Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Azdgari



    Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31

On existence, God is real... This being true what would have to be true, We would most likely see a belief system based around his existence(unnecessary but likely), We would see some evidence of a God at the base workings of nature ie physics,
We may see a record of his interaction with our species (also not required)...

Conclusion, we saw to things that suggested a god, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell... Inconclusive

At this point, we invent whatever attributes of the god are necessary in order for our observations of nature to yield a positive result.  That is what actually happens when people go looking for gods in the way you describe, but remain theists.  Do we find everything completely coherent?  Well then, only a divine mind could keep it so!  Do we find instead that space-time as we know it breaks down in some way at extremely small scales?  Well then, that proves <my version of> supernaturalism!  God is real!

This is a dishonest approach, because the result will only ever be about the so-called experimenter's biases, rather than about the topic being analyzed.  Again, this is what actually happens when people do what you describe.  The whole exercise is smoke and mirrors.

On  non existence, God is not real... This being true what would have to be true? We would most likely see groups of people denying an existence(not required). We would see a complete explanation of the natural that does not require an intervention of intelligence.

Conclusion, we saw something that suggested a lack of a God, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell if intelligent intervention is required or not... Inconclusive

Actually neither of those things suggest the lack, or presence, of a god.  Gods believed-in by intelligent believers are deliberately placed beyond the scope of analysis.  After all, they're safe as long as they stay there.

My assertion is that using my thought process It is not possible to possible to prove a god or lack there of but It does tell us where to look for the answer which as far as I could discern is the same place...

You have not shown a thought process that tells me how to figure out where to look for a god.  You have shown me your opinion of where to look for a god, and no results will ever be interpreted - by you - as a negative result in that department.

Unless, by "it does tell us where to look for the answer", you mean "it does tell us where to look for the answer yes".  That would be accurate.

I also want to do the flight example...

Human flight is possible, If that is true then humans can be made as light as air. If humans can be made as light as air then there is a process by which humans can be made lighter than other fluids. A common fluid humans are made lighter then is water. Boats float on water by Bernoulli's principal.

Conclusion... To achieve human flight we should investigate the application of Bernoulli's principal

If by "human flight" you mean solely lighter-than-air flight, such as by zepplins, then that makes sense.  It is not akin to what you have done above.
Changed Change Reason Date
ParkingPlaces 1 of 4 very clear responses to mhaberling December 26, 2012, 11:29:08 AM
kaziglu bey For demonstrating the difference between science and woo. December 26, 2012, 11:38:51 AM