Religions > Atheism > Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"H, William Esque" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2005 10:21:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD) |
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1126659696.122004.275650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god - which has been
met - I thought I'd challenge him in return to provide proof of this
god of his, using exactly the same terms he demanded. Here it is:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone that god is a fact and is
true, period, they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand religion. I am well
educated in various branches of religion. They however, are not and it
upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain of evidence" for god
and yet, still fail to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is your proof!". Yet, the
link provides no such thing and when I ask them to, in their own words,
discuss in detail how it is proof, the silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult science and claim that religion has disproved
our scientific method. This is done, after their repeated claim that
religion
has no interest in science, nor in the factual.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when I respond to their
positive claim that god is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to
disprove their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever they
want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this sort of nonsensical
behavior would not be tolerated in science. You claim god is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along with insults, is
proof.
God is not science and associating with science in a text book, or by
speech, does not make it science, any more than beer is athletic,
simply because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a request for evidence
met with insults and silence regarding said proof. Only in god, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were a genuine god, the proof would have been displayed for all
to see and the opposition would have been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame science for ignorance of "real religion",
the fact is, that the inventor of the religious method was anonymous!
No one knows who it was or what their motives or agenda were, yet
everyone swallows this as gospel!
The fact is, that ignorance was found in religious societies, who
always tend to be far behind in scientific advancement. It is the
scientific nations
that brought knowledge of our universe to where it is today, not
religion and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale, Harvard, etc., were
established to pursue this knowledge, nto wallow in mythology. It is
now, that they have become so assaulted by fundamentlaists, that
education in the USA has gone down in quality. Coincidence?
Absolutely not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, the
burden of proof is on YOU.
So now I make a call to the theists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of god?
And don't ask me about whether or not theists are lying, or to disprove
it, or paste in web links, etc., etc..
PROVE GOD, OR HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, HOW AND WHY what you
provide proves what you claim it does. Saying, "scriptures prove it",
is not proof, unless you can show which exact texts and why and how
they prove what you claim and be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T understand science".
Even paul knew that the scientific evidence wasn't there, to support a
resurrection and so, he revived mythology and repackaged it in
a non-Jewish version, called, "Christianity".
You have one camp of theists who know that Judaism did not change and
another camp that knows that sudden religious changes do occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs to them, that maybe
they're both wrong. Maybe neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening" garbage and show the
proof of god.
And don't bother me with the "religion doesn't work that way" garbage
either. I know that, but you don't, or you wouldn't be making the
claims you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science, from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is something that is not to
be doubted and only a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE PROOF
THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for god and shut us all up. If you can, then I
will throw my "Ancestor's Tale" away and renounce my science.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me renouncing my science,
when we all know that you spend your time trashing Christianity and
claiming that "the dead hand of science" has hampered religion.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said, make sure that you
can back it up, with references that you can defend, in detail, in your
own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any questions. This is
about answers. YOUR answers, as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY
DOUBT that god is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
Budikka
This one will be fun......
Doug
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOFOF GOD) |
18 Sep 2005 06:33:58 AM |
|
|
James Picone wrote:
P.J. Gann wrote:
Proof is reserved for mathematics, and philosophy, scientific
proof? Proof is not scientific in nature.
Doug
Would you like to provide overwhelming empirical evidence for
God, then?
(Incidentally, I agree. Science doesn't prove. Science provides
overwhelming evidence for)
As far as I know, theism doesn't seem to have any evidence at
all. I keep seeing people wander into AA telling us it is
proven, but when anybody asks for evidence they disappear.
Dave seems to have nothing to show us.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD) |
16 Sep 2005 05:29:11 PM |
|
|
H, William Esque wrote:
"Jude" <Jude@petitechenier.bayou> wrote in message
news:7rBWe.1675$mw5.1287@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"H, William Esque" <hwe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:yoBWe.2255$874.1185@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in
message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing
proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Actually, science IS in the business of providing proof,
This is a misconception that many people have. In none of the
professional literature does any scientist claim to prove
anything.
