Worlds most retarded state senator (of today)

Damocles said:
Foot prints, prey bones, etc. You are getting tired. A physical being will leave evidence. See if when you walk around its "lair" if you walk into huge piles of invisible poop.

One can also test, like they do with psychic powers the hypothesis of "magic", to see if you can replicate it or cause it to repeat consistently. See whether or not nearby stock animals disappear to a roar from a creature they can't see. Does it find virgins particularly tasty? Yeah, somebody could test for such a thing if there were any physical evidence at all.

If the creature existed, and evidence could be collected, like Sasquatch, you might even get a group of people to believe that it existed.

Now again, how do you test for a Supreme All Powerful, all knowing, being that doesn't follow any of the laws of physics and isn't tangible in any way?

God is outside of science because it is untestable. If you cannot devise a reliable test of any sort, it is outside of any ability for the scientific method to prove or disprove. It is impossible even to collect evidence other than that of anecdotal nature.
Click to expand...

It's untestable to our current science. God could very well exist within the realm of science, but merely be untestable without further advancement of our methods.

Getting back to the original topic of the thread; perhaps the wording is a bit harsh, but at what point would such a belief be embarassing for you? Would it be embarassing, say, if most of our politicians believed that the earth was 6,000 years old? Would it be embarassing at all if our educational curriculum was changed to reflect that, or if children were taught that no physical science or scientific conclusions were reliable, because it's possible some higher being was involved in some way that either made it illusion or otherwise impossible to trust our own senses?

What would that say to the world? What would it do to the field of science?

Now, none of this is going to happen, but I think it gets into a pretty fuzzy, risky area when we start trying to minimize science & the scientific method by inserting the God variable, thus undermining every conclusion that we've ever learned about the earth & the universe (which is basically what you've been doing).
 
Onceler said:
It's untestable to our current science. God could very well exist within the realm of science, but merely be untestable without further advancement of our methods.
Click to expand...

True, there may one day be somebody that will devise a reliable test for this.

Getting back to the original topic of the thread; perhaps the wording is a bit harsh, but at what point would such a belief be embarassing for you? Would it be embarassing, say, if most of our politicians believed that the earth was 6,000 years old? Would it be embarassing at all if our educational curriculum was changed to reflect that, or if children were taught that no physical science or scientific conclusions were reliable, because it's possible some higher being was involved in some way that either made it illusion or otherwise impossible to trust our own senses?
Click to expand...
Again, one does not have to distrust their own senses. To humans billions of years really did pass, it is only to this Supreme Being that it passed in such a short time frame. Much like the hypothetical person traveling close to the speed of light. Much time passes, but for him it may only be a matter of hours.

What would that say to the world? What would it do to the field of science?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all, because it fits within that framework. The time passed differently for the being making the description of six days truth at the same time that all the evolution, etc that was necessary happened. Again, see the example of the hypothetical traveler.

Now, none of this is going to happen, but I think it gets into a pretty fuzzy, risky area when we start trying to minimize science & the scientific method by inserting the God variable, thus undermining every conclusion that we've ever learned about the earth & the universe (which is basically what you've been doing).
Click to expand...
I believe that it solidifies the scientific method, it doesn't take anything from it. I think that you are again misreading what I have stated. Such a time differential could explain the necessary time that we see evidence of, while at the same time explaining the Creation myth. Much like uscitizen's example earlier, the church now looks differently at what the book explains when coupled with knowledge that the earth is not the center of the universe.

In other words, one does not need to reject science to believe in the Creation myth. The two are not incompatible depending on how you look at what was said...

'And God said, "Let there be light!" (Big bang, couple of billion years to us corporal beings, a few seconds to the Supreme Being)... Then God separated the Light from the Darkeness (matter collecting, stars forming, couple of billion years for us, a few hours to that Supreme Being...)

To a person who believed this way, science becomes "How did He do that?" Nothing is taken from the scientific method, our senses are not "tricked", you can rely as readily on what you see as you ever have...
 
"In other words, one does not need to reject science to believe in the Creation myth. The two are not incompatible depending on how you look at what was said...

'And God said, "Let there be light!" (Big bang, couple of billion years to us corporal beings, a few seconds to the Supreme Being)... Then God separated the Light from the Darkeness (matter collecting, stars forming, couple of billion years for us, a few hours to that Supreme Being...)

To a person who believed this way, science becomes "How did He do that?" Nothing is taken from the scientific method, our senses are not "tricked", you can rely as readily on what you see as you ever have... "

There is a HUGE difference between that example, and the one you were arguing previously about it being possible that God made billions of years actually pass very quickly, so it would be possible to perceive it as 6,000 years or interpret it that way.

I can understand trying to read theological interpretations and match them up to what science has concluded - let there be light = big bang, ID = evolution, etc. That is not the same as saying a 6,000 year old earth could be correct, because maybe God compressed the years. That is a stretch, and a big one, and it DOES undermine the science on that issue, whether we're talking about physical science in general, or anthropology, or geology, or radiation testing, or whatever it is. To me, it makes a mockery of the scientific conclusions on the matter, and it's not because I don't have an "open mind."
 
Onceler said:
"In other words, one does not need to reject science to believe in the Creation myth. The two are not incompatible depending on how you look at what was said...

