[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 129 KB, 445x445, 1309036204521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3413275 No.3413275 [Reply] [Original]

Proper scientists do not jump to half-baked conclusions without evidence. As in:
(1) God exists.
(2) God doesn't exist.

A proper scientist does not make any statement on that which he does not and cannot possibly know.

>> No.3413293

>>3413275
God not existing is not a conclusion. It is the lack of one. By saying "I do believe in God" you are is essence stating that you do not see sufficient evidence.

>> No.3413294
File: 38 KB, 340x275, challenge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3413294

>>3413275
>A proper scientist does not make any statement on that which he does not and cannot possibly know.

>> No.3413316

l2learn difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism

faggot

>> No.3413317

>>3413294
>>3413275
these two.

As much as I hate to support threads like these this is the valid point. There's many intellectuals that condemn all faith as childish in the face of the grand mechanisms of the universe but at the end of the day we as a race still do not have 100% irrefutable evidence of the presence of a divine being. All we can do is direct our studies and research into better comprehending the mysteries of our environment so that hopefully one day we can accurately measure what truly is, from a quantifiable perspective, divine.

>> No.3413318

Proper scientists do not jump to half-baked conclusions without evidence. As in:
(1) Santa exists.
(2) Santa doesn't exist.

A proper scientist does not make any statement on that which he does not and cannot possibly know.

my point: Christian god is as unlikely as the spaghetti monster

>> No.3413322

Every day, the same morons.

I hope for your sake you're a troll.

>> No.3413327

i come to /sci/ to rid myself of trolls
please and kindly gtfo

>> No.3413328

You can't have any evidence for the existence of God.

God is by definition a transcendental being that is beyond time, space, and any empirical test.

The question isn't whether he exists or doesn't, the more basic and important question is, what do we mean by God and his "existence"?

As far as I'm concerned, so far, God exists and God doesn't exist are gibberish phrases.

Agnostics give the god-concept too much credit without qualify it first.

>> No.3413354

>Proper scientists
>Proper
"no true Scotsman" fallacy
Seriously people cut this shit out do not preface anything with words like: proper, real, true, etc...

>A proper scientist does not make any statement on that which he does not and cannot possibly know.

He or she also does not entertain baseless speculation. If I honestly believed and tried to convince you that invisible unicorns are real you would not say "oh well I don't know that they aren't real so I will respect your opinion and give equal consideration to the possibility of them being real or not" you would likely say something along the lines "stop being retarded unicorns don't exist"

Until I see some proof there is no reason to seriously consider the existence of god or gods.

>> No.3413400

>>3413275


>implying science is concerned with "knowing" instead of "empirically supported beliefs"

>> No.3413414
File: 96 KB, 379x475, how_to_be_a_idiot_for_dummies_by_shaunjon87.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3413414

>>3413354
Oh..Seriously? You're now gonna bug out on what a scientist is or isn't?

Sounds like you've failed reason and rationality for dummies.

>> No.3414167

>>3413275
so true