Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 05:07 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 19, 2024, 06:36 AM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM
Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 11, 2024, 01:37 PM
France Muslims were in d...
September 05, 2024, 03:21 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 190415 times)
  • 12 3 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     OP - August 07, 2015, 11:39 AM
    Ringside seats for "Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?" -

    "I would like to use this topic to put across what I believe is the scientific evidence of God. I think the first thing that should be clarified is who/what I believe God to be.

    God is an all powerful living, real being who created everything that we know and things that we don't know of. This not only includes the creation of physical entities but subjective things such as languages, numbers, dreams, emotions, intellect, etc.

    Everything that we know of that we know of that we can perceive is a creation.

    God is all knowing. Because God created everything he knows everything about it.

    As humans we can never know truly know the extent of God as we have limited capabilities. There many things which we will simply never know about God.

    So if absolutely everything is a creation of God then how do we get to know that God really exists using science?  How can we tell the difference between something created by God and not created by God if in fact everything is created by God? I will try to explain this and show what the scientific evidence of God is in this topic."
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #1 - August 07, 2015, 11:41 AM
    Hey Ted, can you edit the titles and put Quod Sum Eris vs (or and) CallMeTed before the subject matter.

    Edit: The one on one between myself and Ted being commented on in this thread can be found here.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=29150.0
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #2 - August 07, 2015, 11:54 AM


  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #3 - August 07, 2015, 12:06 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 07, 2015, 11:39 AM

    God is an all powerful living,  real being    who created everything


    he knows ...............


    Ted you are blowing me., blowing me away.,  I am blown away.. GONE WITH THE WIND..  Ha! I didn't know that Ted.,  thanks Ted.  thank you for educating me.,  

    god is living thingy?? and it is "HE"?? ...... heeee??     I wonder whether this "he" has  any pennis?  

    May be it is true.. who knows? ....Al knows the best....
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #4 - August 07, 2015, 12:16 PM
    Quote
    Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?

     
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#Scientific_proof

    No, because proof isn't the domain of science. Science cannot prove anything, let alone the existence of a supernatural posit.

    Well, that was a quick debate.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #5 - August 07, 2015, 12:18 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on August 07, 2015, 12:16 PM
    ...
    Well, that was a quick debate.


    Hmm..   and   "I am the Judge jury and executioner "   Cheesy
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence God?
     Reply #6 - August 07, 2015, 12:29 PM
    It's an absolutely pointless debate, Yeez. You can talk about "Science and proof" only if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a proof entails.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #7 - August 07, 2015, 01:06 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on August 07, 2015, 12:29 PM
    It's an absolutely pointless debate, Yeez. You can talk about "Science and proof" only if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a proof entails.


    well Ted answers  that point running AROUND IT Qtian..

    ..............You guys have clearly misunderstood what god says in books     I think it's best if I first show the scientific evidence of God first...........  XXXX Ted
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #8 - August 07, 2015, 03:27 PM
    God delivers his final message, riddled with ambiguity, 1400 years ago. People who tried to fashion their society in accordance with that message, ended up making miserable societies, because they completely "misinterpreted" the message. God did not care, and never bothered to fix his mistakes. People who moved away from said message and earlier messages, ended up creating liberal pluralistic societies which functioned at least hundred times better than the muslim ones.

    Yet some people kept on pestering others with this god of theirs. Is there a creator/creators/an advanced alien civilization running this universe as a simulation for testing purposes? We don't know. But what we do know is that religion has no credibility whatsoever. Myths and stories about supreme being(s) are just that, myths and stories, and anyone can tell them.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #9 - August 07, 2015, 08:03 PM
    I'm just waiting for him to deliver his arguments. popcorn
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #10 - August 07, 2015, 09:39 PM
    Ted's definition of science renders his arguments for god from science nonsensical. One needs to observe God in his definition, which no one has done so far. Thus his argument will go nowhere.

    Quote
    To clarify, when I am talking about proving something scientifically I am talking about being able to do experiments and make real observations in order to verify explanations, ideas, hypotheses, etc.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #11 - August 07, 2015, 09:51 PM
    He likes the "Wikipedia definition of science," but not the Wikipedia description of human evolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #12 - August 07, 2015, 09:53 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 07, 2015, 09:34 PM
    When I use words such as "prove", "proof", "certain", etc. I am using the meanings/definitions as described in the public dictionaries. I tend not to use personal private meanings which some deluded individuals use who think that you can't prove anything in science.



    Oh Ted, you are a blast, but you're still wrong.

