Compared to a sound deductive argument, yes, of course it is. — Sapientia
What other cause do you have in mind? Also please read my reply to jamalrob. — TheMadFool
Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence? — TheMadFool
Ether or better I declare — TheMadFool
What? "Either or better I declare"? That doesn't make grammatical sense to me. — Terrapin Station
Then please tell me in what way one could provide evidence/proof that an entity exists? — TheMadFool
Well you haven't come across as either particularly sincere or particularly reasonable. — Sapientia
Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position. — TheMadFool
Measurable effects of God:
1. How many people pray?
2. How many times do people pray?
3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?
4. How many people undergo circumcision?
Etc. — TheMadFool
Correct? — Chany
''Measurable'' simply requires a unit of measurement and we can count how many people pray, how many times we pray, etc.
''Scientific'' means one must have measurable evidence. Kindly refer to the paragraph above. — TheMadFool
Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position. — TheMadFool
Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out. — Chany
You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them. — Wayfarer
The fact that 'millions of people' do something, proves nothing apart from that's what they're doing. There are also millions of people who don't do that — Wayfarer
'Science' means considerably more than a slogan about measurement — Wayfarer
You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them — Wayfarer
. The majority of the world population are theists of some kind. Using your rationale shouldn't that be considered objective proof/evidence for god? — TheMadFool
I'll ask you something. Can science exist without measurement? Obviously it cannot. So I'm not sloganeering here. I've actually mentioned a very essential/necessary feature of science viz. measurement. — TheMadFool
Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.” — Edward R Doherty
Have I addressed your issues as regards my view? — TheMadFool
Therefore, I've falsified the hypothesis that God is causing this belief, as I've shown how the belief in a nonexistent entity can generate the observation we see — Chany
There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether these are simply beliefs as you put it. — TheMadFool
But the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer
There are centuries of medical trial data, about the effectiveness of medicine, which have measurable consequences in terms of healing illnesses.
Data on miracle cures, homeopathy or 'faith healing', by contrast, is extremely hard to come by. — Wayfarer
the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer
In response I quote you below — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.