10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI may well be wrong - I accept that. I said 'I do not believe in god' not 'I believe there is no god', there is a difference. In science we have this concept, that of Occams razor. Basically, the razor cuts away all the 'intellectual fat' that would accumulate otherwise. O/R basically states that we should accept the simplest plausible answer that accounts for the observed data. In the case of the universe, I see physical and chemical laws as sufficient in themselves to explain the way the universe is (by and large, there are still things that are being worked upon, such as the 'Theory of Everything' in physics). Therefore, without the necessity of god to explain things, the most parsimonious argument is that, for me at least, there is no requirement to incorporate god into my model.
We can prove the world ain't flat by observation, but there's no proof ever possible that there is no God. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong (assuming you say there is no God)?
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs you state, Occam's Razor is a scientific concept. It has little value in metaphysics.
I may well be wrong - I accept that. I said 'I do not believe in god' not 'I believe there is no god', there is a difference. In science we have this concept, that of Occams razor. Basically, the razor cuts away all the 'intellectual fat' that would accumulate otherwise. O/R basically states that we should accept the simplest plausible answer that a ...[text shortened]... ment is that, for me at least, there is no requirement to incorporate god into my model.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe question is, how do you differentiate between the existance or non-existance of either bigfoot or god.
The question is, how do you differentiate between the existance or non-existance of either bigfoot or god.
Your answer is that you use no logical distinction - only belief. For 500 years people believed the world was flat. They were wrong. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong?
Your answer is that you use no logical distinction - only belief.
No, that is not my answer. My answer is that proof needs to be sought after in order to be found.
For 500 years people believed the world was flat. They were wrong. What reason do you have to justify that you are not wrong?
When the polio virus was plaguing America, did the scientists give up because there was no proof of a cure? No, they applied themselves and found the cure.
Trouble is plaguing this world much like a disease. Our logic has only made it worse. If people lived the way God intended us to live, most of the trouble would be gone.
Matt 22:37-39 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
If people just followed this one little passage and rejected everything else that religion/spirituality has to offer, the world would be a much better place. What better reason is there?
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe fact that a small minority of scientists might argue a certain position does not mean that science itself takes such a position. It does not. Your argument is fallacious.
Because that’s what the scientists have told me. The body shuts down and that’s it. Are you a scientist? Do you believe that there are no atheistic scientists out there who would argue emphatically that there is no afterlife?
It’s my belief that science will prove one day that there is an afterlife, and science and religion will converge.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLast I checked the Christian scientists were in the minority. How do you know that only a “small minority” of scientists would argue that there is no afterlife? How do you know that the majority wouldn’t in fact argue this?
The fact that a small minority of scientists might argue a certain position does not mean that science itself takes such a position. It does not. Your argument is fallacious.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.
It seems that the scientists who “leave the question open” take an atheistic position by default. According to science without the chemical reactions of a body, there can be no consciousness, hence no afterlife.
10 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou're ignorance and arrogance is typical. Are you saying that only "Christian" scientists can believe in an afterlife? How about Muslim scientists? Or Hindu scientists? Do they count?
[b/]Last I checked the Christian scientists were in the minority. How do you know that only a “small minority” of scientists would argue that there is no afterlife? How do you know that the majority wouldn’t in fact argue this?
Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction ...[text shortened]... nce without the chemical reactions of a body, there can be no consciousness, hence no afterlife.
You made a claim; get some numbers to back your claim up. It's rubbish.
Please actually read my posts since you continue to be confused over what science does; it's takes no position on metaphysical issues.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI believe what #1 was referring to is that the majority of scientists would argue that there is no evidence of an afterlife rather than there is no afterlife. It's impossible to test, so a good scientist would only make the first statement and would be overstretching with the second.
Last I checked the Christian scientists were in the minority. How do you know that only a “small minority” of scientists would argue that there is no afterlife? How do you know that the majority wouldn’t in fact argue this?
Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. ...[text shortened]... nce without the chemical reactions of a body, there can be no consciousness, hence no afterlife.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, that is NOT what I am saying. The majority of scientists so far as I know DO believe in an afterlife and always have. They just believe the question is outside of science and hence not subject to scientific proof. Saying there is "no evidence of an afterlife" is an incorrect statement and an overstretch.
I believe what #1 was referring to is that the majority of scientists would argue that there is no evidence of an afterlife rather than there is no afterlife. It's impossible to test, so a good scientist would only make the first statement and would be overstretching with the second.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're ignorance and arrogance is typical. Are you saying that only "Christian" scientists can believe in an afterlife? How about Muslim scientists? Or Hindu scientists? Do they count?
You're ignorance and arrogance is typical. Are you saying that only "Christian" scientists can believe in an afterlife? How about Muslim scientists? Or Hindu scientists? Do they count?
You made a claim; get some numbers to back your claim up. It's rubbish.
Yes, they count. As usual you find it impossible to have a debate without your ignorance and arrogance coming out.
Originally posted by no1marauder
The fact that a small minority of scientists might argue a certain position does not mean that science itself takes such a position. It does not. Your argument is fallacious.
You made a claim; get some numbers to back your claim up. It's rubbish.[/b]
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree. I have seen no (credible) evidence of an afterlife. As C/E quotes me as saying there is no physical or chemical basis for an afterlife.
No, that is NOT what I am saying. The majority of scientists so far as I know DO believe in an afterlife and always have. They just believe the question is outside of science and hence not subject to scientific proof. Saying there is "no evidence of an afterlife" is an incorrect statement and an overstretch.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you recanting this statement?
I believe what #1 was referring to is that the majority of scientists would argue that there is no evidence of an afterlife rather than there is no afterlife. It's impossible to test, so a good scientist would only make the first statement and would be overstretching with the second.
What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.
We all know that spirits don’t rely on chemical reactions, only the physical does. If you believe what you said then you’re say that there is no afterlife.
Perhaps the more accurate position of science is that there is no afterlife until proven otherwise. Would you accept this?