    Here are two features of a proof, neither of these features exist in science:

    1) A proof is final, a valid proof cannot be changed.
    2) A proof is binary.

    Your appeal to dictionary definitions is hilarious. Dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive.

    Once again, you have shown your naivety in all matters related to logic, philosophy and science.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #13 - August 07, 2015, 09:53 PM
    Why do people link a wiki when everyone should know that it is a source that can be edited by anyone thus unreliable. All of my professors reject wiki as a source on the first day in their course outline.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #14 - August 07, 2015, 09:57 PM
    Quod: that's a fucking long warm-up you are having.  Are you still stretching and flexing, or have you nodded off?
    Hi
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #15 - August 07, 2015, 09:58 PM
    Quote from: bogart on August 07, 2015, 09:53 PM
    Why do people link a wiki when everyone should know that it is a source that can be edited by anyone thus unreliable. All of my professors reject wiki as a source on the first day in their course outline.


    Because it's easy to quote wiki, you don't have to do any intellectual legwork.

    Not to say that wiki/dictionaries are necessarily wrong, but if a dictionary/wiki definition conflicts with expert consensus then expert consensus wins.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #16 - August 07, 2015, 10:07 PM
    The problem is that people take wiki as an expert source
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #17 - August 07, 2015, 10:46 PM
    Quote from: musivore on August 07, 2015, 09:57 PM
    Quod: that's a fucking long warm-up you are having.  Are you still stretching and flexing, or have you nodded off?

    He didn't actually give me any of his reasons or arguments for why he believes what he does, just what his beliefs are. Need the former to respond.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #18 - August 07, 2015, 10:53 PM
    That is all he has is empty statements of belief. He has not provided a single argument in any comment from the other thread. One might as well say "I like ice cream" it has the same value which is none.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #19 - August 07, 2015, 10:58 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on August 07, 2015, 10:46 PM
    He didn't actually give me any of his reasons or arguments for why he believes what he does, just what his beliefs are. Need the former to respond.


    Sorry, wasn't reading it properly. You are right.

    Nice response just now anyways.
    Hi
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #20 - August 07, 2015, 11:04 PM
    Thanks.

    Quote from: bogart on August 07, 2015, 10:53 PM
    That is all he has is empty statements of belief. He has not provided a single argument in any comment from the other thread. One might as well say "I like ice cream" it has the same value which is none.


    Basically.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #21 - August 07, 2015, 11:32 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on August 07, 2015, 09:53 PM

    Oh Ted, you are a blast, but you're still wrong.

    Here are two features of a proof, neither of these features exist in science:

    1) A proof is final, a valid proof cannot be changed.
    2) A proof is binary.

    Your appeal to dictionary definitions is hilarious. Dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive.

    Once again, you have shown your naivety in all matters related to logic, philosophy and science.


    And just where did you get those 2 features from?
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #22 - August 07, 2015, 11:35 PM
    Start with the SEP entry on classical logic. Once you've covered the basics, I'll give you more resources.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #23 - August 07, 2015, 11:38 PM
    Jesus you guys!

    Tell me - in all your experiences online have you EVER known such debates to change anyone's mind or produce anything useful?

    Be honest now!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #24 - August 07, 2015, 11:50 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on August 07, 2015, 11:35 PM
    Start with the SEP entry on classical logic. Once you've covered the basics, I'll give you more resources.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/


    Thanks, you've proven my point.
    My nasheed. Sing it with me!
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #25 - August 07, 2015, 11:52 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on August 07, 2015, 11:38 PM
    Jesus you guys!

    Tell me - in all your experiences
     online have you EVER known such debates to change anyone's mind or produce anything useful?

    Be honest now!


    No, but they can be just a little funnier than Saturday night TV sometimes.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #26 - August 07, 2015, 11:52 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 07, 2015, 11:50 PM
    Thanks, you've proven my point.


    Do elaborate.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #27 - August 07, 2015, 11:54 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on August 07, 2015, 11:52 PM
    No, but they can be just a little funnier than Saturday night TV sometimes.


    lol... I suppose.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #28 - August 07, 2015, 11:55 PM
    Going against the grain here a little. But Ted seems a little too bright to me to actually buy what he is selling. Just saying.

    Apologies if I'm wrong.
    Hi
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #29 - August 07, 2015, 11:55 PM
    Quote from: CallMeTed on August 07, 2015, 11:50 PM
    Thanks, you've proven my point.


    /debate over
  • 12 3 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »