• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God and The Meaning of Life

Angel said:
Your personal attack on the man does not reach his scientific argument at all and argues only for your own unreasonableness.
If you read the article, as you claim, then you should know that the criticism there is all about Torah scholarship and has nothing to do with the video, which you quote but refuse to watch.
Click to expand...

Science cannot by definition provide evidence for gods since it is rooted in the study of the facts observed in the natural world. Gods are something else entirely.
 
Angel said:
Your personal attack on the man does not reach his scientific argument at all and argues only for your own unreasonableness.
If you read the article, as you claim, then you should know that the criticism there is all about Torah scholarship and has nothing to do with the video, which you quote but refuse to watch.
Click to expand...

I have not personally attacked the man. He is an Orthodox Jew and it impacts his view of science. He has no scientific argument, as you call it. Science does not rely on arguments, that is the method used in philosophy and religion. Religious books do not espouse scientific views, no matter how desperately believers try to shoehorn science into them.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is something that you should learn. Disagreeing with you is not 'bashing' anything, except, perhaps, bashing poor scholarhip.
Click to expand...

Anything that opposes the doctrines of demons that the anti-Christianity crowd puts out is hardly poor scholarship.
 
Logicman said:
And when I do you're going to call them quacks, right? I know your game.
Click to expand...

Forget what someone who identifies as a scientist may say. Just find any legitimate purely scientific studies that are based on legitimate scientific evidence.
 
RAMOSS said:
The fact that you made this statement shows an issue already. I have also seen your 'skepticism' on climate change. That kind of irrationality does not bode well for constructive discourse.
Click to expand...

Choose your area of debate.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
I challenge you to find any scientist who says that the world flood actually happened.
Click to expand...

Logicman said:
And when I do you're going to call them quacks, right? I know your game.
Click to expand...

Scientist working at any none religious university in geography or geology. Go for it.
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
Forget what someone who identifies as a scientist may say. Just find any legitimate purely scientific studies that are based on legitimate scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Show me your replicated scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist?
 
Logicman said:
"Non religious". So scientists have to conform to your bigoted criteria to be considered? Get a new dog.
Click to expand...

No. They don't have to conform to anything. That is the point. Any scientist who does not have to conform to a preset set of results but bases his understanding of nature from the results of looking at nature.

Not those who have to conformm to pre set results.
 
devildavid said:
I have not personally attacked the man. He is an Orthodox Jew and it impacts his view of science. He has no scientific argument, as you call it. Science does not rely on arguments, that is the method used in philosophy and religion. Religious books do not espouse scientific views, no matter how desperately believers try to shoehorn science into them.
Click to expand...
You attacked the man, not the man's argument. The ad hominem fallacy.
 
devildavid said:
I read the article. The video is not worth 1 second, let alone 5 minutes. You invariably cite religious zealots with a scientific background. That is very telling. The article does address the subject at hand. Schroeder's scientific background does not mean his attempt to prove god is in any way scientific. He is a religious wolf in scientific sheep's clothing. He lets his Orthodox Jewish faith dictate his non-scientific views, his background not withstanding.
Click to expand...
You persist in criticizing an argument you refuse to hear.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Science cannot by definition provide evidence for gods since it is rooted in the study of the facts observed in the natural world. Gods are something else entirely.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting thesis. May we consider it further?

Can the natural world be used in any argument whatever?
Can the story about the natural world that science tells be part of any argument outside science?
 
Logicman said:
Show me your replicated scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist?
Click to expand...

Show me any scientific studies of anything that does not exist. Why doesn't science study sprites? Hmmmmm! Science doesn't go around looking for imaginary things to study. It all starts with physical evidence. No physical evidence, no scientific study.
 
devildavid said:
That there is no such thing as non-physical evidence.
Click to expand...
This is the evidence supporting your thesis that the "physical is all there is," yes?

So, in support of the thesis All S are P, you propose the proposition No S are non-P.
Even you can see the problem here.
Your evidence is simply a restatement of your thesis by way of logical obversion.
 
devildavid said:
How exactly is stating facts about the man attacking him?
Click to expand...
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
 
Angel said:
This is the evidence supporting your thesis that the "physical is all there is," yes?

So, in support of the thesis All S are P, you propose the proposition No S are non-P.
Even you can see the problem here.
Your evidence is simply a restatement of your thesis by way of logical obversion.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand what evidence is. Arguments are not evidence, words are not evidence. Physical reality is the only realm that contains evidence because that is all there is. Everything else is make believe.
 
Angel said:
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Click to expand...

How did I attack his character?
 
devildavid said:
Apparently you don't understand what evidence is. Arguments are not evidence, words are not evidence. Physical reality is the only realm that contains evidence because that is all there is. Everything else is make believe.
Click to expand...
So you have no evidence for your thesis that the "physical is all there is." You merely assert it or assume it.
 
devildavid said:
How did I attack his character?
Click to expand...
That's a series you read there, separated by commas and joined by or -- "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
 
Angel said:
So you have no evidence for your thesis that the "physical is all there is." You merely assert it or assume it.
Click to expand...

No, its just a basic fact we all start with. Anything else is just making things up.
 
Angel said:
That's a series you read there, separated by commas and joined by or -- "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
Click to expand...

I did not attack him at all and you can't demonstrate that I did.
 
DEVILDAVID ON WHAT HE EXPECTS FROM THEIST CLAIMS
devildavid said:
I don't ask for proof. I only ask for one tiny shred of actual evidence beyond what an individual personally feels or thinks.
Click to expand...
THE EXEMPTION DEVILDAVID ENJOYS FOR HIS OWN CLAIMS
devildavid said:
No, its just a basic fact we all start with. Anything else is just making things up.
Click to expand...

You offer no evidence for your claim that the "physical is all there is."
You rely instead on a convenient ad hoc concept, a rhetorical deus ex machina of your own devising called "a basic fact," and attribute this to everyone universally so that you can avail yourself of it in this case and (so you believe) thereby escape having to provide "one tiny shred of evidence" for your thesis.

Your thesis looks very much like "what an individual personally feels or thinks."
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
I did not attack him at all and you can't demonstrate that I did.
Click to expand...
Just read the posted article on the ad hominem fallacy. There's nothing to demonstrate. Your posts are a matter of record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom