Now that the Religion Topics Have Died Down

[Gene Frenkle]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

 

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

 

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

 

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

 

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

 

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

 

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

 

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

 

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

 

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

 

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

 

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

 

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

 

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

 

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs?

 

Discuss if you like...

[GG]

Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs?

 

Discuss if you like...

 

I think Voltaire had a saying that would fit your thread.

 

Discuss if you like....

[/dev/null]

Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs?

 

Discuss if you like...

 

Both the Republican and Democratic National Committees?

[Magox]

Discuss if you like...

It was nice out side today, a bit breezy, around 75 degrees, I hear it is suppose to get chilly this weekend, down around 60 or so.

[KD in CA]

Discuss if you like...

 

 

So how many here are actually getting the N1H1 shot?

[John Adams]

I think Voltaire had a saying that would fit your thread.

 

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd?

[LeviF]

I'm surprised dellapelle john hasn't jumped on this yet.

[StupidNation]

So the entire argument about God is that he is incorporeal (true) and therefore not provable? I mean why not argue against the existence of society, justice, culture, goodness, etc. because they are all incorporeal too. How about numbers, they are incorporeal abstractions of the singular directed by the abstractions of reason.

 

Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic.

 

It would be as if you were arguing with an engineering major about gravity and the mathematical basis for such decisions that would go into making a bridge. Imagine you saying "well gravity is not visible and I've never seen a 2 of anything, let alone calculus, why not just say you can't prove it and we are on equal ground ok?"

 

Metaphysics is the same thing, except you believe because you have equal abilities to reason as others that you must be rational, and therefore we are on equal ground in the debate. Well before we go any further in the argument "if you can't see/taste/feel it" well it's all conjecture just remember that your entire reasoning process is based principally on logic which is also something you cannot taste/see/feel but rationalized based on ideas which are conceptual, not perceptual.

[OGTEleven]

Do you see any similarities to other, more organized magical beliefs?

 

Discuss if you like...

It makes me a little sad honestly because I always perceived Sagan to be a good guy and someone who was thoughtful and respectful of others.

 

In your quote he is far from it.

 

If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

 

I believe in God. I have never sought to prove God's existence to myself or to anyone else. If you ask me, I will explain why I believe (perhaps not well), but will never under any circumstances claim proof in a scientific manner (or any other manner really). I have no interest in pre-emptively bringing up my belief to you or anyone else. I very strongly expect to die believing in, but not knowing if God exists. As a matter of fact, I would be disappointed if God truly revealed himself before my death. I am not here to prove anything to anyone about God and ask for no proof.

 

Sagan's mocking dragon example talks of believers as if they are childish people, constantly stomping their feet and demanding to be heard. Of course, there are plenty of people like this (on both sides of any argument), but the vast majority of believers are not. That is why they call themselves believers, not knowers.

 

By going on and on with an example anyone could understand after three sentences he tries to paint believers with a broad brush. He puts words in their mouth and by doing so betrays his own deference to science. There is nothing wrong with his argument on the basis of the overly repeated facts. For the most part though, he is arguing against very few people and claims to be arguing against very many people.

 

To me this quote says Sagan was either a hack, a liar, or astonishingly arrogant. He was a hack if he failed to take the time to understand or acknowledge that most believers understand exactly what they are. He was a liar if he understood this and simply continued to use the same argument anyway. He was arrogant if he demanded that the dragon reveal himself, because after all, he was Carl Sagan and the dragon simply must recognize his importance. That's what makes me sad.

[LeviF]

So the entire argument about God is that he is incorporeal (true) and therefore not provable? I mean why not argue against the existence of society, justice, culture, goodness, etc. because they are all incorporeal too. How about numbers, they are incorporeal abstractions of the singular directed by the abstractions of reason.

Sagan's (and many non-believing scholars') problem with the concept of God is not that he is not provable, it's that you can't apply the scientific method to God at all. Not only can it not be proved, it can't be disproved (as a whole).

 

Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic.

There are?

 

It would be as if you were arguing with an engineering major about gravity and the mathematical basis for such decisions that would go into making a bridge. Imagine you saying "well gravity is not visible and I've never seen a 2 of anything, let alone calculus, why not just say you can't prove it and we are on equal ground ok?"

Back to the scientific method. You can apply the scientific method to gravity, and show relations that prove calculus works as we express it.

 

Metaphysics is the same thing, except you believe because you have equal abilities to reason as others that you must be rational, and therefore we are on equal ground in the debate. Well before we go any further in the argument "if you can't see/taste/feel it" well it's all conjecture just remember that your entire reasoning process is based principally on logic which is also something you cannot taste/see/feel but rationalized based on ideas which are conceptual, not perceptual.

