In their case, you are correct. The scientific method demands the following question first : Is the existence of god(s) FALSIFIABLE ?? Can I make a reproducible test that gives a yes/no answer ?? Philosophers ask whether such a test can ever be constructed. Engineers ask whether tis merely a matter of time before the necessary tech arises to construct the test. For example : the particle physics model proposed by Higgs et al. That model existed for other nigh on 5, and 50 years, but it took the colossal engineering effort in building the LHC to run the experiments that led to acceptance that the Higgs boson exists. For the existence of god(s) , it may take similar (or even much more) efforts. I doubt I will be allow to see that test created and run.
In the case of the existence of God it is demonstrable that it is not falsifiable. If I conjecture that God created the universe a second ago with everything as we all see it now there is nothing to test. Much better to start by testing whether there is anything we observe that requires a supernatural being to explain it.
very unfair comment, Christopher Hitchens never tried to cover up anything. If he did write or say it I would have to see the context because it's the kind of thing he might have said in terms of If you believe in religion you might just as well believe something like this. Your piffle aim is a little wide of the mark.
OK thanks I have it but have not read it yet. I have listened to many of his lectures on you tube. Having looked a bit further it's clearly to show the level of religious books. You can basically say things like this and nobody can disprove them ie you can't disprove the existence of a god but the answer to something you don't understand (none of us understand) is not to make up ridiculous nonsense and then speak as if you have a special line to this god.
https://www.not606.com/threads/rival-watch.112743/page-3820 See post #76399. Partey (or his social media team rather) posted on his Instagram story today for the pre-season game we have in Nuremberg. They've turned off all replies/options to send it on. It's becoming increasingly clear what club it is and which player it is.
Who's completely sure that no gods exist? I've never even heard a coherent description of one, so that'd be a start. I'd suggest that it's far more arrogant to not only claim that there's a supreme being, but to understand what it wants and feels. Up there with the smug, fence-sitting supremacy of the Lib Dems of religion, agnostics. I don't believe in them.
That's why I said it was piffle. It fails every criteria for a sensible hypothesis. If it was said to illustrate that very point then that's different.
The extensive of god(s) may not be falsifiable, but nothing you stated has anything to do with why that may not be the case.
I think there are two major parties: those who want to get on with it as well as possible, and those who want to turn back the clock. And the only problem with the second group is that the clock doesn't turn back. It doesn't matter if they're some kind of religious fundamentalists or conservatives. It amounts to saying, "I don't like the way things are now. I like the way things are headed even less. So I'll click my heels together three times and make it like it used to be. Except not the way it actually used to be, nobody wants that. I'll make it the way people like me like to imagine it used to be." Trump used to talk about the steel industry dying in western Pennsylvania like it happened a couple of years ago. It's been half a century. Nobody wants the steel industry back now, because everyone who used to work in the mills is dead or retired, and nobody now wants a dirty, dangerous and grueling job. I respect religion in general. It's not my place to question anyone's beliefs. However, I've found many of the people doing the most harm are religious fundamentalists. There's a great deal of horrible stuff in the Bible. My favorite is the practice of putting a town under the ban, which requires not just genocide, but killing all the animals as well. But unfortunately, from what I've been able to tell, the practice of taking horrible things in holy books seriously enough to do evil with them seems to be somewhat more common in Islamic countries than it is in Judaism or Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I don't mean to imply any criticism of you. I've known many Muslims who are wonderful people. It's not the faith itself I have a problem with either--or at least, not more than I have a problem with Judaism or Christianity.
I think, with all the Abrahamic faiths, there has been violence and warfare committed in the names of those religions and for various reasons. As I've said before though. A lot of it, for me, is really to do with foreign policy, totalitarianism, colonialism and imperialism - especially across the Middle East and Africa. I've seen violence be rationalised in secular regimes just as I have under religious ones, but a lot of this has transpired in more modern times i.e. 19th/20th Century and beyond - which is conveniently where a lot of western expansionism occurred. The religion/secular distinction is a fairly modern phenomenon. There were never issues on the scale we see now in previous centuries based off religion in isolation. Which is why I say people and their thirst for power is more of an issue than the religions themselves.
Religious wars predate the Abrahamic religions and probably predate the written word. The Old Testament features a bunch of them and there were others we know about, too. Greece had a bunch of them, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphictyonic_league#Sacred_Wars Now you can argue that they weren't exclusively about religion and that's probably true. It's far easier to get people to fight The Other when it's ordained by faith, though. I'd argue that none of the current problems are any different, either. Modern religious conflicts are rarely about religion alone, just like the ancient ones weren't.
Now, that, is very much my thinking. Or at least has often been something I've been conscious of / questioned, throughout my life. I'm a person of science but I've always found that there's a misnomer or assumption that science explains the why, whereas I've often found many of those why's are not why's at all, but just another 'how'. I look at photosynthesis in plants for example and my immediate response to chlorophyll is why? Lots of explanation of how it works, but why that particular concept? Same with something as basic as a cat digging up earth, taking a dump and covering it up. Why? Someone might claim it's genetic memory or something. Sounds like another term for supernatural to me. Same with turtles coming onto sand to lay their eggs under the sand. Too many why's unanswered for me
Barca trying again for Raphinha to beat Chelsea to his signature. Barca also being linked with Alonso and Azpi. Potentially a lot of defensive exits for Chelsea after Rudiger and Christensen already left. Not ideal to lose that many, all featured very/ semi regularly too. Looks like they’re gonna re-sign Ake to cover one of them, I think he’s a decent player but wouldn’t say better than Rudiger. Could be a bit of a transitional season for them this coming season.
I guess it depends on how far back you want to go, but my overacting point is that, in the build-up to the rise of colonisation, there appeared to be more pluralism and co-existing amongst certain faiths than we see today. I'm not saying it was always like this, because it wasn't, but there were definitely periods of time where there was harmony. I would also argue modern religious conflicts are rarely about religion alone because religion isn't the primary motivation for why they are happening.
Ake's better on the ball than Rudiger, but he's a far weaker defender. Re-signing Lukaku worked out really well for them, though...
