- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith.
How so? If I accept that I can be wrong, I accept that my thoughts can never be shown to be absolute truth (that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths), so I must have faith that they are truths.
One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible.
I'm not saying that 'knowing' a truth is unreasonable. Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.
It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.
How so? As I have said, all evidence suggests that it will not. Around this evidence, we have modeled equations and laws and constants, through the relationship between various masses. But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have. Therefore new evidence could 'disprove' gravity (in our current understanding).
To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'faith'. To me, 'faith' means the difference between what evidence suggests, and the strength of your belief. Quite frankly, I do not see any chance of gravity giving out. But as I have said, there is a chance. Hence there is a difference between my belief, and the rational position. Hence I have faith. You can say the same for all other scientific beliefs - and all beliefs.
Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?
I don't thinks so. Philosophical/logical proofs are fundamentally different from scientific proofs, because they rely upon logic & reason & language & impossibilities, rather than evidence. Just as you could not disprove '1+1=2', you cannot disprove a philosophical proof (unless it is not a proof). However, science relies on inductive reasoning, which can show an absolute truth.
If someone claims they live without faith, then they have a gross misunderstanding of the idea of truth, validity of opinions and the scientific process by which we accumulate knowledge.
Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability states that something to be supported by evidence, it must also be possible for it to be falsified with evidence - all that which it is reasonable to believe, because we have evidence for it, may be potentially unreasonable if evidence arises which goes against it. From this, we can deduce that humans can never know any absolute truths about the universe, as anything which we can believe can also be disproven.
For example, we accept it as a fact that gravity is true - we experience it every single second of every single day, everywhere in the universe. But if tomorrow, we woke up and flew away from the earth, and we could no longer experience gravity, then we would begin to question whether gravity is a valid belief.
Essentially, every opinion/belief you have, which you believe is a fact, can be disproven, so requires faith. Science is dependent upon faith. But that's not to equate a religious faith & a scientific faith, rather to point out that the degree of proof is important in all instances. Only when I see as much proof in a God as I do in gravity, then I will allow someone to use the reasoning of that God in a debate.
are all separate parts of the overall argument for my conclusions.
You can disagree with him about it all you want.
It's exactly what the Constitution says.
I have no problem with you saying that the Constitution supports your argument - arguably it does. But that's not what you said. You completely disregarded the argument he put forward and used the Constitution as absolute truth. That's what I argued against.
I'm not even trying to argue on this debate with you - I have no wish to get involved with yet another abortion debate. But you most certainly did act as though you could not be wrong because a single piece of evidence supported you.
That's not the point. If there are any laws on morality, then they are true wherever someone lives. Simply because a bunch of people said that something should be a certain way does not make it that way.
If you want to argue a point, then you need to defend that point with logic and reasoning. Saying 'someone else said it so it must be true' does not fulfill those requirements (although it can be used as part of an argument).
Yes, I am fully aware of that. Were this a legal argument, specific to the United States, then I would not have made the point. But, this is a moral debate, in the general sense, so we are not debating with the assumption that the constitution is a binding document.
I'm pretty sure PRISM started under Bush (2007) - there's a big difference between continuing an existing program, and actively starting it.
I do agree that the government has overstepped the line here, and people do need to be held responsible. But why do you assume that Obama is the only one responsible? He didn't start the program, he didn't operate it, and he definitely wouldn't have the power to shut it down without informing the public about it. He was a bystander, to the best of my knowledge.
The ones that should be removed from power are those that headed the operations, the heads of the NSA & other governmental bodies which were part of the program, who knowingly broke the law.
Saying that, if my knowledge of Obama's involvement is incorrect, then I am open to some sort of action against him (within reason considering his quite considerable judicial freedoms). As long as those responsible are punished, and action taken to prevent similar things from occurring in the future, then I am satisfied.
I disagree strongly. There tends to be a great arrogance around many philosophers, that believe that their opinions, their ideas, their interests are more important than anyone elses. Their happinesses are greater, their depressions deeper, and their existence more meaningful, simply because they can look down on other people.
I have seen people who I have little respect for, that have little capacity for critical and reasonable thought (a 'small' mind) discuss philosophy, theism, and other similar ideas. I have seen very intelligent people (a 'great' mind) discuss other people, gossip and tease.
I am against any idea of ranking people in such absolute ways. People, their opinions and their minds are much more complex and varied and diverse than any simplistic comparison will be able to show. Most people are capable of so much more than they often demonstrate, if you only give them a chance and a prompt to express themselves properly.
Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.
That is a very different statement. You originally claimed that he believed in intelligent design (creation by a God). Now you say that he is saying that you cannot disprove the existent of a God (intelligent designer). Which do you claim he believes?
And if you managed to read his entire book, and not realise that he was an atheist, I honestly worry for you.
If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection?
Because I see pain and suffering in the world. I see people with so much pain and suffering that they would rather stop their existence. But I also see that things can be so much better. In a perfect world, everything would be better, but we do not live in a perfect world. That's quite indisputable really.
Richard Dawkins has been one of the most prominent atheist & anti-religious voices of the last twenty years. He does not believe in intelligent design - the quote I used should quite simply show that.
How do you know what perfection is?
I do not need to. I simply need to show that the current universe is imperfect (there is a single thing wrong with it) and I have shown that we do not live in a perfect universe. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.