I don't know enough about metaphysics to say anything here.

[IDBillzFan]

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd?

We must cultivate our garden. Or something like that.

[GG]

We must cultivate our garden. Or something like that.

 

You mean like in a Brazilian wax kind of way?

[Jim in Anchorage]

I'm surprised dellapelle john hasn't jumped on this yet.

I heard he had a fire of mysterious origin in his garage.

[John Adams]

Just because there are 5 solid proofs that God exists does not mean they do not exist because they are not perceptual, it just means you are not intellectually capable to understand the logic.

 

Thanks for being stupid stupid. The "5 proofs" don't prove god. They prove that there are questions for which we don't have answers. Big difference.

[LeviF]

I heard he had a fire of mysterious origin in his garage.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sagan's (and many non-believing scholars') problem with the concept of God is not that he is not provable, it's that you can't apply the scientific method to God at all. Not only can it not be proved, it can't be disproved (as a whole).

 

Back to the scientific method. You can apply the scientific method to gravity, and show relations that prove calculus works as we express it.

As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick.

 

Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in:

 

What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes.

 

If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God....

[Gene Frenkle]

First, set up the false premise...

As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick.

 

Use the false premise...

Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in:

 

Pull some vaguely scientific-sounding phrases out of your ass...

What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes.

 

Finally, state your ridiculously unsupported conclusion as if you've just proved something mathematically...

If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God....

 

 

Good stuff.

[OCinBuffalo]

First, set up the false premise...

What's false exactly? ....(this ought to be good)

 

Tell me your vast experience in methodology and about it's infallibility(says the enterprise project manager and technical architect to the....computer guy ...uh yeah...it's a setup....let's see if dopey here sees it.) Since my premise is not false, using it is just fine.

Pull some vaguely scientific-sounding phrases out of your ass...

Ah yes, concepts you don't understand must be bad/made up.

Finally, state your ridiculously unsupported conclusion as if you've just proved something mathematically...

Unsupported how? Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist/is bad. I am merely stating that clearly the Scientific Method, like all methodologies, cannot be treated as infallible...no different than God, according to you.

 

Having literally lived that reality, and seen plenty of idiots 'die' by it, I know. I can prove the fallibility of all methodologies mathematically any time you choose. I just need to dig up old status reports and budgets, and show you the glaring f ups and project delays, never mind individual's wasted time, costing clients big $$$$ directly due to some tool on a peer project telling us that their method was infallible and should be used to explain and drive all things.

 

Your entire post is merely more evidence that the "God bad" crowd is just as dogmatic, unenlightened and prone to zealotry as the religious zealots themselves.

 

Do yourself a favor and run along. This will only get worse for you....don't try to be "smart". You have already demonstrated your low level of intellectual ability in multiple threads. Remember, being a liberal doesn't make you smart, as evidenced by the current administration, it just makes you think that you or others are entitled to other people's stuff.

[Gene Frenkle]

What's false exactly? ....(this ought to be good)

 

Tell me your vast experience in methodology and about it's infallibility(says the enterprise project manager and technical architect to the....computer guy ...uh yeah...it's a setup....let's see if dopey here sees it.) Since my premise is not false, using it is just fine.

 

Ah yes, concepts you don't understand must be bad/made up.

 

Since you are a computer guy, let's give you an opportunity to talk about something you know: there is this made up thing called workflow that I pulled out of my ass. Tell us all about how terrible workflow systems are and about their limited value, since, it's either made up/bad.

 

Unsupported how? Again, you not understanding something doesn't mean its doesn't exist/bad. I am merely stating that clearly the Scientific Method, like all methodologies, cannot be treated as infallible...no more than the belief in God you hate so much.

 

Having literally lived that reality, and seen plenty of idiots 'die' by it, I know. I can prove the fallibility of all methodologies mathematically any time you choose. I just need to dig up old status reports and budgets, and show you the glaring f ups and project delays, never mind individual's wasted time, costing clients big $$$$ directly due to some tool on a peer project telling us that their method was infallible and should be used to explain and drive all things.

 

Your entire post is merely more evidence that the "God bad" crowd is just as dogmatic, unenlightened and prone to zealotry as the religious zealots themselves.

 

Do yourself a favor and run along. This will only get worse for you....don't try to be "smart". You have already demonstrated your low level of intellectual ability in multiple threads. Remember, being a liberal doesn't make you smart, as evidenced by the current administration, it just makes you think that you or others are entitled to other people's stuff.

You always try so hard. In most things in life, intelligence is no substitute for trying hard.

 

I wish I could fight through more of your posts.

