I thought Satan’s surname was Weinstein.
1 Like
Obviously, dinosaurs came from eggs.
Yair.
Eggs obviously came first because preceding animals laid eggs.
Dinosaurs from eggs? I think that’s pretty well established. I think the current view is dinosaurs are closer to birds than to lizards.
And rabbits stopped chewing their cud while the Bible was being built, about the same time bats became birds but well after serpents stopped speaking.
1 Like
Rubbish, you do know that in the US atheism is vastly highly in among people who have been through higher education, and in the elite Academy of Sciences it is almost the reverse to the general population.
Why do theists lie so shamelessly, and in here of all places?
No, this is the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you have been using for months, and you know it by now. So this is not ignorance on your part anymore, it’s rank dishonesty to claim that a known logical fallacy is based on logic, when you know the opposite is true, and that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.
Again why do theists lie so shamelessly, and in here of all places?
There is more than enough evidence to suggest that aFirst Cause - Creator - God is responsible for the physical universe . You dismiss them , I accept them .
There isn’t any evidence, as your posts have amply demonstrated again and again. Again it is baffling what you hope to gain by lying so shamelessly?
Science can’t falsify theories .
Another lie, it has been painstakingly explained to you, that all scientific ideas must be falsifiable, they would not become scientific theories if there were no way to falsify them, it is your god claim that is unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.
Appeal to authority , haha . I’m a bloody prophet . Any fallacy’s to throw in as well ?
An appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, if the expertise being cited is being cited on something that is properly evidenced and is supported by a broad scientific consensus because it is peer reviewed for example.
1 Like
I can only speculate:
⸸ They imitate the “logic” of the bible book they are a-thumping, believing it applies universally
☭ They are unable/have not learned/have unlearned to distinguish true statements from false statements
⛧ They actually do not know any better
Cognitive dissonance
⁶⁶⁶ A belief that the means justify the ends, i.e. that it is cool to lie in the name of Jesus
Again, this is only speculation. Maybe the apologist in question can fill in the details?
4 Likes
AND you brought up philosophy. I love mind candy, so let’s play a game. Just a game to test your approach to spiritual games. This is just a for fun exercise, and for the most part, I’d like to play with FlyingPig 
Are you game … willing to put your reasoning abilities to the test? (Falsifiability)
1 Like
Here is an example of a theory that could be falsified.
When Einstein proposed his ideas on relativity, it was not initially accepted by the scientific community. That is because it had not been tested for falsifiability. In 1919 Eddington studied a full eclipse to test Einstein’s proposition. According to Einstein’s calculations, the gravity of our Sun would bend light waves. And during the eclipse, a sun was not observed where it should be, it’s apparent position had moved, according to Einstein’s calculations.
If the apparent location of that sun had not changed, it would have falsified Einstein’s proposition, destroying it. But instead, the observations matched Einstein’s calculations, the scientific community woke up, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was accepted.
3 Likes
Using falsifiability when applied to the subject we were discussing - causation, the Big Bang- means that the arrow of time stops at the Big Bang and there can be no scientific knowledge of the cause of the singularity or anything else before time began . So scientism by its own method has declared something is unknowable based upon its own reasoning, that’s about as unscientific as you can get .
Falsifiability is a big problem when your scientific speciality is the multi verse . Sean Carroll for one would like to change the rules of the game ( not surprising really )This is from 6 years ago .
The comment section was predictable 
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/
There are plenty of things that you believe in that you cannot measure . Think about it .
——–
“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.”
— Max Planck , the Nobel Prize winning physicist who made the crucial scientific contribution of founding quantum physics. Planck was a devout Christian and a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.
Yes … and??? He was a theist. Did he call his discovery of quantum “god”?
I don’t get your point…’are you changing your “I don’t know” Which is honest TO what???
1 Like
“Argument from Authority” Max Planck is a Physicist. It does not follow that he knows a damn thing about theology.
There can be no opposition between science and religion because science seeks facts, evidence and empirical data, of which, religion has none. Blind inane assertions ARE NOT FACTS and do not COUNT AS EVIDENCE.