When science tests claims, when science looks to see if evidence
of a test supports or does not support a theory, that is EXACTLY
hat science is doing. It is done every day. Some things are so
well supported by evidence that they are considered proven
truths, and I have read more than a few essays from scientists
over the last decade overtly pointing out that very fact.
Relativity, quantum physics, evolution, these things are true and
are not going to be overturned by new findings tomorrow and ever
worthwhile scientsit worth the name knows that.
This bizarre notion science never proves anything is *****.
otherwise it is
called a scientific theory. A scientific theory is just that,
a theory but based on many observable facts but not enough
facts to call it scientific fact.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD) |
17 Sep 2005 02:24:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:25:13 -0500, "Jude" <Jude@petitechenier.bayou>
wrote:
"H, William Esque" <hwe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:yoBWe.2255$874.1185@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in
message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of providing
proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Actually, science IS in the business of providing proof, otherwise it is
called a scientific theory. A scientific theory is just that, a theory
but based on many observable facts but not enough facts to call it
scientific fact.
No theory will ever be fact. The fact is what's observed. The theory
is the set of proposals that explains the fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OFGOD) |
16 Sep 2005 11:01:03 PM |
|
|
--------------FBE6ED63C73F25EF8D030FBB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"H, William Esque" wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
"Faith is not a justification, but an admission that
there is no justification. If there are rational
reasons to believe something, then "faith" is
superfluous. If there are no rational reasons to
believe something, then continued belief is, by
definition, irrational."
[Acknowledgements to Godfrey]
What is there in Christianity that does not ultimately boil down to putting
one's belief and faith in men? The Bible? Written by men. Inspired by God?
So men say. Which books are Scripture? The ones chosen by men. What do they
mean? What men (including oneself) say they mean. Illumined by the Spirit?
So men say. What is the Spirit telling you? Whatever you (an ordinary human)
think He is telling you.
Since the Christian God does not show up in person to give us anything to
believe in, the only option available to us is to put our trust in what men say
and think and feel *about* God. To put one's faith in the stories,
superstitions, and subjective thoughts and feelings of men is not faith *in*
God, but faith *about* God, and specifically faith in what *men* believe about
God. Ultimately, it is faith in Man.
[With acknowledgements to Mark Nutter]
The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.
[Abraham Lincoln]
"I refuse to prove I exist", says god. "Because proof denies faith and
without faith, I am nothing"
[Douglas Adams].
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
[Richard Dawkins]
"Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich"
It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
[Mark Twain (1835-1910)
We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
[Bertrand Russell]
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1126659696.122004.275650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god - which has been
met - I thought I'd challenge him in return to provide proof of this
god of his, using exactly the same terms he demanded. Here it is:
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone that god is a fact and is
true, period, they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand religion. I am well
educated in various branches of religion. They however, are not and it
upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain of evidence" for god
and yet, still fail to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is your proof!". Yet, the
link provides no such thing and when I ask them to, in their own words,
discuss in detail how it is proof, the silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult science and claim that religion has disproved
our scientific method. This is done, after their repeated claim that
religion
has no interest in science, nor in the factual.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when I respond to their
positive claim that god is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to
disprove their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever they
want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this sort of nonsensical
behavior would not be tolerated in science. You claim god is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along with insults, is
proof.
God is not science and associating with science in a text book, or by
speech, does not make it science, any more than beer is athletic,
simply because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a request for evidence
met with insults and silence regarding said proof. Only in god, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were a genuine god, the proof would have been displayed for all
to see and the opposition would have been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame science for ignorance of "real religion",
the fact is, that the inventor of the religious method was anonymous!
No one knows who it was or what their motives or agenda were, yet
everyone swallows this as gospel!
The fact is, that ignorance was found in religious societies, who
always tend to be far behind in scientific advancement. It is the
scientific nations
that brought knowledge of our universe to where it is today, not
religion and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale, Harvard, etc., were
established to pursue this knowledge, nto wallow in mythology. It is
now, that they have become so assaulted by fundamentlaists, that
education in the USA has gone down in quality. Coincidence?
Absolutely not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR OWN LOGIC, the
burden of proof is on YOU.