[OCinBuffalo]

You always try so hard. In most things in life, intelligence is no substitute for trying hard.

 

I wish I could fight through more of your posts.

You can't even come close to a response. Once again. What are you now 0-22 against me?

 

Edit: Hell I edited my last to try to take it easy on you. Come on dude....

[Gene Frenkle]

You can't even come close to a response. Once again. What are you now 0-22 against me?

 

Edit: Hell I edited my last to try to take it easy on you. Come on dude....

You are the king of your world. A legend in your own mind.

[OCinBuffalo]

You are the king of your world. A legend in your own mind.

"Ahh there's no reply at all, no reply at all". (Cue Gene Frenkle and the Mary Jane Girls dancing)

"No reply. There's no reply at all".

[LeviF]

As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick.

 

Given that, throwing around the Scientific Method proves nothing. It is quite possible, hell, likely, that the Scientific Method itself will need a major overhaul to understand things like extra dimensions, as in:

 

What if an extra dimension's existence is atomic, thereby making it impossible to ever reproduce the data from the single experiment that proves its existence, or modifies/creates it? Does that mean it doesn't exist? If we use the current scientific method as defined, the answer can only be NO, and, we have to "scientifically" not believe our own eyes.

 

If we need to modify the Scientific Method just to deal with extra dimensions, think about what we would have to do to it to prove the existence of God....

I realize that all methodology is fallible, and the Scientific Method cannot be applied to everything. Your example (if it's correct, I don't know because I don't have a physics degree) would certainly demonstrate this. I think, however, that you just reiterated my point, that the existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven, especially with our current, fallible, methodologies. I was trying to say that believers who try to parody non-believers by saying, "Oh, I can't see gravity, does that exist?" aren't quite following correctly.

[Gene Frenkle]

Ok, let's take it apart...First point...

 

As a guy who has dealt with endless "methodologies" I can say this with certainty, and certainty with no absurdity : All Methodology is fallible. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either selling something, naive, stupid or ignorant, take your pick.

It's a false premise because you can't prove the statement. It's just a fluffy blanket BS statement. Your assertion is completely 100% anecdotal, unsupported and irrelevant. You attempt to apply this false premise to Scientific Method later in your argument, but you fail to provide any specifics.

 

The rest of it falls apart because the bulk of it is based on your false premise. We can get into the specifics of that if you like.

[OCinBuffalo]

I realize that all methodology is fallible, and the Scientific Method cannot be applied to everything. Your example (if it's correct, I don't know because I don't have a physics degree) would certainly demonstrate this. I think, however, that you just reiterated my point, that the existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven, especially with our current, fallible, methodologies. I was trying to say that believers who try to parody non-believers by saying, "Oh, I can't see gravity, does that exist?" aren't quite following correctly.

There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument.

 

Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads.

 

If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think.

[Gene Frenkle]

There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument.

 

Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads.

 

If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think.

Who said anything about god? I'm only talking about your ridiculous post. Stay on topic and tell my why the first paragraph is not a false premise.

[Booster4324]

If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think.

 

Good post

[LeviF]

There's no doubt that the above bolded is a specious argument. Clearly you can't see air, yet you breathe it, so it has to be real. My point is: claiming that God doesn't exist because the Scientific Method says so is ALSO a specious argument.

 

Either side running around claiming superiority on the other is pointless. Once again, telling me that you are an atheist says nothing about your intellectual ability....as evidenced in this and other threads.

 

If you believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself when you aren't at church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

If you don't believe in God, do it for the right reasons, recognize that as a personal decision, keep it to yourself at all times since, according to you, you don't need a church, understand that you can be wrong, and understand that you aren't even close to having an answer on any of this.

 

Both sides need to handle their own business first, before they go telling other people what to think.

I didn't mean to imply that the Scientific Method says God doesn't exist, I was trying to say that it couldn't be applied at all, so many scholars withhold belief for that reason.

 

I agree with everything you said in this post. I can't stand people who proselytize, no matter what their beliefs (or non-beliefs) are. If you want to have a healthy debate, that's one thing. Shoving your beliefs down someone's throat is completely another.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, let's take it apart...First point...

 

 

It's a false premise because you can't prove the statement. It's just a fluffy blanket BS statement. Your assertion is completely 100% anecdotal, unsupported and irrelevant. You attempt to apply this false premise to Scientific Method later in your argument, but you fail to provide any specifics.

 

The rest of it falls apart because the bulk of it is based on your false premise. We can get into the specifics of that if you like.

I can't prove what exactly?

