How is science different then "feeling" God?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:43 pm

How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:52 pm

Tcg wrote:
Tart wrote:
Tcg wrote:
Tart wrote:
is this your "evidence", lol?
You found it. Do you have any other reply than, lol? For instance, can you in some meaningful way address what I posted?

Ya, i asked you for evidence in atheism, and you said "atheists exist"... How is that evidence?
No, I didn't answer, "atheists exist". Care to try again to address my post in a meaningful way?

Not really... there isnt anything worth responding to...

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:00 pm

Tart wrote:
Not really... there isnt anything worth responding to...

There is plenty to respond to. For some odd reason, my pointing out the fact that you misquoted me has left you with nothing to say.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:09 pm

Back to topic... Would you guys agree with Dr. Hume, that induction must be proven to justify the belief that it is a reliable method of inquiring knowledge? Or should we just assume its true?

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:21 pm

Tart wrote: Back to topic... Would you guys agree with Dr. Hume, that induction must be proven to justify the belief that it is a reliable method of inquiring knowledge? Or should we just assume its true?

How is this question, "Back to topic"?

Here is your OP:

"How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?"

How is introducing "Dr. Hume" a return to topic when you never included "Dr. Hume" in your original question?

It sounds to me like a totally new topic.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:22 pm

Tcg wrote:
Tart wrote:
Not really... there isnt anything worth responding to...
There is plenty to respond to. For some odd reason, my pointing out the fact that you misquoted me has left you with nothing to say.

the truth is Tcg... I suspect either i am misunderstanding what you are saying, in which case i repeatedly asked you to elaborate on your position... Which you refuse... saying go back and reread your post.

Or your post seem virtually meaningless to respond to....

if you wish to elaborate, you are free to do so, if not, i think its time to drop this conversation...

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:29 pm

Tcg wrote:
Tart wrote: Back to topic... Would you guys agree with Dr. Hume, that induction must be proven to justify the belief that it is a reliable method of inquiring knowledge? Or should we just assume its true?
How is this question, "Back to topic"?

Here is your OP:

"How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?"

How is introducing "Dr. Hume" a return to topic when you never included "Dr. Hume" in your original question?

It sounds to me like a totally new topic.

Great question Tcg... Let me elaborate for you.... This is about how scientific evidence is alike/different then evidence for God... Honestly the original post i left too broad for my liking.

One difference from scientific evidence from religious (i assume that you guys believe), is that evidence for God is taken on "faith", i.e. we just believe it on faith... (which i dont even believe, but YOU guys do, so for the sake of argument we assume evidence for God is based solely on "faith")

That said... We shouldnt just believe things, just because we believe them... Right?

So Dr. Hume, being a consistent atheist, questioned the reliability of induction, which is what scientific evidence is based on... He said you must prove induction is true to rely on it as an accurate method of inquiring knowledge...

so what do you think? Should we just assume induction is true? Or should it be proven?

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:34 pm

Tart wrote:
the truth is Tcg... I suspect either i am misunderstanding what you are saying,

As I clearly pointed out, you misquoted what I said. This is not a "misunderstanding", but a dishonest representation of what I said and a refusal to address it honestly.

think its time to drop this conversation...

You can give up any time you please. That is your choice. Your choice doesn't change the fact that I will continue to respond if and when I decide to.

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:37 pm

Tcg wrote:
Tart wrote:
the truth is Tcg... I suspect either i am misunderstanding what you are saying,
As I clearly pointed out, you misquoted what I said. This is not a "misunderstanding", but a dishonest representation of what I said and a refusal to address it honestly.

think its time to drop this conversation...
You can give up any time you please. That is your choice. Your choice doesn't change the fact that I will continue to respond if and when I decide to.

Well you can call me dishonest, but that is honestly how i interpret your "evidence for atheism"...

But you know what could clear this all up easily... You elaborating on the discussion... Right? What a thought!

Post by **Tcg** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:38 pm

Tart wrote:

Great question Tcg... Let me elaborate for you....

You don't need to explain it for me. You need to explain it to all involved in this discussion. Why have you change the subject while claiming to return to the original topic?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:39 pm

if not... Im sure you can just go back and look for a response of mine.. or google it... whatever