they declare it invalid science?[/quote]
I think you are confusing the use of science as a tool to distill knowledge from belief as a sort of dogma or worship of science. That simply is not the case, science is used because it works.
If you think it doesn't, explain why you think it doesn't. I've asked you to do this several times over the course of the time we've been interacting with each other and you have NEVER presented other valid kinds of knowledge that aren't subject to the scientific method. The reason you haven't is simple, there simply isn't any.