Forum Replies Created

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Thu, Oct 10, 2019 - 10:42am   (Reply to #76)

      #77
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder0

      re: Russell other idea

    Russell’s teapot is another very good example of science’s utter impotence.

    Science cannot prove that said teapot exists.

    Science cannot prove that said teapot does not exist.

    This does not mean that the teapot is there. Nor does it mean that the teapot is not there. It only means that science CANNOT TELL whether the teapot is there or not.

    Maybe some people believe there is no such teapot. They believe so based on FAITH alone.

    Maybe some people believe there actually is such a teapot. They, too, believe so based on FAITH alone.

    One may argue for hours about where the burden of proof lies, but in the end the same sobering truth reigns supreme: Science CANNOT TELL whether the teapot is there or not. And science can’t even calculate the probability for the existence of such a teapot.

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Bogdan.
    • Wed, Oct 09, 2019 - 10:59pm

      #75
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder1

      Science is utterly impotent…

    [I’m reposting this, since the original post disappeared after an edit.]

    Ever heard of Bertrand Russell’s joke called “Last Thursdayism”? The idea that the Universe, we & our lifetime memories were created last Thursday?

    Well, think about it for a few minutes, and you’ll see that science cannot argue in any way for or against it. If all scientists in the world joined their forces, they still couldn’t come up with a single argument for or against this “theory”.

    Even more, science can’t even calculate how likely or unlikely such a theory is. There is no math and no physics that can be employed in order to calculate the likelihood of this theory. It could be very likely, or very unlikely, there is no way to tell from a scientific point of view.

    Let’s be clear about this: science inability to deal with Last Thursdaysm (LT) dows not mean that LT is false. It only means that science cannot tell whether LT is true or false.

    Certainly, none of us believes in LT, but this is based 100% on pure faith alone, not at all on science.

    And if one says that if LT were true, than God would be a liar, let’s warn him that this argument (though a very good one) is a moral / theological argument, not at all a scientific one.

    After a few more minutes of thinking about LT, we realize there’s a very good reason for science’s utter impotence in regards to it: science cannot see into the past. Period.

    Science can build smartphones and space shuttles, but it cannot see into the past.

    Theories about the future can be verified. E.g. PeakProsperity predicts an economic crisis X months from now. Well, we just wait X months and see whether that happens of not.

    But theories about the past can never be verified. People can write millions of pages with theories about the past (Big Bang, evolution, world history, etc) but we can never go back in time and see whether those theories are real or not.

    The past cannot be proven. The past can only be believed.

    • Sat, Oct 05, 2019 - 11:45am   (Reply to #37)

      #41
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder0

      re: Morality without (unnecessary) Religion

    “an unnecessary Deity”

    This logical fallacy comes up way too often in debates.

    First of all, it is not true; God is absolutely necessary in order to explain life on Earth.

    Second, even if God were not necessary, even if, against all reason, life could have arisen and evolved all by itself, this doesn’t mean that it actually did so; it only means that it COULD have done so, not that it actually DID so.

    • Sat, Oct 05, 2019 - 11:41am   (Reply to #36)

      #40
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder1

      re: Hilarious

    “Mount Improbable” That was refuted so many times. Its arguments are so weak, a high-school graduate can easily refute them.

    • Fri, Oct 04, 2019 - 05:18am   (Reply to #8)

      #32
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder2

      re: re: Separation of Hope from Religion

    That is surprising… God does not allow us to study Him in a lab, nor His miracles… This is why I found it surprising that an experiment was able to prove that prayers are working.

     

    Anyway, it’s interesting to notice that some people would interpret this as evidence for “consciousness acting at a distance.”

     

    What if a large banner appears in the heavens: “GOD DOES EXIST!” What would this mean? That God exists? Or that an advanced alien civilization is making fun of us?

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Bogdan.
    • Fri, Oct 04, 2019 - 05:12am

      #31
      Bogdan

      Bogdan

      Status Member (Offline)

      Joined: Sep 25 2019

      Posts: 1

      count placeholder1

      What if…

    …we didn’t evolve, but were created by God?

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)