"God did not create the universe" - Stephen Hawking

[Dad]

It doesn't justify it, but he is right in the fact that you can't force people to think differently except through extreme measures.

 

That's pretty much what I mean. Don't be a jackass and suggest the obvious Crabby. I'm not ignorant enough to say that extreme coercion as such was implied, to be right.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

>.<

 

Atheists believe their views to be the sole truths, what you're saying is that I'm not allowed to believe in something else simply because it offends people who's beliefs are better than mine.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

[Guest]

That's pretty much what I mean. Don't be a jackass and suggest the obvious Crabby. I'm not ignorant enough to say that extreme coercion as such was implied, to be right.

Your argument as stated consists of the following syllogism::

 

1) Religious conversion is only a problem when it is forced.

2) Religious conversion cannot truly be "forced" by this extreme physical-law definition of the word.

3) Therefore, religious conversion is never a problem.

 

To admit that coercion that doesn't fit your extreme definition of "force" can still be problematic collapses your argument.

 

What you're doing is playing a shell game. You're starting by acknowledging that forcing beliefs on others is bad, and then fiddle with the definition of "force" until it is so narrow as to include nothing at all, and hoping that nobody will notice that you have, in the process, ignored all of the problematic actions that you have removed from the definition of "force" but that even you still admit are clearly wrong. Unfortunately for you, this shell game relies on nobody noticing what you're doing; if anyone sees you palming the bead as you shuffle the force shell around, the entire charade falls apart.

[Dad]

Your argument as stated consists of the following syllogism::

 

1) Religious conversion is only a problem when it is forced.

2) Religious conversion cannot truly be "forced" by this extreme physical-law definition of the word.

3) Therefore, religious conversion is never a problem.

 

To admit that coercion that doesn't fit your extreme definition of "force" can still be problematic collapses your argument.

 

What you're doing is playing a shell game. You're starting by acknowledging that forcing beliefs on others is bad, and then fiddle with the definition of "force" until it is so narrow as to include nothing at all, and hoping that nobody will notice that you have, in the process, ignored all of the problematic actions that you have removed from the definition of "force" but that even you still admit are clearly wrong. Unfortunately for you, this shell game relies on nobody noticing what you're doing; if anyone sees you palming the bead as you shuffle the force shell around, the entire charade falls apart.

 

If you wanna take it that far, okay.

[Guest]

If you wanna take it that far, okay.

That's your best response? That noting that your argument is not logically consistent is correct, but is somehow going too far?

[Dad]

That's your best response? That noting that your argument is not logically consistent is correct, but is somehow going too far?

 

No. You took my statement and blew it out of proportion. You knew exactly what I meant, twisted my words, and tried to get something different out of me. I didn't change my response because you were going to cycle through that same process as you always do. And there's no correct answer for you.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

No. You took my statement and blew it out of proportion. You knew exactly what I meant, twisted my words, and tried to get something different out of me.

I disagree. It sounded like a pretty damn spot-on description of your argument to me. If you're now trying to state that you misspoke and that's not what you meant then go ahead and say what you meant rather then reiterating "That's not what I meant!"

[Dad]

Then let me put it this way. As long as a person is in his or her right mind, and still has the ability to say and think freely, he or she cannot be "forced" per say, to make a decision against their free will.

 

inb4freewilldoesnotexist

 

The religious nut may push and insist their religion upon said person, but they don't have to accept it.

[Guest]

Tell me: is it acceptable for me to put a gun to your head and say "CONVERT TO THE CHURCH OF CTHULHUTOLOGY OR DIE"?

 

If your answer is no: then you have acknowledged that religious oppression is a problem even if it doesn't necessarily take the form of literal mind control and fall under your extreme definition of "force". As such, your definition of "force" is inappropriate to the topic, and it cannot be used to support your argument, as something can be unacceptably coercive without being what you consider "force".

 

If your answer is yes, then you have much bigger problems than a mere inability to parse syllogisms properly.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Seems like Crab was spot on to me.

[Dad]

So are you saying my definition is too out of context to be applied to the topic? If so, then I understand where we butt heads.

[Guest]

So are you saying my definition is too out of context to be applied to the topic? If so, then I understand where we butt heads.

The "shell game" analogy was a little misleading. You're not deliberately trying to deceive others; you're just such an idiot that you don't even understand your own argument and are incapable of successfully reading my posts.

 

Answer the question: is it acceptable for me to say "Join my religion or die"?

[Dad]

The "shell game" analogy was a little misleading. You're not deliberately trying to deceive others; you're just such an idiot that you don't even understand your own argument and are incapable of successfully reading my posts.

 

As much as I was expecting that, I still lol'd. I may not be as intelligent as you are, but I'm not an idiot.

 

The "shell game" analogy was a little misleading. You're not deliberately trying to deceive others; you're just such an idiot that you don't even understand your own argument and are incapable of successfully reading my posts.

 

Answer the question: is it acceptable for me to say "Join my religion or die"?

 

Acceptable to whom? Me or the world? To me, nah that's not cool. -_- I'd just ignore you and take death.

[Tentacruel]

No one ever said that it was acceptable to force someone to join their religion, but according to you, anybody converting to any religion equates to being forced into it.

[Dad]

No one ever said that it was acceptable to force someone to join their religion, but according to you, anybody converting to any religion equates to being forced into it.

 

When did you come to that assumption? :/

[Tentacruel]

Crab clearly said that any religious conversion is essentially forcing people to change their opinions.

[Dad]

Crab clearly said that any religious conversion is essentially forcing people to change their opinions.

 

I thought she was being sarcastic. Idk.