Demonstrate that a soul exists or clarify what you mean by the term. Soul in the OT simply means living. ie. “27 souls lost at sea.” If you have another version of the word, let us know.
Indeed it was not. The Churches had all the power and all the money. If you wanted to learn to read or write, there was only one place to do it. And doing it was for the “Glory of God.” for not to do it the way the Church wanted you to do it meant DEATH. Of course history’s greatest thinkers were religious! “What choice did they have?”
3 Likes
What I don’t understand is why you feel this in anyway “proves” or gives demonstrable evidence (at a higher standard) for god. It is Planks words not his research. If anything it shows that the scientific method removes bias from facts.
Here, he would be motivated by his faith (if I were to take your quote on your word, that’s OK, I don’t care) to “find” god. He found quantum. And it’s useful in real life. And it explains deeper the make up of the universe in a smaller scale.
Nash (mathematician) was schizophrenic. And the scientific method didn’t say “oh, he has a mental illness, cut him some slack”. NOPE. He had his own share of delusions and they didn’t interfere with his economic theory.
YOUR point of this smart person believes/believes so I can too isn’t convincing. It might be convincing for YOU, that’s fine- but it doesn’t get anyone anywhere closer to “truth”.
I was thinking about posting a quote from my barber Vinny who expressed the exact same sentiments about falsifiability. He said , and I quote “ how can you falsify a truth statement “ I scratched my newly cut head and decided that you lot would only accuse me of the using the appealing to “ absolutely no authority whatsoever “ trick so I stuck with Max .
You have to demonstrate the statement is true to begin with.
What on earth does the arrow of time have to do with falsifiability? That doesn’t make any sense. An epistemology doesn’t change based on when time started.
Here is the definition of science from the science counsel: “is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” Notice the “systematic methodology based on evidence part”, that is epistemology. Science doesn’t declare things unknowable, things that are unfalsifiable inherently cannot be falsified. Can you prove that leprechauns don’t exist? Science isn’t just blindly guessing at stuff.
Congratulations, you found an article online, it must be true then. I don’t think you really thought about this yourself. Oh wait, he didn’t offer up any more evidence than you. He said that falsifiability is “more philosophical than scientific”. No shit, it is an epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy like I said. The scientific method is an epistemology too but should we abandon it as well because we can’t make up the theories we want? Basically the article says that it should be retired, and like you, does not offer up any concrete evidence as to why. He is just going to make the believe what I want. Which is exactly what you are doing.
Yes, his article is laughable because he doesn’t understand falsifiable and doesn’t give any good reasons why it should be replaced. It is the same: “There are complicated things out there so I want to make up my own models and act like I have evidence for them.”
We are making a tiny bit of progress. You finally told us that you don’t think fallibility is worth using. You still haven’t give us a concrete reason why isn’t worth using. You also haven’t given us something to replace it with or why you should just make things up and believe those instead. I would like to hear your own thoughts, not just some articles you link us. How do you decide what made up things to put in your model? The reason why science has advanced as much as it has was the epistemological changes that were made. Again, what is your epistemology??
Again- there are plenty of things I have confidence in based on many factors - from person experience ie. I dream quite vividly every night. I am pretty confident or believe I’ll dream tonight.
To - Normally, I’m a safe driver so I’m pretty confident or believe I can get to wherever I’m going safely.
Etc
Etc
You tell me what you ate for breakfast. Do I believe you? Pretty confident you’re not lying to me. Eating breakfast is fairly common and something I’ve experienced daily and food is a necessity of the human body. So, say you’re lying 
and you didn’t eat breakfast (and you think it’s funny I believed you). No sweat off my skin - believing or giving a benefit of doubt isn’t “costing” me anything, and who really cares if you are… (but it would give me factual information to character of a person).
Faith in god is baseless and indemonstrable. It can be “there”. It can be a feeling. There may be reasons (not good ones or very low evidence standard).
TheFlyingPig is a troll. I am disconnecting from him.
1 Like
non sequitur? 