...but the scientific method presumes something to be true until disproven. Therefore my belief in God is quite scientific. You must disprove His existence....and you cannot. Therefore you lose.
61 comments
The scientific method takes a concept and works to prove it, not the other way around. Therefore, your belief in God has nothing to do with science.
Uh...no, the scientific method requires any hypothesis advanced to be (falsifiable and) tested, and once it has withstood a goodly amount of testing, it is tentatively adopted as the best explanation at present.
Since proof of a negative is impossible, the scientific (or just the rational) way of thought is to assume a negative until proven otherwise, moron. Consider such recent fiascos as that business with Iraqi WMDs, or the assertion of a terrorist link between Iraq and Afghanistan, to be a grim example of what happens when the world makes its decisions your way.
but the scientific method presumes something to be true until disproven.
You get an idea, you work out the idea, you test the idea, you confirm the idea, you publish the idea.
"...but the scientific method presumes something to be true until disproven."No, it doesn't. That would mean that any wild crap anybody asserted at any time would be presumed true.
"Therefore my belief in God is quite scientific."
No, you have no credible evidence for your God's existence. There are no reproducible positive test results supporting the existence of your God.
"You must disprove His existence....and you cannot."
No, the burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion.
"Therefore you lose."
Try going through life using your "scientific method," and we'll see who is the loser.
I believe in unicorns. Prove to me unicorns don't exist. What do you mean, no one's ever seen a real one and there's no physical or picture evidence? They're magical, they can do what they want. And you can't prove they don't exist. You lose.
I have a question. Are people in the US actually taught what the freaking scientific method is? I mean, even Star Cluster got it wrong.
Wolf O'Donnell, there is no single standard scientific method, contrary to public education. Every scientist has his or her own method depending on what the science requires. I was taught the "scientific method" in high school, I paid attention, and I learned nothing about attempting to prove the null hypothesis. It was about coming up with a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, gathering data, and making a conclusion. That isn't to say one method is better or more common than the other. But I do think science education is largely detached from the practice of science.
image
Hitch-hiker guide to the galaxy coming right up.(well the general idea)
You make the claim, you provide the proof. That's the way all science works, dickbrain.
For example, it is unscientific for me to say: "Fairies live in my blood. Prove me wrong."
/facepalm
An invisible magical cat that lives in a hidden room in my basement told me that god lives inside a pimple on my left buttcheek.
Nobodoy can disprove the magical invisible cat, therefore it must be true.
Srsly it hurts my brain when fundies try to apply logic and fail miserably at it.
Actually, the scientific method persumes something to be UNTRUE until it's proven,
You fail science forever.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