So now I make a call to the theists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of god?
And don't ask me about whether or not theists are lying, or to disprove
it, or paste in web links, etc., etc..
PROVE GOD, OR HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, HOW AND WHY what you
provide proves what you claim it does. Saying, "scriptures prove it",
is not proof, unless you can show which exact texts and why and how
they prove what you claim and be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T understand science".
Even paul knew that the scientific evidence wasn't there, to support a
resurrection and so, he revived mythology and repackaged it in
a non-Jewish version, called, "Christianity".
You have one camp of theists who know that Judaism did not change and
another camp that knows that sudden religious changes do occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs to them, that maybe
they're both wrong. Maybe neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening" garbage and show the
proof of god.
And don't bother me with the "religion doesn't work that way" garbage
either. I know that, but you don't, or you wouldn't be making the
claims you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science, from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is something that is not to
be doubted and only a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE PROOF
THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for god and shut us all up. If you can, then I
will throw my "Ancestor's Tale" away and renounce my science.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me renouncing my science,
when we all know that you spend your time trashing Christianity and
claiming that "the dead hand of science" has hampered religion.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said, make sure that you
can back it up, with references that you can defend, in detail, in your
own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any questions. This is
about answers. YOUR answers, as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY
DOUBT that god is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
Budikka
This one will be fun......
Doug
--------------FBE6ED63C73F25EF8D030FBB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>"H, William Esque" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
<br>><a href="news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com">news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com</a>...
<p> Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of providing
proof,
<br>so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is especially
<br>inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.</blockquote>
"Faith is not a justification, but an admission that
<br> there is no justification. If there are rational
<br> reasons to believe something, then "faith" is
<br> superfluous. If there are no rational reasons to
<br> believe something, then continued belief is, by
<br> definition, irrational."
<p>[Acknowledgements to Godfrey]
<p>What is there in Christianity that does not ultimately boil down to
putting one's belief and faith in men? The Bible? Written by
men. Inspired by God? So men say. Which books are Scripture?
The ones chosen by men. What do they mean? What men (including
oneself) say they mean. Illumined by the Spirit? So men say.
What is the Spirit telling you? Whatever you (an ordinary human)
think He is telling you.
<p>Since the Christian God does not show up in person to give us anything
to believe in, the only option available to us is to put our trust in what
men say and think and feel *about* God. To put one's faith in the
stories, superstitions, and subjective thoughts and feelings of men is
not faith *in* God, but faith *about* God, and specifically faith in what
*men* believe about God. Ultimately, it is faith in Man.
<br>[With acknowledgements to Mark Nutter]
<p>The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.
<br>[Abraham Lincoln]
<p>"I refuse to prove I exist", says god. "Because proof denies faith and
<br>without faith, I am nothing"
<br>[Douglas Adams].
<p>Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
<br>evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
<br>Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
<br>the lack of evidence.
<br>[Richard Dawkins]
<p>"Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich"
<p>It was the schoolboy who said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't
so."
<br>[Mark Twain (1835-1910)
<p>We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. <br>
[Bertrand Russell]
<p>Bob
<br>Humanist Brit.
<br>Hong Kong
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p>>
<br>> "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
<br>> <a href="news:1126659696.122004.275650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com">news:1126659696.122004.275650@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com</a>...
<br>>> Since Disaster Dave put out a call for proof of god - which has
been
<br>>> met - I thought I'd challenge him in return to provide proof of
this
<br>>> god of his, using exactly the same terms he demanded. Here
it is:
<br>>>
<br>>> Hi all,
<br>>>
<br>>> Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone that god is a fact and
is
<br>>> true, period, they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
<br>>>
<br>>> 1) They throw out insults.
<br>>>
<br>>> 2) They claim that I just don't understand religion. I am
well
<br>>> educated in various branches of religion. They however, are
not and it
<br>>> upsets them, that
<br>>> the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
<br>>>
<br>>> 3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain of evidence"
for god
<br>>> and yet, still fail to provide said proof.
<br>>>
<br>>> 4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is your proof!".
