Aura7541 said:
o_O.Q said:
you're missing the point... which is not necessarily that a god exists but that we can observe that certain behavioral patterns lead to prosperity and others lead to degeneration
we can observe this through repetition over and over again to see what works and what does not and that by extension is what we ironically call the scientific method
if something appears to work through repetition many times we call that a law
all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god
it has nothing to do with gaps in our understanding but its about what we can observe to produce favourable results again and again and again and again
as for proving the that the supernatural exists - 97 percent of the matter around us is invisible to our measuring methods...
100 years ago using radio waves for communication would've made you a witch.. you really think that in 100 years we won't uncover more hidden aspects of reality?
the only thing i've asserted btw is that some patterns of behavior are more favourable than others to both the individual and society and that we cannot have objective reality without the concept of god... your claims about me using a proof by assertion fallacy are hilariously ironic
|
You resorted to the "God of the Gaps" fallacy again, which also makes it an ad nauseaum fallacy. Repeating the same claim isn't going to help your argument. Also, 97% of matter being invisible proving that the supernatural exists is also another "God of the Gaps" fallacy because you don't provide the link nor have you proved the causality.
Claiming that we cannot have objective reality without the concept of god is also a Proof by Assertion fallacy considering that you have provided no direct evidence that supports your claim and again, nor have you proven the causality. Ultimately, your claims are solely reliant on the "God of the Gaps", Proof by Assertion, and ad nauseaum fallacies (and in that order, too). You first make a "God of the Gaps" fallacy and attempt to support it with unproven assertions (Proof by Assertion) without fulfilling your burden of proof (which falls on the person making the positive claim), and then when someone points out at the flaws of your argument, you go through that cycle again (ad nauseaum). The pattern is highly predictable.
|
But you can't actualy prove anything.