'And God said, "Let there be light!" (Big bang, couple of billion years to us corporal beings, a few seconds to the Supreme Being)... Then God separated the Light from the Darkeness (matter collecting, stars forming, couple of billion years for us, a few hours to that Supreme Being...)

To a person who believed this way, science becomes "How did He do that?" Nothing is taken from the scientific method, our senses are not "tricked", you can rely as readily on what you see as you ever have... "

There is a HUGE difference between that example, and the one you were arguing previously about it being possible that God made billions of years actually pass very quickly, so it would be possible to perceive it as 6,000 years or interpret it that way.

I can understand trying to read theological interpretations and match them up to what science has concluded - let there be light = big bang, ID = evolution, etc. That is not the same as saying a 6,000 year old earth could be correct, because maybe God compressed the years. That is a stretch, and a big one, and it DOES undermine the science on that issue, whether we're talking about physical science in general, or anthropology, or geology, or radiation testing, or whatever it is. To me, it makes a mockery of the scientific conclusions on the matter, and it's not because I don't have an "open mind."
Click to expand...
No, there is no difference, it was what I said. God made billions of years pass in a matter of days. <- This is a simplified version.

This is a normal conversation, we start with base ideas then expand on them. However what I just described fits directly into what I previously stated. God made billions of years pass in a matter of days. How would your perspective be changed if this God, like the hypothetical traveler, simply had a different perspective on time? How would that undermine the scientific method in any way? We live within our own perspective.
 
Onceler said:
I don't necessarily disagree with most of that.

However, it's a bit too convenient of a fallback on this one. If the scientific evidence is pretty well stacked for an earth that is billions of years old, it's nothing more than a debate-ender for someone to say "well, God probably wanted it to look that way."

You could end just about any debate that way...
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the way God wanted the debates to end!! :cof1:
 
Damocles said:
God is outside of science because it is untestable. If you cannot devise a reliable test of any sort, it is outside of any ability for the scientific method to prove or disprove. It is impossible even to collect evidence other than that of anecdotal nature and because of this no Hypothesis could be devised so that it can be tested.
Click to expand...

Again... special pleading. To claim that something is "outside" of knowledge is the definition of a special pleading.
 
Damocles said:
True, there may one day be somebody that will devise a reliable test for this.
Click to expand...

And if it comes out negative, how do you think the religious will respond? Will they devise a new hypothesis to explain their theory, and test it, and if no hypothesis or test proves correct abandon the theory?

Or will they evoke a new random special pleading? Saying that it is, again, beyond "human" knowledge, and denying for some arbitrary reason that the test results matter?

Which do you consider more likely?
 
Last edited:
Is this shit still on?

I would have thought that by now the persuasive 'magic stuff might happen' argument would have won the day and we'd all be preparing to throw the Earth a birthday party that any 6,001 year old would be proud of.
 
Damocles said:
Foot prints, prey bones, etc. You are getting tired. A physical being will leave evidence. See if when you walk around its "lair" if you walk into huge piles of invisible poop.

One can also test, like they do with psychic powers the hypothesis of "magic", to see if you can replicate it or cause it to repeat consistently. See whether or not nearby stock animals disappear to a roar from a creature they can't see. Does it find virgins particularly tasty? Yeah, somebody could test for such a thing if there were any physical evidence at all.

If the creature existed, and evidence could be collected, like Sasquatch, you might even get a group of people to believe that it existed.

Now again, how do you test for a Supreme All Powerful, all knowing, being that doesn't follow any of the laws of physics and isn't tangible in any way, one that doesn't want to be proven?

God is outside of science because it is untestable. If you cannot devise a reliable test of any sort, it is outside of any ability for the scientific method to prove or disprove. It is impossible even to collect evidence other than that of anecdotal nature and because of this no Hypothesis could be devised so that it can be tested.
Click to expand...

"God" is outside of science because it doesn't exist except in the mind of the believer.

You can continue with the hocus-pocus that no oine can prove he (laughable) doesn't exist .. but can you prove that Santa doesn't exist? Your argument is known as the Santa rational. Santa is outside science just like your "God" .. and they both should be viewed with the exact same eye.
 
blackascoal said:
"God" is outside of science because it doesn't exist except in the mind of the believer.

You can continue with the hocus-pocus that no oine can prove he (laughable) doesn't exist .. but can you prove that Santa doesn't exist? Your argument is known as the Santa rational. Santa is outside science just like your "God" .. and they both should be viewed with the exact same eye.
Click to expand...
It's not "my" God. All of this is simply direct relate-able information. If you cannot test for it, it is not and cannot be science.
 
Damocles said:
It's not "my" God. All of this is simply direct relatable information. If you cannot test for it, it is not and cannot be science.
Click to expand...

Just to get this straight in my head (and bear in mind the drinks) you're not actually saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old are you, Damo?

With all this fannying about round the original point i kind of lost where we actually were.
 
charver said:
Just to get this straight in my head (and bear in mind the drinks) you're not actually saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old are you, Damo?

With all this fannying about round the original point i kind of lost where we actually were.
Click to expand...
Of course I am not saying that.. *sigh*...
 
Damocles said:
Of course I am not saying that.. *sigh*...
Click to expand...

I did say i was slightly tiddly (i can't believe i'm using that word, which reinforces the original point) so you can do the sighing thing as much as you like.

I would still assert that if people hadn't been so (i'm thinking of a word i can't remember now) obtuse? then this thread would have remained stranded on one single page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top