Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm
Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.
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: 2088
Threads: 6
Joined: January 3, 2016
Reputation:
31
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm
(February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm)AAA Wrote: (February 19, 2016 at 11:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Then it is unscientific.
Ok, well then so is every speculation about the past
Define "Speculation about the past".
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 19, 2016 at 11:48 pm
(February 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm)Jello Wrote: (February 19, 2016 at 11:02 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, well then so is every speculation about the past
Define "Speculation about the past".
Any statement that you make concerning what happened in the unobserved past.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm
(February 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.
Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?
Posts: 2088
Threads: 6
Joined: January 3, 2016
Reputation:
31
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm
(February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm)AAA Wrote: (February 19, 2016 at 11:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.
Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?
Example, so i can give relevant arguments?
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 20, 2016 at 12:08 am
(February 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm)Jello Wrote: (February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?
Example, so i can give relevant arguments?
Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.
Posts: 2088
Threads: 6
Joined: January 3, 2016
Reputation:
31
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2016 at 12:22 am by Jello.)
(February 20, 2016 at 12:08 am)AAA Wrote: (February 19, 2016 at 11:50 pm)Jello Wrote: Example, so i can give relevant arguments?
Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.
Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence.
That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)
EDIT: Of course, that's not everything, merely one example. I can't be bothered to go into detail it's almost 4:30am and this is not that important
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am
(February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am)Jello Wrote: (February 20, 2016 at 12:08 am)AAA Wrote: Example of an unobservable historical event? The origin of life is what we were discussing.
Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence.
That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)
Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
Posts: 2088
Threads: 6
Joined: January 3, 2016
Reputation:
31
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 20, 2016 at 12:25 am
(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote: (February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am)Jello Wrote: Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence.
That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)
Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. For if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes unto you."
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?
February 20, 2016 at 12:29 am
(February 20, 2016 at 12:25 am)Jello Wrote: (February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote: Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.
Would it be magic if I went into the lab and added amino acids together in a desired sequence to get a protein? Why do you assume the designer just poofed it into existence? And nobody said the designer resides in the sky.
|