Does God Exist?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Physics is the god of science.

No it isn't. Physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

Someone didn't get the joke

[Betulla]

He's probably trying to sound cool by using God as a metaphor for natural phenomenons.

It doesn't sound cool at all.

Hence trying.

No it isn't. Physics is the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

Someone didn't get the joke

What joke?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Yeah, but call it the Laws of Physics, not God. You'll confuse a lot people like that.

Physics is the god of science.

No, stop trying to justify everything with the existence of a god.

[Agymnum]

He's probably trying to sound cool by using God as a metaphor for natural phenomenons.

It doesn't sound cool at all.

Sounds pretty fucking lame and cop-out, actually.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Then I'm saying that we cannot predict with certainty what someone will do in the future on any meaningful level. Determining where someone can put their hand is not meaningful. Determining if someone might kill themselves in two months, however, is.

What? We can determine if someone might kill themselves in two months. That's hardly impossible.

With certainty? With reasonable, accurate certainty?

I'm doubtful. Now, we have these people called "therapists" and "social workers", and by and large, CBT (i.e. the only type that fucking works) doesn't involve hooking up diodes to your head to determine what pesky electrodes are bugging you today.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then I'm saying that we cannot predict with certainty what someone will do in the future on any meaningful level. Determining where someone can put their hand is not meaningful. Determining if someone might kill themselves in two months, however, is.

What? We can determine if someone might kill themselves in two months. That's hardly impossible.

You can pretty much predict if someone MIGHT do something.

However, predicting that someone WILL do something, it pretty much impossible.

[Betulla]

It doesn't sound cool at all.

Sounds pretty fucking lame and cop-out, actually.

But yeah, you know, the cool kids trying to sound smart with clever rhetoric and shit.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It doesn't sound cool at all.

Hence trying.

Someone didn't get the joke

What joke?

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

[Mavorpen]

Obviously someone failed their rhetoric class.

When you make a counter-claim, you also add a rebuttal, which is evidence about why such a counterclaim is correct. By only adding counter-claims, you really are not doing anything other than spewing bullshit.

I did make a counter claim. I then added a rebuttal. The problem here is that you've shifted the goal posts so far that you don't grasp the fact that I was making a counter claim that WASN'T meant to address whether you can determine someone's actions through genes alone. My counter claim addressed whether I claimed you could in the first place. Are you even TRYING to remember what happened only pages ago?

[Lake Gaston]

Another question, what's next? Over the thousands of years 'god' has continually changed, religion by religion. The most recent religions are more "finding your true self" than actually bowing before a god. Religions seem to come and go if you look far back enough, does that mean that those people didn't worship the right god? Does that god really exist than?

[Betulla]

Hence trying.


What joke?

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

That just shows how little he knows about religion.

[Agymnum]

What? We can determine if someone might kill themselves in two months. That's hardly impossible.

You can pretty much predict if someone MIGHT do something.

However, predicting that someone WILL do something, it pretty much impossible.

Right, but remember that "might" is not 50/50.

Someone might kill themselves in two months with a probability of 90%. Thus you look at options for counseling and psychological treatment.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It doesn't sound cool at all.

Sounds pretty fucking lame and cop-out, actually.

In a manner, yes.

[Dragomere]

Hence trying.


What joke?

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

Actually to turn religion into a science.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

What? We can determine if someone might kill themselves in two months. That's hardly impossible.

With certainty? With reasonable, accurate certainty?

I'm doubtful. Now, we have these people called "therapists" and "social workers", and by and large, CBT (i.e. the only type that fucking works) doesn't involve hooking up diodes to your head to determine what pesky electrodes are bugging you today.

I like determinism as much as the next guy, but genes as a magic 8-ball sounds stupid to me.

Let alone the fact that we can only see trends and probabilities, but also that no one lives in a fucking vacuum.

[Mavorpen]

With certainty? With reasonable, accurate certainty?

Yes, depending on what you mean by those words.

[Agymnum]

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

Actually to turn religion into a science.

Reading that sentence made me physically sick. Religion is inherently unscientific as it is dogmatic and unchanging in the face of new evidence. It's the farthest thing from science.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

Actually to turn religion into a science.

Why would even want to do that?

[Lake Gaston]

Actually to turn religion into a science.

Reading that sentence made me physically sick. Religion is inherently unscientific as it is dogmatic and unchanging in the face of new evidence. It's the farthest thing from science.

Apparently, that depends on your religion.

[Dragomere]

Actually to turn religion into a science.

Reading that sentence made me physically sick. Religion is inherently unscientific as it is dogmatic and unchanging in the face of new evidence. It's the farthest thing from science.

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Plus, it feels like an attempt at making science into a religion. Sure, I've seen some people treat it as such.

That just shows how little he knows about religion.

There's nothing rational about religion. Trying to turn it into science is doomed to failure as religion doesn't accept change.

[Cosmicus]

Reading that sentence made me physically sick. Religion is inherently unscientific as it is dogmatic and unchanging in the face of new evidence. It's the farthest thing from science.

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

...
What in the actual fuck?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Obviously someone failed their rhetoric class.

When you make a counter-claim, you also add a rebuttal, which is evidence about why such a counterclaim is correct. By only adding counter-claims, you really are not doing anything other than spewing bullshit.

I did make a counter claim. I then added a rebuttal. The problem here is that you've shifted the goal posts so far that you don't grasp the fact that I was making a counter claim that WASN'T meant to address whether you can determine someone's actions through genes alone. My counter claim addressed whether I claimed you could in the first place. Are you even TRYING to remember what happened only pages ago?

Well, in a way, I just want to get off this argument, so I was pretty much going to ignore this and end the threadjacking.

However, you did add a rebuttal and I did notice it, but then again it's not like it's not somewhat fun to see you getting slightly annoyed now let's stop this threadjack and get back to the topic at hand, mmmk?

[The Steel Magnolia]

With certainty? With reasonable, accurate certainty?

Yes, depending on what you mean by those words.

Again, you're going to have to expand.

[San Splendido]

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

Not really. It is not even 100 % sure that a person named Jesus (or more likely Yeshua bar Yosef) existed back then and founded a cult. Possible, but not 100 % sure. Let alone many of the miracles.