Continued Discussion with cls515

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

You test a hypothesis to PROVE or disprove it.
If you hypothesize there is a god, YOU have to devise a test to prove such. If you put forth a hypothesis, without any corroborating evidence, your hypothesis will be summarily rejected.

Using your incorrect idea of the scientific method, if I were to say I have an invisible 60' tall shit monster in my back yard, the burden would be on you to prove my statement false.

---

This is taken from Wikipedia:
Experiments
Main article: Experiments
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls515

This is taken from Wikipedia:
Experiments
Main article: Experiments
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing.

---

From the National Academy of Science...A hypothesis is a possible answer to a question about something that is observed. Scientists will determine if a hypothesis is accurate by comparing it to observations relevant to the question asked. If the observations and the hypothesis conflict, the hypothesis is rejected.


You cannot make observations about something supernatural or not based in reality. Therefore, you cannot inject religion, or the hand of a god, into a scientific observation.

The complexity of lifes processes are observed and explained with greater clarity and understanding every day, including the structure and action/interactions of proteins. A god never enters into the equation.

Religion lives outside the boundry of reality. It is fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Using your incorrect idea of the scientific method, if I were to say I have an invisible 60' tall shit monster in my back yard, the burden would be on you to prove my statement false.

---

Oh thank God!

You found Stinky! I've been looking all over for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

From the National Academy of Science...A hypothesis is a possible answer to a question about something that is observed. Scientists will determine if a hypothesis is accurate by comparing it to observations relevant to the question asked. If the observations and the hypothesis conflict, the hypothesis is rejected.


You cannot make observations about something supernatural or not based in reality. Therefore, you cannot inject religion, or the hand of a god, into a scientific observation.

The complexity of lifes processes are observed and explained with greater clarity and understanding every day, including the structure and action/interactions of proteins. A god never enters into the equation.

Religion lives outside the boundry of reality. It is fiction.

---

Nice to see you are starting to understand the scientific method. I don't think it is accurate to say religion is fiction because it lives outside the boundary of reality. All you are saying is it lives outside the boundary of reality.

But what is your definition of reality? Again from Wickipedia: Reality in everyday usage means "everything that exists". The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature).

I don't think God is bounded by anything. But that doesn't tell me he is fiction. It tells me He is omnipotent. Is there any scientific proof? Not any that I am aware of. If you have scientific proof God is omnipotent, then faith is removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls515

Nice to see you are starting to understand the scientific method. I don't think it is accurate to say religion is fiction because it lives outside the boundary of reality. All you are saying is it lives outside the boundary of reality.

But what is your definition of reality? Again from Wickipedia: Reality in everyday usage means "everything that exists". The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature).

I don't think God is bounded by anything. But that doesn't tell me he is fiction. It tells me He is omnipotent. Is there any scientific proof? Not any that I am aware of. If you have scientific proof God is omnipotent, then faith is removed.

---

Nice try at the condescension, but it was you who was having trouble with the scientific method. Since science doesn't deal in the supernatural or make-believe, let's try a few definitions to see if you can grasp my main point...

Faith= belief that is not based on proof.

Belief= something believed; an opinion or conviction ie. a belief that the earth is flat.

Conviction= a fixed or firm belief. Gettin kinda circular now.:smiley2:

And my personal favorites...
Opinion= a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Fantasy= a supposition based on no solid foundation.

You can live in your fantasy based world if you want, more power to you. I, however, prefer to live in the fact based World.
The bible will remain a work of fiction, unless you can find a way to PROVE the wild tales within.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Nice try at the condescension, but it was you who was having trouble with the scientific method.

---

I don't think so. It was you who said you test a hypothesis to prove it, which, is incorrect. But I'm not out to argue religion or science with you. Because I don't have to prove myself or my religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

Since science doesn't deal in the supernatural or make-believe, let's try a few definitions to see if you can grasp my main point...

Faith= belief that is not based on proof.

Belief= something believed; an opinion or conviction ie. a belief that the earth is flat.

Conviction= a fixed or firm belief. Gettin kinda circular now.:smiley2:

And my personal favorites...
Opinion= a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Fantasy= a supposition based on no solid foundation.

You can live in your fantasy based world if you want, more power to you. I, however, prefer to live in the fact based World.
The bible will remain a work of fiction, unless you can find a way to PROVE the wild tales within.

---

I feel the Bible has to remain at least possible for truth until someone disproves it. Which, will never happen because it is true. I understand you are of the world.

What did grandpa tell you NOT to discuss? Hmmmmm, I think it was "politics" and "religion."

Geez, barry just can't help himself with his political bullshit and now he's spewing more bullshit on the religion front.:smiley29: Barry, how fucking stupid and stubborn can one person possibly be?

I too have some extremely strong "religious" beliefs but out of respect for others who have extremely strong opposing views on the subject, I keep my big fuggen mouth SHUT because it's NOT WORTH pissing people off over especially on a CIGAR BOARD. :smiley29: