Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm
(This post was last modified: September 17, 2014 at 8:28 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hold up.... so you're saying that science is based upon the "best guess for now"? No proof is required then? So if the best guess for how the universe was created is God (which has never been disproven), why don't you accept this scientific method?
"Best Guess" is not the best way to phrase what the scientific method leads to.
Science observes and records facts. Facts are actually easy to come by.
Once a set of facts are observed, science then comes up with the best explanation for the facts. The explanation of the facts is the most important thing science does. Best explanation given current facts, is a better way to put it.
Maybe the best guess for the formation of stars are giant, galactic, invisible penguins that craps out stars? After all, giant, galactic, invisible star shitting penguins have never been disproven, right?
You REALLY need to read a bit about basic logic. Specifically the burden of proof. Because you suck at it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm
(September 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (September 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hold up.... so you're saying that science is based upon the "best guess for now"? No proof is required then? So if the best guess for how the universe was created is God (which has never been disproven), why don't you accept this scientific method?
Look up the difference between "proof" and "evidence".
While you're about it, check out what the scientific method has to say about the burden of proof. (Yes, I recognise how contradictory that sounds. I didn't choose the language. Had I been consulted, I daresay it would have a much better name.)
Here you go, from dictionary.com
evidence
1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 17, 2014 at 8:39 pm
Very good. Now give the rest of the citations.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 4738
Threads: 7
Joined: October 17, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm
(September 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (September 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hold up.... so you're saying that science is based upon the "best guess for now"? No proof is required then? So if the best guess for how the universe was created is God (which has never been disproven), why don't you accept this scientific method?
"Best Guess" is not the best way to phrase what the scientific method leads to.
Science observes and records facts. Facts are actually easy to come by.
Once a set of facts are observed, science then comes up with the best explanation for the facts. The explanation of the facts is the most important thing science does. Best explanation given current facts, is a better way to put it.
Maybe the best guess for the formation of stars are giant, galactic, invisible penguins that craps out stars? After all, giant, galactic, invisible star shitting penguins have never been disproven, right?
You REALLY need to read a bit about basic logic. Specifically the burden of proof. Because you suck at it.
I'ts obvious you guys don't detect the sarcasm in my reply to FatAndFaithless,. I guess the emoticon wasn't enough. You should be explaining the scientific method to him, since he's the one that made the statement.
Posts: 716
Threads: 43
Joined: March 20, 2014
Reputation:
10
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 17, 2014 at 8:55 pm
(September 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'ts obvious you guys don't detect the sarcasm in my reply to FatAndFaithless,. I guess the emoticon wasn't enough. Welcome to my world.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 18, 2014 at 7:42 am
In my opinion, anyone who thinks they are 100% certain of anything is deluded. It's impossible.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 18, 2014 at 10:31 am
Are you 100% certain of that?
[/eric_hovind]
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 18, 2014 at 10:44 am
Certainly not
Posts: 10680
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 18, 2014 at 10:57 am
(September 17, 2014 at 8:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hold up.... so you're saying that science is based upon the "best guess for now"? No proof is required then? So if the best guess for how the universe was created is God (which has never been disproven), why don't you accept this scientific method?
What makes something the BEST guess is that it's got the most evidence in its favor. God is just a guess.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
September 18, 2014 at 11:02 am
There's a difference between a guess and an estimate.
|