(03-15-2011, 05:13 PM)Mous Wrote: [ -> ]Definitions of observation on the Web:
the act of making and recording a measurement
a remark expressing careful consideration
facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor"
notice: the act of noticing or paying attention;
I'm pretty sure I know what the word means, I'm also pretty sure that
you can OBSERVE "Holy days/beings/traditions/doctrines" etc.
The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.
Also, this sounds like a gigantic excuse for not giving an explanation.
this isn't an argument that provides proof of any sort,
quite honestly this just utilizing a straw man to try to
NOT have to provide any sort of proof at all. This honestly sounds like
something a scientist would say when he can't back up his statement
just so he doesn't sound like he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just guessing.
(Maybe an educated guess, but still a guess.)
Well I have always heard I should be a scientist.
lmao I also do understand that , god cant be proven nor disproven. It's a debate on a website. Opens new ideas and theories to vast amount of users on this site. Yes I agree Agnostics win.
I have read all posts on this thread, and what Mous has said in my opinion is by far the most logical & reasonable explanation.
I'm 100% with everything you have mentioned.
(03-15-2011, 05:13 PM)Mous Wrote: [ -> ]Definitions of observation on the Web:
the act of making and recording a measurement
a remark expressing careful consideration
facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor"
notice: the act of noticing or paying attention;
I'm pretty sure I know what the word means, I'm also pretty sure that
you can OBSERVE "Holy days/beings/traditions/doctrines" etc.
The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.
Also, this sounds like a gigantic excuse for not giving an explanation.
this isn't an argument that provides proof of any sort,
quite honestly this just utilizing a straw man to try to
NOT have to provide any sort of proof at all. This honestly sounds like
something a scientist would say when he can't back up his statement
just so he doesn't sound like he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just guessing.
(Maybe an educated guess, but still a guess.)
(03-15-2011, 05:12 PM)Socrates Wrote: [ -> ]Whatever, the debate has gotten out of hand. Anyway all opinions open. Theist prove your god. Atheist prove why there is no god. Ready? Set ! GO!
Maybe you don't understand;
God can't be proven/disproven.
Agnostics win.
Atheists don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof lies on religion's shoulders.
It's always up to the people making wild, illogical claims to provide proof over the logical answers.
(03-15-2011, 05:30 PM)Swat Runs Train Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you don't understand;
God can't be proven/disproven.
Agnostics win.
I agree, but it's still a healthy debate.
Atheists don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof lies on religion's shoulders.
It's always up to the people making wild, illogical claims to provide proof over the logical answers.
[/quote]
(03-15-2011, 05:30 PM)Swat Runs Train Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you don't understand;
God can't be proven/disproven.
Agnostics win.
Atheists don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof lies on religion's shoulders.
It's always up to the people making wild, illogical claims to provide proof over the logical answers.
[/quote]
Prove that the theory of relativity isn't a wild illogical claim.
Also, science is saying that the universe came from an absence of existence.
How is that not wild/illogical?
That's the most egotistical thing I've ever heard.
Nobody is exempt from proving their statements, regardless of what
they're proving.
(03-15-2011, 05:37 PM)Mous Wrote: [ -> ]Prove that the theory of relativity isn't a wild illogical claim.
Also, science is saying that the universe came from an absence of existence.
How is that not wild/illogical?
That's the most egotistical thing I've ever heard.
Nobody is exempt from proving their statements, regardless of what
they're proving.
Not all Atheists think the big bang is even correct, you need to brush up on the definition of Atheism, it isn't believing in science, it's simply a disbelief in deities.
(03-15-2011, 05:42 PM)Swat Runs Train Wrote: [ -> ]Not all Atheists think the big bang is even correct, you need to brush up on the definition of Atheism, it isn't believing in science, it's simply a disbelief in deities.
I'm pretty sure that OP related the lack of a belief in "God" and science
together. That was the entire reason I started saying "you can't prove
God with science". Maybe you should actually read the thread.
My point still remains valid, why are atheists exempt from having to provide
proof of God's non-existence?
The only way that someone would think that is if they took that
statement as an unalienable fact. "We don't have to prove God doesn't
exist, because him not existing is so OBVIOUS." That's like saying "I know
what *insert word* means!" but when asked to provide an explanation
the reply is "I don't have to! I don't want you to know!"
(03-15-2011, 05:49 PM)Socrates Wrote: [ -> ]Well spoken !
Read up, your first post had to do with science disproving God.
Don't agree with him, when that's what you've been saying the entire thread.
I can't put up much of an argument but you're asking who created God, if there were to be something or someone who created God, who created it? I read an article somewhere that basically said that many people believe in everything having a creator but there has to be one eternal creator which in this case, is God. I'm a Christian and I believe and have faith in God. Despite whatever is posted on this thread or anywhere else on the internet, I won't change.