 

1. That I haven't worked with multiple methodologies? Again, I refer you to project manager, enterprise(Fortune 500, last big gig was $45 million) and architect, technical as my qualifications for saying um, yeah dopey, I have done the job. Anything else I say about my qualifications to speak on this matter will be interpreted by you as bragging, so spare me. It suffices to say: I am fully qualified to deliver an expert conclusion on this aspect because...I am a f'ing expert.

 

2. That I can't prove clear and consistent fault with ALL methodologies, including the Scientific Method? You are free to select any particular methodology you want, and I will find fault with it. If you won't/don't, then you can't say what I am saying is anecdotal, because I am allowing you to chose any, even the ones I haven't worked with(a short list), you also can't say it's unsupported....because I am talking about what I can do, which only requires my support, dumbass, and you also can't say it's irrelevant, because your entire positions centers on what I supposedly can't do.

 

There are no specifics other than to say: you still don't understand the flaw in the Scientific Method as it relates to atomic events. Running your mouth at me, instead familiarizing yourself with the material, does not mitigate your lack of understanding.

 

I'll dumb it down for you: an event that cannot be repeated may still exist. However, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to such an event. By definition, therefore, using the Scientific Method, we are forced to conclude that such events do not in fact exist, even if they happen right in front of us. Hence, this method, like all methods, is inherently flawed.

[OCinBuffalo]

Who said anything about god? I'm only talking about your ridiculous post. Stay on topic and tell my why the first paragraph is not a false premise.

Try to keep up skippy. I wasn't replying to you. Believe it or not, there are other people besides you in this thread.

 

I have told you 2 times now. Here's some friendly advice, don't argue with an expert, they will only make you look foolish in the end. Want me to start toying with you? Keep it up.

[Gene Frenkle]

I can't prove what exactly?

 

1. That I haven't worked with multiple methodologies? Again, I refer you to project manager, enterprise(Fortune 500, last big gig was $45 million) and architect, technical as my qualifications for saying um, yeah dopey, I have done the job. Anything else I say about my qualifications to speak on this matter will be interpreted by you as bragging, so spare me. It suffices to say: I am fully qualified to deliver an expert conclusion on this aspect because...I am a f'ing expert.

 

2. That I can't prove clear and consistent fault with ALL methodologies, including the Scientific Method? You are free to select any particular methodology you want, and I will find fault with it. If you won't/don't, then you can't say what I am saying is anecdotal, because I am allowing you to chose any, even the ones I haven't worked with(a short list), you also can't say it's unsupported....because I am talking about what I can do, which only requires my support, dumbass, and you also can't say it's irrelevant, because your entire positions centers on what I supposedly can't do.

 

There are no specifics other than to say: you still don't understand the flaw in the Scientific Method as it relates to atomic events. Running your mouth at me, instead familiarizing yourself with the material, does not mitigate your lack of understanding.

 

I'll dumb it down for you: an event that cannot be repeated may still exist. However, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to such an event. By definition, therefore, using the Scientific Method, we are forced to conclude that such events do not in fact exist, even if they happen right in front of us. Hence, this method, like all methods, is inherently flawed.

Wow, you don't like be wrong do you? Are you looking to start and internet fist fight?

 

Personally, I don't really care where you manage projects or clean out garbage cans or whatever. All that is important to me is the lack of intelligence and incapacity for critical thought that you display here on a regular basis.

 

You still have not specified any flaws in the Scientific Method. If an event cannot be reproduced, it is not scientifically relevant. The Scientific Method does not attempt to either prove or disprove ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality such as your silly 'atomic dimensions' theory. This is not a flaw in the Scientific Method.

 

As for the existence of God, the Scientific Method does not attempt to prove or disprove that claim either. All you've really done is cite two nearly identical fantastical claims that illustrate limits of the Scientific Method. Again, limits not flaws. In both cases, the only flaws exist in the logic behind the belief.

 

It occurs to me that the overly-qualified Fortune 500 Project Manager is out of his depth here.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow, you don't like be wrong do you? Are you looking to start and internet fist fight?

Dude, don't talk about fights. You would lose to me in every kind of fight there is, and I don't pick on the intellectually or physically crippled, unless they keep running their mouths.

You still have not specified any flaws in the Scientific Method.

Yes I have. I can state more, but I'm not going to until we are all sure you understand the first one.

If an event cannot be reproduced, it is not scientifically relevant.

I would imagine the existence of a parallel dimension might just be....oh I don't know, the largest scientific discovery of all time...but yeah, you are right.

The Scientific Method does not attempt to either prove or disprove ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality such as your silly 'atomic dimensions' theory.

Hint: it's not my theory. It's somebody else's. Somebody who is very relevant to this thread. There is this thing called Google. You may use it at any time to educate yourself. This is the third and final time I am offering you a chance to read up on the material....