Yet, the
<br>>> link provides no such thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words,
<br>>> discuss in detail how it is proof, the silence is deafening.
<br>>>
<br>>> 5) They begin to insult science and claim that religion has disproved
<br>>> our scientific method. This is done, after their repeated
claim that
<br>>> religion
<br>>> has no interest in science, nor in the factual.
<br>>>
<br>>> 6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when I respond to
their
<br>>> positive claim that god is a fact and is true, that it is up to
me to
<br>>> disprove their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever
they
<br>>> want we have to disprove it.
<br>>>
<br>>> 7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
<br>>>
<br>>> It's a shame that the people don't know, that this sort of nonsensical
<br>>> behavior would not be tolerated in science. You claim god
is science
<br>>> and seem to think that providing zero proof, along with insults,
is
<br>>> proof.
<br>>>
<br>>> God is not science and associating with science in a text book,
or by
<br>>> speech, does not make it science, any more than beer is athletic,
<br>>> simply because it is sold at football games.
<br>>>
<br>>> The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a request for evidence
<br>>> met with insults and silence regarding said proof. Only in
god, do we
<br>>> see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
<br>>>
<br>>> If it were a genuine god, the proof would have been displayed for
all
<br>>> to see and the opposition would have been silenced, once and for
all.
<br>>>
<br>>> And while they try to blame science for ignorance of "real religion",
<br>>>> the fact is, that the inventor of the religious method was anonymous!
<br>>> No one knows who it was or what their motives or agenda were, yet
<br>>> everyone swallows this as gospel!
<br>>>
<br>>> The fact is, that ignorance was found in religious societies, who
<br>>> always tend to be far behind in scientific advancement. It
is the
<br>>> scientific nations
<br>>> that brought knowledge of our universe to where it is today, not
<br>>> religion and
<br>>> the great learning institutions, such as Yale, Harvard, etc., were
<br>>> established to pursue this knowledge, nto wallow in mythology.
It is
<br>>> now, that they have become so assaulted by fundamentlaists, that
<br>>> education in the USA has gone down in quality. Coincidence?
<br>>> Absolutely not.
<br>>>
<br>>> And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR OWN LOGIC,
the
<br>>> burden of proof is on YOU.
<br>>>
<br>>> So now I make a call to the theists.
<br>>>
<br>>> "Show me the money!"
<br>>>
<br>>> Where is the proof of god?
<br>>>
<br>>> And don't ask me about whether or not theists are lying, or to disprove
<br>>> it, or paste in web links, etc., etc..
<br>>>
<br>>> PROVE GOD, OR HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
<br>>>
<br>>> And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, HOW AND WHY what you
<br>>>> provide proves what you claim it does. Saying, "scriptures
prove it",
<br>>> is not proof, unless you can show which exact texts and why and
how
<br>>> they prove what you claim and be able to respond to a rebuttal.
<br>>>
<br>>> If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T understand science".
<br>>>
<br>>> Even paul knew that the scientific evidence wasn't there, to support
a
<br>>> resurrection and so, he revived mythology and repackaged it in
<br>>> a non-Jewish version, called, "Christianity".
<br>>>
<br>>> You have one camp of theists who know that Judaism did not change
and
<br>>> another camp that knows that sudden religious changes do occur.
They
<br>>> both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs to them, that
maybe
<br>>> they're both wrong. Maybe neither happened.
<br>>>
<br>>> So stop with the "what stops it from happening" garbage and show
the
<br>>> proof of god.
<br>>>
<br>>> And don't bother me with the "religion doesn't work that way" garbage
<br>>> either. I know that, but you don't, or you wouldn't be making
the
<br>>> claims you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science, from go.
<br>>>
<br>>> You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is something that
is not to
<br>>> be doubted and only a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE PROOF
<br>>> THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
<br>>>
<br>>> So cough up the proof for god and shut us all up. If you can,
then I
<br>>> will throw my "Ancestor's Tale" away and renounce my science.
<br>>>
<br>>> And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me renouncing my science,
<br>>> when we all know that you spend your time trashing Christianity
and
<br>>> claiming that "the dead hand of science" has hampered religion.
