In my post at
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395,
all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?
The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.
How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.
EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.
Poorly. You talk about Science poorly. I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane. You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue. For example, you've continuously called Science a religion. It's not. Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate. When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.
People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions. The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.
If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.
Edit: And thanks lol
There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.
In my post at
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.
I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.
Note: I would appreciate a thoughtful response. I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time. The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness. The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.
1) Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses. Among the stupid, maybe. Among the educated, no.
2) That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a
logical impossibility. This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an
inductive method of knowledge acquisition. By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.
Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time. This can't be debated, it's a logical rule. Sorry, try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction3) You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory. And, the reality is backwards of what you stated. People are "all mixed up" precisely because you
aren't speaking
anyone's language. You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine. You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.
Stop pretending you know anything about Science. You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.
Edit: Oh, about that link you posted. Yeah, I saw that. Good job for referencing definitions for consensus. I mean that, because that's something you should do....
...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!" And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."
And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1. The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.
That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.
I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.
Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement. There is no opinion here. I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.
2+2=4 because of the rules of math. If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.
The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!" I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility. Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.
Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5. But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics. It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.
Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.
You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof." Great, because I'll tell you.
1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:
Modern science...looks like it is one of the weakest religions for salvation,
or
Science fact is simple science that can be proved by chemical or electrical reactions, and such...Science fiction that is often called science fact are things like Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory or even Chaos Theory. This kind of science is theory, because it isn't known to be fact. If it were known to be fact, it would be called "law," not "theory."
No dude. Modern science is neither a religion, nor does it have anything to do with "salvation" whatsoever. And 'hell no,' dude, the 2nd quotation is just absolutely ridiculous. The science "fact" and "fiction" you mention both follow from the exact same general process from which all scientific theories are formed, i.e. conclusions are inferred from evidence. If more evidence arises that doesn't fit the current explanation, the scientific method specifically instructs us to reformulate our original theory and keep testing it to see if it breaks. There are no "hurt feelings" in Science, and its method necessitates that we ditch current theory to account for new evidence. Nothing to do with religion or salvation at all.
And by the way, Chaos Theory is predominantly a purely mathematical discipline, not a scientific one. Yes, there are some applications of Chaos Theory in a few scientific sub-disciplines, but Chaos Theory is primarily founded upon mathematics, not science (i.e science pulls Chaos Theory applications from mathematics, not vice-versa).
2) You have made up definitions for "logical" when you say things like:
Cause and effect is good, sound, scientific logic
or
The next step is to look at the evidences to determine the most logical thing to have faith in.
Reading through your posts in this thread literally gives me a headache because of all the cringing I do. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining in the same way a bad car crash is entertaining, and maybe that's why I keep responding to you.
Logic is logic. That's it. The scientific method utilizes a subset of pre-existing logical rules to create an internally-valid method for exploration. Saying something like you did in the first quote is just words on a page that have no actual meaning. Cause and effect is about actions and reactions, or stimulus and response. Logic consists of the valid rules of cognition. You are, somehow, equating the two, and accordingly I have no idea what the hell you mean.
So, the first quote here isn't even a coherent sentence. Don't believe me? Okay, I'll prove it to you. Let's insert an actual cause-and-effect reaction in the sentence and see if the sentence still makes sense:
"Stepping on the gas pedal in 'drive' makes your car go is good, sound, scientific logic."
...the hell? It isn't even grammatically correct. Maybe it looks correct
to you, but stepping on a gas pedal is not the "strict principles of validity," which is the crux of the actual definition of logic
Now, maybe you
intended to say that logical, scientific methodology can be applied to explore cause-and-effect relationships (or something similar, like, "It is logical to press on the gas pedal in 'drive' to make your car go"), but that isn't at all what you actually said. When you change meanings of terms, we don't know what the hell you're talking about, because according to the
actual definitions of things your statements are literally incoherent.
And, as far as the 2nd quote goes, faith is
by definition a belief in the total absence of evidence!
Check it out, here is the actual definition of faith:
faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
Yep, you read it correctly. Definition #1 doesn't speak to evidence or proof at all. Definition #2, which does, specifically negates both evidence (i.e. spirit is non-physical and incapable of being evidenced) and proof. Accordingly, your 2nd quote makes no sense. If you think you can use evidence to support faith, you can't. By definition, it would no longer be "faith" if evidence supports your convictions.
3) You have made up definitions for "proof" like when you say "God always existed. This universe, and the dimensions that are part of it, these are the things that have a beginning...Cause and effect, combined with the complexity of the universe, along with the entropy therein, prove the second."
The things you listed do not in any way constitute proof that God has always existed. Not even close. There is absolutely nothing about what you said that directly implicates God whatsoever.
Nothing. It is simply illogical to consider it as proof. How do I know? Because you are breaking the rules of logic, such as committing this logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%294) And, my personal favorite, you also make up definitions for "atheism." Check it out. You said this:
Here is the actual definition of atheism:
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"
You see the emboldened phrases? This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater. You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition. That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."
Accordingly, there is no debate necessary. Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Come, come. Certainly you have seen and heard that decades ago it was proven that 2+2= a little more than 4, 2+2=4, and 2+2= a little less than 4?
The reason that no debate is necessary is that it, simply, is not necessary. The reason that it won't do any good is that you are debating from a standpoint of ignorance and denial.
