Trump the Man

One more and I am done, as it should be self explanatory..... Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, " well that is not how I choose to think about water",? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he does not share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone does not value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Sam Harris........ Happy New Year to all, no matter your beliefs. FMC.

Hooray. I just noticed the ignore list. No more fmc for me. A great way to start the new year. :)
I would encourage others to do the same. Like I said if no one responds to his inane posts hopefully he'll go away.

Cheers to all and Happy New year

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishermccann

When someone says science has never proven anything one way or another, I know you are to far gone to reason with.

Taking things out of context i see. Like I said if you knew anything about science you would understand that statement. Science only ever disproves or supports. Enough support without disproof and and it is a good assumption to believe something is true - but it is never proven. You can apply this to your water analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishermccann

One more and I am done, as it should be self explanatory..... Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, " well that is not how I choose to think about water",? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he does not share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone does not value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Sam Harris........ Happy New Year to all, no matter your beliefs. FMC.

Comparing the question of God's existence to the nature of water is invalid. The scientific experimentation and evidence is there to support the one side. The other side has no evidence. Where God's existence is concerned there is no evidence on either side. Like i said show me the experiments and the corresponding results - they don't exist for either side. Explain the logic in drawing conclusions when there is no specific evidence for anything? Doing such a thing would actually be as far from logical as possible for either camp.

Where onus is concerned if a camp has a hypothesis/theory that is supported by sound experimentation and corresponding results and another camp disputes their belief than the onus is on the camp that disagrees with the supported hypothesis. Where God's existence is concerned both sides have a hypothesis but neither has any evidence. So in fact the onus is actually on everyone as no one can support anything scientifically. Any evidence you have referenced or logic you have applied invariably refers to some religious text or tenet. We are not taking about religion we are questioning the existence of God and your claim that science is on your side. Using errors in a text written by men as evidence that God does not exist is akin to using errors in a microbiology textbook to assert that bacteria do not exist. The text, while related, is irrelevant to the question of actual existence. If fully half the scientific community disagrees with your opinion the science is hardly settled.

I am done as well much to relief of the rest of the forum I am sure. Happy New Year.

Species,

You had me intrigued when you kept the debate elevated and intellectual, but you've let yourself succumb to primal instincts. Your phraseology not longer veils that its sport to you now ;)

A Happy New Year to you and yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Species,

you've let yourself succumb to primal instincts.

Helps me fill my tag!