Do you believe in god?

[petite fleur]

---

ngano naabot man akong ngan diri

example ba.... sa tagalog. Halimbawa.

[SioDenz]

murag si Florigaga ba. iyang pag Too nga babay siya nga gwapa kau.

"Do you believe in Florigaga??" hehehhee

Dakung DILI, kay naay Scientific Physical Evidence nagpamatuod nga siya isa ka...ehem...

[tokidoki_v2.0]

murag si Florigaga ba. iyang pag Too nga babay siya nga gwapa kau.

"Do you believe in Florigaga??" hehehhee

Aw, tawag bitaw ana kai "Faith" man pud. Naa siya faith sa iyang sarili. Do you believe florigaga to be true or right?

If your answer is in the negative then you are in no position to preach that YOUR faith is true or correct. Mahulog lang na na double-standard ka.

[hitch22]

Can you provide a scientific evidence that the following statement is true?

The ultimate arbiter of truth or falsity is the scientific method and the weighing of evidence

Take note that the statement above is general/universal. So the scientific evidence which could prove that it is true should be universal, not particular. Now, can you please provide the said scientific evidence.

Actually, you did not disagree with me when you asked for scientific evidence. Get my point? I mean, really. Get my point?

[yanong_banikanhon]

Actually, you did not disagree with me when you asked for scientific evidence. Get my point? I mean, really. Get my point?

I did not agree nor disagree. I was just asking question.

Now let's go back to the question. Kay imo mang gi-assert nga ang scientific method is the ultimate arbiter of truth or falsity, the burden of proof is on your side. So here is the question again:

Can you present an undisputable, universal and scientific proof that the scientific method is the ultimate arbiter of truth?

[Elyu]

Pila na ba ka scientific theory nga gidawat sa scientific community only to be rejected at later times? Dili na siguro maihap.

I guess you've seen this before, similar to what Hitch22 posted about science being falsifiable:



You notice how Dictionaries and school textbooks print out new editions to accommodate updated/new information ?
It's like that: They correct themselves.

Whereas in religion, you surrender your rationality.

[hitch22]

I did not agree nor disagree. I was just asking question.

Now let's go back to the question. Kay imo mang gi-assert nga ang scientific method is the ultimate arbiter of truth or falsity, the burden of proof is on your side. So here is the question again:

Can you present an undisputable, universal and scientific proof that the scientific method is the ultimate arbiter of truth?

Sir Yanong, mao gyud ning mahitabo lagi kung dili basahon ang entire message. Let me re-post my message, just to show you the context from where that statement came.

That's what happens when you uphold evidence as the basis for support or refutation of scientific theories. There are lots of scientists who had posited competing theories/hypothesis in the past. We know they can't all be true. Now, what would be the ultimate arbiter of their truth or falsity? It's the scientific method and the weighing of evidence.

Klaro na ba, sir Yanong?

When there are lots of competing theories/hypothesis posited by scientists, UNSA MAN GYUD ANG MAKA-INGON KUNG KINSAY SAKTO? If it's not the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, then WHAT? Since you don't like the scientific method to sort through scientific claims, you'll have to enlighten us what you have in mind.

And when I said that you didn't disagree with me, it's because you yourself are asking for scientific evidence. NOW, ISN'T THAT IRONIC? Someone who doesn't like scientific method wanting a claim to be verified by the same method. GET MY POINT? I mean, really...PLEASE, OH PLEASE don't tell me you're having problems of comprehension here.

Elyu, isn't what I just said so CLEAR? I want to know if it's me who's not stating my point clearly or is Mr. Yanong just wasting my time...hehe...just kidding, Yanong. But next time, don't isolate one sentence from its context....else you'll miss the whole point.

[SioDenz]

I guess you've seen this before, similar to what Hitch22 posted about science being falsifiable:

You notice how Dictionaries and school textbooks print out new editions to accommodate updated/new information ?
It's like that: They correct themselves.

Whereas in religion, you surrender your rationality.

So if Science will correct itself from time to time, why do Atheist already conclude that there is No God based on the idea that theres No Scientific Evidence? why arrive to a conclusion when your ultimate basis of your belief is still in development stage and cannot explain EVERYTHING?

[tokidoki_v2.0]

I guess you've seen this before, similar to what Hitch22 posted about science being falsifiable:



You notice how Dictionaries and school textbooks print out new editions to accommodate updated/new information ?
It's like that: They correct themselves.

Whereas in religion, you surrender your rationality.

I think this is wrong. Diba ang theory mag una? Formulate a theory, then prove it?

[hitch22]

^^ I'd like to answer that, tokidoki.

I think what's referred to as idea in that flowchart is the hypothesis. Once that hypothesis has survived rigorous scientific scrutiny, testing, etc, then its status is elevated to theory. The flowchart is a bit oversimplified, but the point Elyu is making is just to contrast it with how religion works.