- 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.
Science is the development of explanations for observed phenomena (hypotheses), and the testing of said explanations for their validity. As such, it is incapable of irrefutably proving a claim. Thus, the term "scientific fact" is an oxymoron
False. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The scientific method of enquiry can, when wielded by a scientist, yield proofs. Abstracted from its applications, science doesn't prove things, but then if science were viewed in that way, it would be, as you say, useless, which it certainly is not. To say that science as we use it today is incapable of allowing us to prove ideas or establish factual interpretations of physical evidences is utterly puerile.
Through the process of scientific inquiry we have in fact amassed a significant body of facts, from those concerning the atomic structures of the elements, to the chemical composition of stars; the laws of thermodynamics; the mathematical proofs that validate physical concepts, and so on and so forth. The kind of compartmentalization you create between science and fact is dishonest for it implies that science has no ability to determine, predict, or logically deduce and decipher factual information. That simply is not true.
Philosophers -- much to my dislike -- tend to meddle in scientific enquiry in an attempt to redefine it as merely a method of repudiating falsehoods and dealing in probabilities, and most famous among them is probably Descartes, who essentially wrote down the notion that, because we are beings who rely on observation to derive meaning, and because observation can be faulty, we cannot even be entirely certain that we are not just all hallucinating our realities. Fine, if you're an idiot and refuse to accept the aggregates of logic, reason, observation and mathematical deduction as factually authoritative .. but then, if that's your position, what the hell are you doing here? You have absolutely no place to be arguing about what is true and what is not, when nothing can be true as far as you're concerned.
At any rate, facts overwhelmingly support evolution by natural selection. If you're of the Descartesian position and you believe science is nothing but an exercise in probabilistic calculations, then let me assure you, that while it might be possible in your mind that evolution is untrue and that all scientific inquiry in the field is ultimately moot because "anything is possible", there is about the same probability of that as there is a colony of perfect biological clones of Leonard Nemoy spontaneously dropping out of my ass.
Not anything is possible.
Plenty of evolutionary biologists are religious: that doesn't make evolution untrue. A majority are probably atheists, but that doesn't make evolution untrue either. If most evolutionary biologists are atheist, it will be because of evolutionary theory and what it tells us about the creation myth, not the other way around. People don't pursue evolutionary biology to spite the mythical God, they do it because it interests them. Evolutionary theory is also not based on a lack of belief in God or derived from a desire to disprove God; it is based on scientific study of physical evidence.
If evolution is an anti-religious movement and nothing more, then explain to me how it was that Charles Darwin, a devout Christian who set out to discover the secrets of the creation myth, ended up discovering evolution by natural selection?
How does that fit into your story?
Your patriotic ego is far too big; your ideas about what the rest of the world think of your country are deluded because of it.
US interventionism isn't viewed by the countries intervened in as part of a moral endeavour; it's viewed largely as part of an economic and strategic one. History proves that the case, from Iran through the Meso and Southern Americas to Libya.
As for your current predicament, most of the world have absolutely no confidence in your current leader. A majority of Europeans consider Americans intolerant, and in the last decade and a half, twenty six countries that viewed America favourably now have majorities who do not. A majority of countries now consider America the world's greatest environmental threat. The countries which most favour America are central and North African countries (Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, the Ivory Coast), while European countries have high dissatisfaction rates with America. Around only 30% of people asked across the world agreed that the spread of American values was a good thing, with Israel, the Ivory Coast, and Ethiopia the most approving.
Around 50% of your own countrymen and women were in favour of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your meddling is not wanted, and has resulted in a far more unsafe world for me and my kids. Predictably, it will only get worse under the deluded Oompa Loompa, but give me some more useless slippery slope arguments and "alternative facts".
17 guys of various nationalities blow up two American towers.
America starts a war with a single country that none of the bombers were from.
Europe asks America to think about what it's doing.
America says no. Starts another war with another country based on faulty evidence. Also decides to drone strike in nations it isn't supposed to be in. Europe get dragged into proceedings.
Millions of people die, mostly of starvation, thirst and collateral damage.
Some of the families of those who died get angry and want to fight back against the Americans and Europeans. They start fighting back against the Americans and Europeans.
Americans withdraw their troops, elect a nationalist moron, and refuse to acknowledge any fault or deal with any fallout. "We are justified and everybody ese is wrong".
America declares itself fed up of the unselfish world.
Rest of the world sighs and wishes America wasn't such an oversized child.
