| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » If You Have Morality and Reason on Your Side . . . .
Page 42 of 42 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42
|
| Author |
Message |
| monkfish |
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Smiler wrote:
Quote:
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe4643-8c56-49d9-96ee-ca8a7c115506@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows?
But it is falsifiable.
If, tomorrow, on your way to work, you crash and die, it will have been
falsified.
Can you apply the same test to your god?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Can you apply the same test to mathematics?
Can you apply the same test to the scientific method?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them.
But if you must reply to them,
you should at least set the followup-to header
to something other than your own newsgroup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 12:59 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
Quote: The objective evidence for the existence of your god IS manifestly
non-existent.
The objective evidence for the existence of your mother is non-
existent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michelle Malkin |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNednVZHP43sk4rVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Zanthius wrote:
On 29 Apr, 04:02, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but if he's beyond our comprehension of the natural, then why do
so many people believe they know the precise parameters thereof?
The precise parameters of what? God of nature?
When I reference the word "God" with a capital G, I am, necessarily,
talking about the deity of the Christian religion.
Why 'necessarily'? The Christian god is just one of many myths. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sargon |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 7:19 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
Quote: Smiler wrote:
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe4643-8c56-49d9-96ee-ca8a7c115506@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows?
But it is falsifiable.
If, tomorrow, on your way to work, you crash and die, it will have been
falsified.
Can you apply the same test to your god?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Can you apply the same test to mathematics?
Can you apply the same test to the scientific method?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
No, the same test (an appeal to experience) cannot be applied to
mathematics, nor can it be applied to mathematical statements.
Mathematical statements are not EMPIRICALLY falsifiable (neither are
they empirically verifiable) The truth-value of mathematical
statements is determined ANALYTICALLY. They are true or false by
definition, not by an appeal to experience. A mathematical statement
has a truth-value, but it is determined by an appeal to reason, that
is, a consideration of the meaning/definition of its terms.
Is the scientific method falsifiable? Yes, and by the same test, an
appeal to experience.
Mathematical statements are also necessary and "a priori." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNednVZHP43sk4rVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
Zanthius wrote:
On 29 Apr, 04:02, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but if he's beyond our comprehension of the natural, then why do
so many people believe they know the precise parameters thereof?
The precise parameters of what? God of nature?
When I reference the word "God" with a capital G, I am, necessarily,
talking about the deity of the Christian religion.
Why 'necessarily'? The Christian god is just one of many myths.
Well, I should've said "Judeochristian religions". They're the only
ones that I know of that use the word "god" as proper name. Other
religions, both alive and dead, have different names for their
myt^h^h^hdeities. That's why I said "necessarily".
As an aside, why do we call Earth's moon "the Moon"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sargon |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 10:16 am, Sargon <x...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 7:19 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
Smiler wrote:
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe4643-8c56-49d9-96ee-ca8a7c115506@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows?
But it is falsifiable.
If, tomorrow, on your way to work, you crash and die, it will have been
falsified.
Can you apply the same test to your god?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
Can you apply the same test to mathematics?
Can you apply the same test to the scientific method?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
No, the same test (an appeal to experience) cannot be applied to
mathematics, nor can it be applied to mathematical statements.
Mathematical statements are not EMPIRICALLY falsifiable (neither are
they empirically verifiable) The truth-value of mathematical
statements is determined ANALYTICALLY. They are true or false by
definition, not by an appeal to experience. A mathematical statement
has a truth-value, but it is determined by an appeal to reason, that
is, a consideration of the meaning/definition of its terms.
Is the scientific method falsifiable? Yes, and by the same test, an
appeal to experience.
Mathematical statements are also necessary and "a priori."
Sorry, should be "Mathematical statements are necessarily true or
(necessarily false) and "a priori." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zanthius wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 12:59 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
The objective evidence for the existence of your god IS manifestly
non-existent.
The objective evidence for the existence of your mother is non-
existent.
The reality of reality cannot be proven
by referring to reality.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sargon wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 7:19 pm, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
Smiler wrote:
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe4643-8c56-49d9-96ee-ca8a7c115506@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've
seen are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive
reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows?
But it is falsifiable.
If, tomorrow, on your way to work, you crash and die, it will have been
falsified.
Can you apply the same test to your god?
Can you apply the same test to mathematics?
Can you apply the same test to the scientific method?
No, the same test (an appeal to experience) cannot be applied to
mathematics, nor can it be applied to mathematical statements.
Mathematical statements are not EMPIRICALLY falsifiable (neither are
they empirically verifiable) The truth-value of mathematical
statements is determined ANALYTICALLY. They are true or false by
definition, not by an appeal to experience. A mathematical statement
has a truth-value, but it is determined by an appeal to reason, that
is, a consideration of the meaning/definition of its terms.
Is the scientific method falsifiable? Yes, and by the same test, an
appeal to experience.
Mathematical statements are also necessary and "a priori."
What does it mean for the scientific method to be falsifiable?
What does it mean for the principle of falsifiability
to be falsifiable?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michelle Malkin |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:w--dnRVZTcSeNoTVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNednVZHP43sk4rVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
Zanthius wrote:
On 29 Apr, 04:02, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but if he's beyond our comprehension of the natural, then why
do
so many people believe they know the precise parameters thereof?
The precise parameters of what? God of nature?
When I reference the word "God" with a capital G, I am, necessarily,
talking about the deity of the Christian religion.
Why 'necessarily'? The Christian god is just one of many myths.
Well, I should've said "Judeochristian religions". They're the only ones
that I know of that use the word "god" as proper name. Other religions,
both alive and dead, have different names for their myt^h^h^hdeities.
That's why I said "necessarily".
As an aside, why do we call Earth's moon "the Moon"?
Because most of our undereducated populace don't
know that the moon's name is Luna. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Smiler |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd5654f6-126a-449b-9f35-784202beade5@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On May 1, 12:59 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
The objective evidence for the existence of your god IS manifestly
non-existent.
The objective evidence for the existence of your mother is non-
existent.
Not true.
I can show you her birth certificate.
I can send you her photograph.
I can get her to write to you but, at age 96, her handwriting is a little
shaky.
I can give you her phone number so you can speak to her.
I can give you her address so that you can visit her.
I can give you her National Insurance number, so you can check with the
government if she exists.
I can give you the name, address and telephone number of her doctor so you
can confirm that she exists.
I can show you my birth certificate, naming her as my mother.
What more objective evidence do you need, liar?
Now tell us you have the same information about your god!
<crickets chirping>
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| monkfish |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Smiler wrote:
Quote:
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd5654f6-126a-449b-9f35-784202beade5@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 12:59 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
The objective evidence for the existence of your god IS manifestly
non-existent.
The objective evidence for the existence of your mother is non-
existent.
Not true.
I can show you her birth certificate.
I can send you her photograph.
I can get her to write to you but, at age 96, her handwriting is a little
shaky.
I can give you her phone number so you can speak to her.
I can give you her address so that you can visit her.
I can give you her National Insurance number, so you can check with the
government if she exists.
I can give you the name, address and telephone number of her doctor so you
can confirm that she exists.
I can show you my birth certificate, naming her as my mother.
What more objective evidence do you need, liar?
Now tell us you have the same information about your god!
Are you trying to say you believe in god
that is just like your mother?
That must be the worst idol I have ever seen.
Can't you at least worship Mammon?
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 42 of 42 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:21 am
|
|