 

Oh, and since we are talking alternate dimension here, we are also talking alternate realities. So of course something that only deals with this this "reality" is going to be flawed. But I am sure you knew that before you posted and are just joking here right?

This is not a flaw in the Scientific Method.

It demands that things be reproduced in order to prove causal relationships. It therefore cannot deal with singular events, such as the possibility of starting a new dimension by driving down the road and turning left instead of right. How about the Big Bang....are you suggesting that we can't believe in that, since it can't be reproduced? That event can only happen once, cannot be repeated a that point in time, therefore cannot be reproduced for study. Therefore the Scientific Method cannot be used to study all things in this universe: which means that, by definition, it is flawed.

As for the existence of God, the Scientific Method does not attempt to prove or disprove that claim either. All you've really done is cite two nearly identical fantastical claims that illustrate limits of the Scientific Method. Again, limits not flaws. In both cases, the only flaws exist in the logic behind the belief.

What? The logic behind the belief? What are you talking about? You are operating under the assumption that the scientific method can be used to explain all things. That is your belief. I point how how that simply cannot be the case, and thereby point out the clear flaw in your logic...and you tell me about limitations? Your the one stating that it can be used to explain everything. It cannot. Therefore, it is inherently flawed. Make up your mind: it either can be used to explain everything or it cannot. If it cannot, then you can't hold it up as Holy writ, like you have been doing this entire thread.

It occurs to me that the overly-qualified Fortune 500 Project Manager is out of his depth here.

There is a giant piece of info I am going to drop on you like a safe in about 2 posts. Focus on why that hasn't occurred to you yet. Out of my depth? You still don't understand any of what I am saying, and I have 3 more flaws left to go.

 

Hint: Carl Sagan said "It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand." In your case, it means nothing to be closed off to a proposition you don't understand.

[Gene Frenkle]

Dude, don't talk about fights. You would lose to me in every kind of fight there is, and I don't pick on the intellectually or physically crippled, unless they keep running their mouths.

Ok, you're a tool without hope and now you're ignored. Internet tough guys never get old.

[OCinBuffalo]

I didn't mean to imply that the Scientific Method says God doesn't exist, I was trying to say that it couldn't be applied at all, so many scholars withhold belief for that reason.

 

I agree with everything you said in this post. I can't stand people who proselytize, no matter what their beliefs (or non-beliefs) are. If you want to have a healthy debate, that's one thing. Shoving your beliefs down someone's throat is completely another.

My "other" point is: I tend to believe that no single, unifying Scientific Method can be used to explore and find and explain everything. Saying otherwise, as I have has stated, makes you just as dogmatic at the ultra-religious. Instead, I like this quote from Nietzche: Linky. (scroll down a bit)

 

1. Partially because I have been the cause of putting people in a room to solve a problem and have seen the very behavior he describes over and over....and sometimes not,

2. Partially because there are fools like the one I am currently dealing with in this thread who pursue their hatred and attempts at discrediting religion using the very same, non-scientific, tactics of those they claim are so wrong and those they claim to hate so much,

3. and partially because I am simply not comfortable with any man-made construct as being now and forever infallible.

 

Zealotry is zealotry, it's behaviors and consequences are indistinguishable moving from one belief system to the next.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok, you're a tool without hope and now you're ignored. Internet tough guys never get old.

Awesome. Now I can continue ripping you a new one unhindered. You have offered nothing to support your position, once again. Your only avenue has been to "take all my toys and go home". So, now you are 0-23.

 

EDIT: And Carl Sagan, yes the very guy you quoted to begin this thread, is the source of the Scientific Method criticism I have deployed here. In fact, he was using this criticism as a means to question other scientists. So all along your hero, and not me, is the one who you are arguing against....but of course, you will probably ignore that as well.

 

More evidence that liberals and atheists and in no way intellectually superior to anyone.

[Gene Frenkle]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: OCinBuffalo.

This is your best post by far.

[Magox]

Awesome. Now I can continue ripping you a new one unhindered. You have offered nothing to support your position, once again. Your only avenue has been to "take all my toys and go home". So, now you are 0-23.

 

EDIT: And Carl Sagan, yes the very guy you quoted to begin this thread, is the source of the Scientific Method criticism I have deployed here. In fact, he was using this criticism as a means to question other scientists. So all along your hero, and not me, is the one who you are arguing against....but of course, you will probably ignore that as well.

 

More evidence that liberals and atheists and in no way intellectually superior to anyone.

 

And another thing, why do you like to parade in your mothers underwear? Is it a liberal or atheist thing or both?

[LeviF]

Warmongering!