[Tentacruel]

Crab's a girl?! :o

[Dad]

Crab's a girl?! :o

 

>_> After Crab fills me in, I'll be out of this topic. I can't deal with this type of. . . foolishness.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Crab's a girl?! :o

Someone just creamed themselves.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Science can't "prove" anything. There's always a possibility it could be shown to be wrong later on. Nevertheless we must make judgments based on the best data available at the time, otherwise the scientific method would be powerless to create anything in the world.

 

An assumption is a claim made without certain supporting evidence. Science practiced correctly would not involve assumptions, only known irrefutable facts. Science cannot prove that which is assumed, and that which is assumed cannot be "proven by science".

 

Unless it's an assumption, it can't be "shown to be wrong later on". "God physically exists" and "God doesn't physically exist" are assumptions. "God could physically exist" is not an assumption, it cannot be shown to be wrong, it is certain. There is no doubt whatsoever that God COULD physically exist. Agnostics are correct no matter what. Likewise, the claim "God did not create the universe" is also an assumption as it lacks supporting evidence.

 

There isn't, however, any doubt that the idea of God exists, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. If God didn't exist in any way whatsoever it would be impossible to type God.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

An assumption is a claim made without certain supporting evidence. Science practiced correctly would not involve assumptions, only known irrefutable facts. Science cannot prove that which is assumed, and that which is assumed cannot be "proven by science".

 

Unless it's an assumption, it can't be "shown to be wrong later on". "God physically exists" and "God doesn't physically exist" are assumptions. "God could physically exist" is not an assumption, it cannot be shown to be wrong, it is certain. There is no doubt whatsoever that God COULD physically exist. Agnostics are correct no matter what. Likewise, the claim "God did not create the universe" is also an assumption as it lacks supporting evidence.

 

There isn't, however, any doubt that the idea of God exists, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. If God didn't exist in any way whatsoever it would be impossible to type God.

That is not how science works. In science, something has to be falsifiable before it can be a principle-- something that is considered "irrefutable" is unscientific, because it means that it is not falsifiable. This is why so much effort is put into replicating results in science: the more trials one does, the more certainly one can say they support a principle, however, no matter how many experiments you run, you can never say with 100% certainty that the next trial won't refute the principle.

 

Your principle that "God could physically exist" is a statement of certainty is not correct. As you stated, it cannot be proven false. This does not mean it is correct, this means that it lacks any kind of substance whatsoever, like a Tarot card reading that can be interpreted so many ways that its impossible to prove it wrong.

 

I suggest you read up on falsifiability before you claim understanding of how science is "practiced correctly", because this is one of its core concepts and you have exhibited absolutely zero knowledge of how it works.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Pipe down. That which is "correct" is a matter concerning ethics, where falsifiability has no jurisdiction. Why is that which lacks substance "incorrect"? Why is the way in which science is currently practiced "correct"? Why is that which has become a principle "correct"? Why is the Ancient Wisdom sealed within the Mystical Cards of the Tarot™ "incorrect" because it's too much for you to grasp?

 

I suggest you consider ethics and the ways in which you'd apply them to various issues in your life before wearying a forum with such high a stature as YCM with your odes to falsifiability, as Wikipedia won't be able to do that for you AND AS YOU'VE EXHIBITED NEGATIVE 5 UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.

[The Dark One]

An assumption is a claim made without certain supporting evidence. Science practiced correctly would not involve assumptions, only known irrefutable facts. Science cannot prove that which is assumed, and that which is assumed cannot be "proven by science". Unless it's an assumption, it can't be "shown to be wrong later on". "God physically exists" and "God doesn't physically exist" are assumptions. "God could physically exist" is not an assumption, it cannot be shown to be wrong, it is certain. There is no doubt whatsoever that God COULD physically exist. Agnostics are correct no matter what. Likewise, the claim "God did not create the universe" is also an assumption as it lacks supporting evidence.There isn't, however, any doubt that the idea of God exists, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. If God didn't exist in any way whatsoever it would be impossible to type God.

 

 

That is not how science works. In science, something has to be falsifiable before it can be a principle-- something that is considered "irrefutable" is unscientific, because it means that it is not falsifiable. This is why so much effort is put into replicating results in science: the more trials one does, the more certainly one can say they support a principle, however, no matter how many experiments you run, you can never say with 100% certainty that the next trial won't refute the principle.Your principle that "God could physically exist" is a statement of certainty is not correct. As you stated, it cannot be proven false. This does not mean it is correct, this means that it lacks any kind of substance whatsoever, like a Tarot card reading that can be interpreted so many ways that its impossible to prove it wrong.I suggest you read up on falsifiability before you claim understanding of how science is "practiced correctly", because this is one of its core concepts and you have exhibited absolutely zero knowledge of how it works.

 

 

Pipe down. That which is "correct" is a matter concerning ethics, where falsifiability has no jurisdiction. Why is that which lacks substance "incorrect"? Why is the way in which science is currently practiced "correct"? Why is that which has become a principle "correct"? Why is the Ancient Wisdom sealed within the Mystical Cards of the Tarot™ "incorrect" because it's too much for you to grasp? I suggest you consider ethics and the ways in which you'd apply them to various issues in your life before wearying a forum with such high a stature as YCM with your odes to falsifiability, as Wikipedia won't be able to do that for you AND AS YOU'VE EXHIBITED NEGATIVE 5 UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.

 

You two are violently agreeing here. Petrosian said it is indisputable that God could exist. That is merely a statement of uncertaintly. All the substantiation required for such an argument is the creation of a possible scenario in which the statement is true. Thus the could. Petrosian is right. If Petrosian said that God does exist, that would be an entirely different matter, and would of course be an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore unscientific.

 

Also, ethics? Yes Petrosian, you understand the is/ought quandary, good for you. But that really has nothing to do with this topic.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Not really. He said that to be science, something has to be 100% irrefutable fact. Since scientific principle demands everything be refutable (falsifiable), that's patently false.