|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:25:51 GMT
"I am saying that it makes no sense to use physical rules to test the idea of a spiritual world." That's a bit fallacious, it comes with the presuposition that a "spiritual world" is even real to begin with. That's like saying "it makes no sense to use physical rules to test the idea of a magical leprechaun realm". The realm hasn't even been demonstrated to exist to begin with saying it can't be tested through "physical means" is rather moot. "That's a bit fallacious, it comes with the presuposition that a "spiritual world" is even real to begin with." Do you believe in noncorporeal universes or the multiverse? If yes, then it is reasonable supposition. I don't really know about either. Aren't those just theories? I don't think scientists parade "multiverse" like it's absolute, empirical fact. And even then I would imagine there's at least some physical means testing (speed of light, age of the universe, universe expansion, etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jan 3, 2021 22:28:42 GMT
"That's a bit fallacious, it comes with the presuposition that a "spiritual world" is even real to begin with." Do you believe in noncorporeal universes or the multiverse? If yes, then it is reasonable supposition. I don't really know about either. Aren't those just theories? I don't think scientists parade "multiverse" like it's absolute, empirical fact. Hawkings believed in them enough that he said we should stop space exploration since we might attract the wrong attention and instead look for alternate Earths.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 22:31:31 GMT
She's not saying that. She is saying you can't measure intangibles with the same tools you use to measure tangibles. That's assuming the "intangibles" even exist, which hasn't been proven to exist on any empirical level, so saying it can't be measured with tangible means is rather moot. That's like saying "Statement A is true, it just can't be proven with physical means", even Statement A hasn't actually been proven to begin with, you're just buying into the assumption that's it real. The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length. More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:31:52 GMT
I don't really know about either. Aren't those just theories? I don't think scientists parade "multiverse" like it's absolute, empirical fact. Hawkings believed in them enough that he said we should stop space exploration since we might attract the wrong attention and instead look for alternate Earths. One scientist is hardly representative of the entire astrophysics field.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:33:57 GMT
That's assuming the "intangibles" even exist, which hasn't been proven to exist on any empirical level, so saying it can't be measured with tangible means is rather moot. That's like saying "Statement A is true, it just can't be proven with physical means", even Statement A hasn't actually been proven to begin with, you're just buying into the assumption that's it real. The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length. More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God. "The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length." I'm well aware of that, but it's loaded with the assumption that the "realm" (that hasn't been demonstrated in any way) is real to begin with. So saying it can't be measured through "physical means" is meaningless. "More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God." Good thing I've never actually made that claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jan 3, 2021 22:36:24 GMT
Hawkings believed in them enough that he said we should stop space exploration since we might attract the wrong attention and instead look for alternate Earths. One scientist is hardly representative of the entire astrophysics field. True, but he is at the top of the field, which adds weight. Does that prove it, no, but it is good expert opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 22:37:41 GMT
The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length. More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God. "The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length." I'm well aware of that, but it's loaded with the assumption that the "realm" (that hasn't been demonstrated in any way) is real to begin with. So saying it can't be measured through "physical means" is meaningless. "More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God." Good thing I've never actually made that claim. I never said you did. But this is the argument you entered. And Eva Yojimbo said just that. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:41:14 GMT
One scientist is hardly representative of the entire astrophysics field. True, but he is at the top of the field, which adds weight. Does that prove it, no, but it is good expert opinion. Well this is basically just an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. I'm sure there are plenty of other top physicists (Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Krauss) that would disagree with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:42:03 GMT
"The way this argument applies to this topic is --- you can't measure thoughts by weight. Or feelings by length." I'm well aware of that, but it's loaded with the assumption that the "realm" (that hasn't been demonstrated in any way) is real to begin with. So saying it can't be measured through "physical means" is meaningless. "More specifically, no physical proof of God, is not proof there is no God." Good thing I've never actually made that claim. I never said you did. But this is the argument you entered. And Eva Yojimbo said just that. "And Eva Yojimbo said just that." Citation?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 22:46:01 GMT
I never said you did. But this is the argument you entered. And Eva Yojimbo said just that. "And Eva Yojimbo said just that." Citation? No. Just wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:47:20 GMT
"And Eva Yojimbo said just that." Citation? No. Just wrong. Can you actually give me the quote were Eva Yojimba said what you claimed he did?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 22:49:38 GMT
Can you actually give me the quote were Eva Yojimba said what you claimed he did? said "The only evidence possible that something doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is precisely what we see with God." |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 22:58:59 GMT
Can you actually give me the quote were Eva Yojimba said what you claimed he did? I'd have to ask him to clarify, but it sounds like he's refering to an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" (can't be disproven). I don't think he was saying "no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist" but more so "no evidence for God, therefore most likely doesn't exist"
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 3, 2021 23:00:29 GMT
Can you actually give me the quote were Eva Yojimba said what you claimed he did? Physical evidence. There’s no way to prove that a spiritual world doesn’t exist. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 23:02:46 GMT
"The only evidence possible that something doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is precisely what we see with God." Physical evidence. There’s no way to prove that a spiritual world doesn’t exist. Yes, in the same way there's no way to prove that a magical leprechaun realm doesn't exist. Pressupostions are fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 23:09:06 GMT
Physical evidence. There’s no way to prove that a spiritual world doesn’t exist. Yes, in the same way there's no way to prove that a magical leprechaun realm doesn't exist. Pressupostions are fun! Nobody said there was proof of a magical leprechaun realm. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 23:12:12 GMT
Yes, in the same way there's no way to prove that a magical leprechaun realm doesn't exist. Pressupostions are fun! Nobody said there was proof of a magical leprechaun realm. Yeah, that's the point I'm making. If you're gonna use the "Well you can't disprove it!" argument, then you could use that to argue for any riddiculous claim including a magical leprechaun realm. It's not a good argument is the point I'm making.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 3, 2021 23:12:50 GMT
The thing is - “higher power” beliefs date all the way back in recorded history to the very beginning.
These aren’t just wild beliefs.
These beliefs are part of human history and what our species has dealt with all along (as far back as we know).
It’s part of the definition of being human for most people to believe in a higher power.
Trivializing it isn’t a good argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 3, 2021 23:14:51 GMT
Nobody said there was proof of a magical leprechaun realm. Yeah, that's the point I'm making. If you're gonna use the "Well you can't disprove it!" argument, then you could use that to argue for any riddiculous claim including a magical leprechaun realm. It's not a good argument is the point I'm making. The "Well, you can't disprove it" argument is valid against people who say no God exists. Nobody is using that to prove the existence of God. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 3, 2021 23:22:20 GMT
The thing is - “higher power” beliefs date all the way back in recorded history to the very beginning. These aren’t just wild beliefs. These beliefs are part of human history and what our species has dealt with all along (as far back as we know). It’s part of the definition of being human for most people to believe in a higher power. Trivializing it isn’t a good argument. "The thing is - “higher power” beliefs date all the way back in recorded history to the very beginning." That's just an appeal to tradition fallacy. For a long time people also used to believe rain was created by rain gods. "It’s part of the definition of being human for most people to believe in a higher power." Well no, the definition of "human" (a highly intelligent species of the ape family) has nothing to do with God. Besides even if that were true, that's just an appeal to popularity fallacy. "Trivializing it isn’t a good argument." I wouldn't say I was "trivializing" it, I was pointing out why simply saying "You can't disprove it!" is not a good argument.
|
|