<br>>>
<br>>> So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said, make
sure that you
<br>>> can back it up, with references that you can defend, in detail,
in your
<br>>> own words.
<br>>>
<br>>> I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any questions.
This is
<br>>> about answers. YOUR answers, as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND
ANY
<br>>> DOUBT that god is reality.
<br>>>
<br>>> I am ready. Are you?
<br>>>
<br>>> Budikka
<br>>>
<br>>
<br>> This one will be fun......
<br>>
<br>> Doug
<br>>
<br>></blockquote>
</html>
--------------FBE6ED63C73F25EF8D030FBB--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Double Standard(A CALL FOR PASTOR DAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF GOD) |
17 Sep 2005 05:48:27 AM |
|
|
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
<snip>
Fine set of quotes there!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Evidence vs. Proof |
16 Sep 2005 10:33:20 PM |
|
|
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
It is true that scientific evidence does not attain the certainty of
logical proof, but this does not justify the claim that belief in
science is mere faith. There are degrees of justification, and a goal of
scientific inquiry is to find ways of justifying (or disjustifying) claims.
<snip>
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
17 Sep 2005 04:12:28 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to get
loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
The evidence supported the theory when tested for that evidence.
They proved their case.
What is it about the word proof that drives people loopy?
Its like the word trinitarian or Jesus.
It is true that scientific evidence does not attain the
certainty of logical proof, but this does not justify the claim
that belief in science is mere faith. There are degrees of
justification, and a goal of scientific inquiry is to find ways
of justifying (or disjustifying) claims.
<snip>
Colin Day aa #1500
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
17 Sep 2005 05:46:19 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inmkjhgs6fm90@corp.supernews.com...
What is it about the word proof that drives people loopy?
Its like the word trinitarian or Jesus.
Because so many people don't distinguish between "proof" and "evidence", as
you just failed to do. I would never use the word proof in technical
writing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
17 Sep 2005 01:43:35 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11inmkjhgs6fm90@corp.supernews.com...
What is it about the word proof that drives people loopy?
Its like the word trinitarian or Jesus.
Because so many people don't distinguish between "proof" and
"evidence", as
you just failed to do. I would never use the word proof in
technical writing.
We are not writing technical material.
Proof has a wide range of meanings.
To say proof must be used only in mathematics is
simply wrong headed.
To then go on and leverage that error by saying science never
proves anything and other stupidities is just painful to
witness.
Proof as in evidence enough to support a theory is absolutely
useful and correct and meaningful.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
17 Sep 2005 03:06:31 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to get
loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
As a mathematician, I restrict my use of the term "proof"
to cases where there is a logically valid and sound argument.
I suspect that the person to whom I was responding used it
that way as well.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
The evidence supported the theory when tested for that evidence.
They proved their case.
What is it about the word proof that drives people loopy?
Its like the word trinitarian or Jesus.
It is true that scientific evidence does not attain the
certainty of logical proof, but this does not justify the claim
that belief in science is mere faith. There are degrees of
justification, and a goal of scientific inquiry is to find ways
of justifying (or disjustifying) claims.
<snip>
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
17 Sep 2005 11:23:20 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to get
loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
Yes they do, but science uses specific technical words and they do it for
the same reason that most otheres do. To minimize confusion.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
No, it does not. A theory can be 100% wrong and still be a valid theory as
long as it does what it is supposed to do.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
No, you can't you can demonstrate that is false, you can never prove it is
true.
But that gets to those technical things you think are unimportant.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
You prove things in math, you do not prove things in science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
18 Sep 2005 12:07:28 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YY5Xe.3595$Ob2.2331@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to get
loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
Yes they do, but science uses specific technical words and they do it for
the same reason that most otheres do. To minimize confusion.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
No, it does not. A theory can be 100% wrong and still be a valid theory as
long as it does what it is supposed to do.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
No, you can't you can demonstrate that is false, you can never prove it is
true.
But that gets to those technical things you think are unimportant.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
You prove things in math, you do not prove things in science.
