The trust in science when applied to any discipline is always dependent upon the honesty, integrity, self questioning and introspection of the practitioner.
All science is hamstrung with such a handicap. This is what is so laughable about the atheists willingness to rely on humanity selectively.
Science is testable and falsible, religion is neither. It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to.
Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world.
According to my old research, you are a little bit right, however, falsifiability is a standard created by philosopher Karl Popper to distinguish scientific theories from unscientific ones. But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions.
There's thousands of gods and all are unfalsifiable. You picked one of them. Did you pick the right one? It's your eternity on the line isn't it?
You apparently do not understand the philosopher Karl Popper's eloquent statement...again he states, "But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions."
In laymen terms, you are mixing bananas and pig-poop....oh, I mean apples and oranges.
So you don't care about what might be true and are willing to bet your eternity on it?
Supposedly a god created everything, including physical reality, you'd expect there to be evidence of that. Speculations and assertions don"t create evidence - the source has to be proven to exist and then linked to the observations before being evidence can be claimed, not the other way round.
You can't just make stuff up and then claim observations automatically as evidence - superstitous people have been doing this for yonks, as a pacifier to pretend to know what they don't really know but at least can close off their minds to further angst from not knowing.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
