So that's it for the election.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who's being hostile and irrational now? Think about it. Based on everything that's observable about being unconscious it stands to reason that death is nothing more than permanent unconsciousness. You're nothing more than a sack of chemicals and when the reactions stop, so do you and there's 0 evidence to suggest otherwise. And fairytales passed down for generations is not evidence.

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

winning? I am right in every case, whether or not you think i scored e-points matters very little to me.