Evidence for God from Science

Well, I just say you fellows certainly are charmers, Im sure you have great success with all the ladies.

K challenges me to prove something

Prove to me that Positivism is true based upon your same criteria for justification.

that I dont espouse and that cant be proved. Not that anything can be proved to a 'philosopher", as there is always another argument.

I wont play the game, so that calls for insults; that I am "childish, silly". Whatever poop he tossed out in his last post there. If this were the 19th century, I suppose he'd want to dip my hair in the inkwell to get some attention.

B makes things up like "general scientific proofs", a completely absurd concept that he wont own, saying I took it out of context, makes up other things and then attributes them to me. So I am silly and asinine, not being willing to play his game either.

His grand announcement that he has proof of god (absolute proof, at that) is a good match for the other nonsense he made up, like, "general scientific proofs". Zero credibility.

Sorry about sticking my toe in your playpen. May you two succeed in keeping everyone out, and be triumphant in your little pen.

PaulSacramento wrote:
I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?

You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?

So, Paul, dont want you to be hurt coz i left you out of the post about charmers who make things up. ( ie lie about someone, trying to make their shabby point)

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.

You state this and yet affrim that:

Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.

I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?

You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?

You may not be a theoretical astrophysicist but if you are, then you know more than I; still, I dont think anyone exactly has it nailed down, not by a long shot. So as it is, neither of us knows the origin of the universe. I dont know that it disqualifies me from having an opinion such as that I dont think some god did it.

I did not say that I cant understand the '"concept of physics", nor did I make the argument you thought of for me about how physics show there is no god. I said nothing remotely like that. Im curious how you got those ideas.


Words like "insinuate', "reject', 'admit" all have very negative uses, such as those to which you put them. None of those words are properly applied I gave an opinion about the lack of physical evidence for a god, there is nothing there that is an insinuation, not in tone or content. Nor did I reject (refuse to consider) nor admit (reluctantly confess).
anything.

Did I do something to offend, such as calls forthis aggressive tone from you?

I asked you to clear up your line of reasoning because it didn't seem to make any sense to me, that's all.

Audie wrote:B makes things up like "general scientific proofs", a completely absurd concept that he wont own, saying I took it out of context, makes up other things and then attributes them to me. So I am silly and asinine, not being willing to play his game either.

His grand announcement that he has proof of god (absolute proof, at that) is a good match for the other nonsense he made up, like, "general scientific proofs". Zero credibility.

Sorry about sticking my toe in your playpen. May you two succeed in keeping everyone out, and be triumphant in your little pen.

Credibility is not exactly your strong suit considering you've done nothing but get hung up on 2 words I repeatedly corrected what I meant by them while you completely refuse to engage in any meaningful conversation about either philosphy or science. That's just total intellectual dishonesty. But I will still give you the benefit of the doubt so any time you're done obfuscating and want to engage in a conversation about the assertions I've made and am ready to back up (unlike you) just let me know. Until then, as I said, good luck to you, you're gonna need it.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?

You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?

So, Paul, dont want you to be hurt coz i left you out of the post about charmers who make things up. ( ie lie about someone, trying to make their shabby point)

I don't get hurt.
I stop trying to convince skeptics a long time ago.
I simply give a rational account for why I believe, whether a skeptic understands or agrees is up to them.

You state that you don't have a full understanding of the universe and then state that the universe doesn't show evidence for God.
That sounds a bit silly to me because on one hand you admit you don't understand the universe completely ( not that anyone does) BUT then you state that, even in face of your self-proclaimed lack of knowledge, that you do NOT see any evidence for God in the universe EVEN THOUGH you do NOT fully understand the universe.

That is like someone saying that they don't fully know all the different species of swans BUT because they have no evidence for a black swan, they they do NOT exist.

See the issue?

I saw this thread was started 9/26 and had 6 pages of responses. Then I realized that it was 9/26/13.
I was ready for the discussion of the century!!

jlay wrote:I saw this thread was started 9/26 and had 6 pages of responses. Then I realized that it was 9/26/13.
I was ready for the discussion of the century!!