Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm
There was one, but one of them deleted it again before other could read it. Both have a few hours yet.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 188
Threads: 11
Joined: August 28, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Damn ... why all this waiting!!!!
"We need not suppose more things to exist than are absolutely neccesary." William of Occam
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt" William Shakespeare (Measure for Measure: Act 1, Scene 4)
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Meanwhile both opening shots are posted. Any comments so far?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 1694
Threads: 24
Joined: August 28, 2008
Reputation:
22
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 12, 2009 at 2:00 pm
It's sort of like the build up towards the Tyson/Holyfield fight which ended in Tyson biting a chunck off of Holyfields ear.Pretty climactic huh?LOL
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I find it interesting how they both mentioned NOMA.
I agree that without actual evidence then all religions claims can just be rejected by science.
But I wonder sometimes if "God" really is a scientific hypothesis since he's unfalsifiable and undetectable.
I know Dawkins thinks he is anyway because 'science deals with existence claims'. But I talked with Adrian about it on MSN and I'm not so sure...because is it really a scientific hypothesis if the claim is of a nature that is undetectable and unfalsifiable by science?
But either way of course - "God" can be safely discarded by science because not only is there no known scientific evidence of God (and arguably there can't be since he is unfalsifiable and unprobable) but there is no known evidence at all. And we don't know anything that would be valid other than science anyway (and it looks like science perhaps can't be - because as I said, "God" is unfalsifiable and unprovable) - it looks like God 'can't win' (so far as we know there is no evidence of "God" of any form - he can be safely discarded even if only for this reason alone, regardless of just how improbable he is)
Yeah so I find the whole NOMA thing interesting - how they both mentioned it in their opening posts.
I wonder what that will lead to. I find that interesting.
EvF
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: [split] God(s), Science & Evidence - Comments thread
May 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Which is why as a referee, I will not get into the content of the debate. But I agree both parties did make a very good opening statement.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you