This is a perfect example of selective interpretation. During the 1990's when death penalty states saw a decline in murder rate per capita, nearly every state in the US also saw a decline in murder rate per capita -- including those without the death penalty. Consider also that non-death penalty states, during the years from 1990 - 2000, saw a sharper decline in murder per capita, by about 25% on average over the decade. If the death penalty was the catalyst for this decrease in murders, then why did non-death penalty states see a greater average decrease in murder rates through the same period? Consider also that, currently, states with the highest numbers of murders per capita are the death penalty states, and that 10 out of the 12 states with no death penalty, have murder rates per capita below the national average. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/absence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html )
From 1990 to 2015, the number of murders per capita was on average 30.4% greater in death penalty states when compared to non-death-penalty states; also note that in every single one of these years the number of murders per capita in death penalty states was higher than the number of murders per capita in non death penalty states. ( https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/
This shows conclusively that in the past 25 years, death penalty states suffer significantly higher numbers of murders per capita, and that they also show a smaller decrease in annual murders per capita when compared to non-death penalty states.
How does this fit into your hypothesis?
Scientific evidence is obviously a more accurate determiner for reality than baseless faith is. That's why religions fervently oppose scientific inquiry. That's why rather than accept inquiry and skepticism theocracies rather torture, execute and oppress people. That's why not a single metaphysical claim has ever been backed up by proof. It's why astronauts, engineers, architects, mathematicians, astrophysicists, cosmologists -- people of science -- have improved the world immeasurably, while "faith" has never achieved anything of comparable worth to man.
Seen through the prism of what can be known for certain, God looks overwhelmingly to be a creation of man and not the other way around. This is why religions are constantly pushing against scientific inquiry, and it's also why religions constantly are having to be updated to fit within the narratives of reality that science has shown us. From heliocentrism, through to evolution (which the Catholic Church now concedes to be true), science has pushed the dominion of faith beyond the realm of the rational and out toward the obtuse. Case in point: you deny science has any ability to prove anything. That is obtuse, it's crazy. If you really think science can't prove anything, then you are completely delusional. Scientific methodology has proven, is proving, and will continue to prove things.
All you have left to argue against this with is nothing more than "I am a total solipsist: I believe it is possible for there to be a God and you can't prove me wrong: I refuse to acknowledge that any derivable reality exists, because then anything and everything is possible". You refuse to acknowledge the complete ipseity on which all your arguments for the existence of a God are based. There's no reason or logic in any of it. That a God can exist in your mind does not form a basis to assert that there is one; using logical process to say there could, might or possibly might be a God is to undermine the very nature of logical inquiry.
My claim, by comparison, is not remarkable nor radical. It does not require proof, because it is self-evidently true. My claim is that no scientific evidence of God of any of the supernatural events of the bible exists. That is true. I don't require evidence of this, because I don't assert any of the supernatural events to be true. Do I need to find proof of something that has no proof, in order to prove it not to have proof? But you, you do require evidence to assert that they are true, at least if you want to make any plausible case. If you're happy to admit that you base your beliefs on nothing but faith and have no evidence of any of it, then this argument can end. Because at the moment, the only "evidence" you seem to be able to muster is "I believe in supernatural occurrences though none have ever been recorded and proven. Prove me wrong".
What is shown to exist, exists. The sky exists. The rain exists. I exist. You exist. This website exists. The sun exists. The planets exist. Atoms exist. Electromagnetic forces exist. Gravity exists. Electricity exists. Animals exist. Plants exist. Matter and energy exist. All logical, largely self-evident. Seeable, provable, testable, quantifiable.
But when JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter do you think she believed in the existence of Hogwarts, Dumbledore, and magic? Or do you think she was writing a fantasy novel with a set of moral messages? When the Addasian Norsewomen paid the tantfee to their slumbering children do you think they really believed that a metaphysical entity came and deposited currency in their children's beds?
The point being, just because it is possible to conceive of some ostensible original entity or concept, does not mean that it is logical to apply logical precedents to it to conclude its reality. In fact, it is logical to recognise that it is a creative manifestation with no bearing upon the objective reality, UNLESS it can be shown to work within the confines and manifestations of that reality. Mathematics, for instance, is a concept used to ascribe order and meaning to the universe, and because it works, it can be used to derive order and meaning through predictions about phenomena; it can be used to draw conclusions about the cosmos; it has worth in its symbiotic, tangible relation to nature and our understanding of it. Faith has no such relationship with nature; it never has.