How these threads ever go beyond "We cannot either prove or disprove the existence of God, nor will we ever be able to", I have no idea.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Does God exist?
Collapse
X
-
Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then I suppose given the chemical composition of the early earth, we should be able to replicate protein chains.
Sadly every attempt to do so has failed.
Actually, that's where you're wrong. Actually, technically you aren't incorrect (we have not assembled through pure chance any modern polypeptide chains), but we have developed self-replicating ribozymes (enzymes made out of ribonucleic acid). Moreover, our experiments have always indicated the possibility of such proteins arising, just that we have not conducted our experiments on a scale comparable to the one in which they originally arose.
Comment
-
No. Can you scientifically prove or disprove that I have an invisible friend called Adsfsadf? The closest you might get is with psychology, proving that I'm a loony. But that still is no hard proof that my invisible friend doesn't actually exist.Originally posted by reds4ever
Whilst I totally agree with the last paragragh, surely the second paragraph contradicts the first?
You can't prove or disprove the existence of a pink unicorn either. It doesn't likely exist on Earth, but good luck searching the bajillion other square miles of the Universe. Theoretically it could be (dis)proven if we'd have universal knowledge, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
(edit: added quote to avoid any confusion)
Comment
-
Yes that I find especially interesting. At the moment I'm reading a bit of Dante and he blends the ancient greek-roman mythology with the christian tradition very nicely.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Some say they are glimpses of God throughout history, and that by definition, ours should be better because we have the greater weight of experience, and have progressive revelation.
It's still not very convincing though."An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
Comment
-
Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything though.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Mercator, you forget Occam's Razor.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
Comment
-
Occam Shmoccam
@ Ted Striker
Kuciwalker:
Comment
-
I don't really understand that. The simplest explanation is preferable, but there's a good chance it's not the simplest explanation after all!Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Mercator, you forget Occam's Razor.
It might be a bit simplistic to say it like that but that's what it comes down to... how can you effectively use it then?
With Occam's Razor you can say whatever you like really.."An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
Comment
-
Originally postulated by William of Occam
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
It says (if you can already prove God is unnecessary to explain the universe) that you should not hypothesise God - but it doesn't say "therefore there is no God".
It is not a method of proof, only of simplification. And since science thus far hasn't come up with an irrefutable substitute for God, the tendency would be for the physics-bending Big Bang to fall to the razor, rather than one simple ineffable entity.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
Comment
-
But Occam doesn't prove they don't.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Here's an example: it's possible that there are completely undetectable dancing leprechauns on the surfaces of electrons. It's useless and stupid to, instead of saying they don't exist, simply say "we can't know whether or not they exist". They don't, it's that simple.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
Comment
-
Oh blooody hell, this is how threads like this go on and on. ********* making stupid suggestions.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
Comment
Comment