You can prove a theory, or fail to prove a theory. Thats it. It is what it
is and thats all it is.
Math is science. Math is a natural science just as physics is a natural
science as is chemistry. Math is the language of natural science.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
20 Sep 2005 05:42:15 PM |
|
|
In article <YY5Xe.3595$Ob2.2331@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net says...
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to get
loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
Yes they do, but science uses specific technical words and they do it for
the same reason that most otheres do. To minimize confusion.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
No, it does not. A theory can be 100% wrong and still be a valid theory as
long as it does what it is supposed to do.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
No, you can't you can demonstrate that is false, you can never prove it is
true.
But that gets to those technical things you think are unimportant.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
You prove things in math, you do not prove things in science.
I think you have to divide science into theoretical science,
and practical science.
One being, anything is possible in theory, and the other requires
proof or repeatability in the real world. (ie. requires the theory
to be applied and used/demonstrated).
You know scientists are grasping at straws (as much as religious
people are) when they talk about creation of the universe, or that
of man but something closer to our times, in the last 1000 years
is more credible to deal with.
But when we go back to 2000 years ago, say the time of 'Jesus'
you can divide that man's life into the plausible and possible,
and the impossible [specifically the resurrection into the
Son of God].
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
20 Sep 2005 09:39:18 PM |
|
|
Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
In article <YY5Xe.3595$Ob2.2331@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net says...
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This
is especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not
proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to
get loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
Yes they do, but science uses specific technical words and they
do it for the same reason that most otheres do. To minimize
confusion.
To provide supporting evidence for theory, to test a
theory, is to prove a theory is truth.
No, it does not. A theory can be 100% wrong and still be a
valid theory as long as it does what it is supposed to do.
You can prove a theory is true, false, or fail to
prove anything one way or the other.
No, you can't you can demonstrate that is false, you can never
prove it is true.
But that gets to those technical things you think are
unimportant.
When cosmologists developed a theory on the nature
of the Big Boom's expansion that suggested that there
would be tell-tale-traces of non-uniformity to be
found in te backround radiation of the Universe,to
test that theory, they sent up telescopes mounted
on balloons in the antarctic. The evidence was
found exactly as expected and was later confirmed
by Hubble space telescope observations and others.
Thus, they proved indeed that the expected observations
one would find if their theory was true were there.
Thus proving their theory was correct, that the expansion's
tell tale traces were there as they must be.
You prove things in math, you do not prove things in science.
I think you have to divide science into theoretical science,
and practical science.
One being, anything is possible in theory, and the other
requires proof or repeatability in the real world. (ie.
requires the theory to be applied and used/demonstrated).
You know scientists are grasping at straws (as much as
religious people are) when they talk about creation of the
universe, or that of man but something closer to our times, in
the last 1000 years is more credible to deal with.
But when we go back to 2000 years ago, say the time of 'Jesus'
you can divide that man's life into the plausible and possible,
and the impossible [specifically the resurrection into the
Son of God].
Harvey
AGAIN!
Proof has many meanings, including the mathematical
technical term and less technical terms, including,
good evidence ti support a claim, or a theory.
The idea that when we talk about science we can only use the
technical term prrof as used by matehmaticians is ludicrous and
goofy. Why people do this I don't know, pseudo-profundity
maybe.
Scientists use proof in the broad sense.
Scientists so NOT restrict the word proof in a technical
mathematical manner.
And there is no god and Jesus ain't coming back.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence vs. Proof |
18 Sep 2005 07:32:17 AM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
H, William Esque wrote:
"> Douglas W. Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message
news:AemdnZyUZuXh47renZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why the double standard? Science is not in the business of
providing proof,
so why does anyone expect Religion to provide proof? This is
especially
inane considering that religion is based on faith not
proof.
Science is in the business of providing evidence, not proof.
Evidence = proof, small p.
What is it about science that causes so many many people to
get loopy about it?
People seem to forget that words like proof have general
nontechnical meanings.
Yes they do, but science uses specific technical words and they
do it for the same reason that most otheres do. To minimize
confusion.
Gee, in my geology classes, I must have missed that day.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
