View Single Post
Old 12-01-2007, 05:19 AM   #34 (permalink)
renderator
Junior Member
 
renderator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Posts: 23
renderator is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to renderator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
The Deist God may have only been the cause of all matter, but that itself is an influence.
No it is not influence. The Deist God could be the cause of Bing Bang for example, but He could not change smth inside Universe like theist's God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
Cool, I think Russian would be an awesome language to learn.
There is a big foul language inside Russian language called "мат".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
It seems everyone Russian guy I know is a badass.
Why do you think so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
I disagree, frist, that is not the premise of atheism; see my post to Marmalade.
It's the premise of strong atheism used in physics and any other natural science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
Two, can you give a specific example of how a scientist can "prove nothing" without assuming God does not exist?
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator View Post
You cannot say that the physical body you have put on the scales really weights 5kg for example if you haven't assumed that there are no quickly hiding fairies inside your scales who can fake the result of your experiments. Of course these premises are formulated more seriously in science.
You have agreed that any fairy must be excluded from science.
God is worse than any fairy. It must be excluded moreover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
When developing vaccinations, a scientist will make observations which lead to a hypothesis that a vaccine will help provide immnity against pathogens. After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct and if it has a great success rate then it leads to proof for a cure. Does the assumption of God play any part in this or have you made a terrible generalisation?
Yes, of course.

"After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct" - it's impossible if God exists.
How can you be sure that it is the vaccine that kills pathogens and your hypothesis is correct? It may be God killing all pathogens, not the vaccine. Can you prove me that it is not God, who kills them? No you can't because God is unfalsifiable. So you can't prove that it's vaccine that is the cause.

In fact any natural science becomes invalid if God exists, because any prediction/law becomes meaningless, everything becomes God's will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
I will say that since God is incapable of being proved or disproved, it is an irrelevant hypothesis to a scientific person,
Yes, It is an irrelevant hypothesis to a science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinterland View Post
but it should not be denied unless there is evidence proportionate to the claim.
Why should not?

Last edited by renderator : 12-01-2007 at 05:34 AM.
renderator is offline   Reply With Quote