Fair play;

[infamous]

When offering up new topics for discussion that are logically not provable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views because they have no proof.

[alexander]

infamous, i think it is all dependant on circomstances...

[pgrmdave]

But please respect these ground rules:

 

If you make strange claims, please provide proof.

 

While I don't disagree that it is frustrating, this is a science forum, so proof can be requested at anytime, or at least evidence.

[Tormod]

When offering up new topics for discussion that are logically not provable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views because they have no proof.

I agree with you, infamous. What exact thread do you have in mind? Or is it a general problem here, do you think?

[BlameTheEx]

pgrmdave

 

That FAQ is fair too.

It may seem like splitting hairs but there is a big difference between speculations and claims.

[pgrmdave]

I don't disagree with the faq, I was just saying that it can be frustrating at times.

[Bo]

of course most new ideas start without proof, but pure by speculation. "might it not be that...."

 

But of course a final answer "... and still i dont agree" has hardly any scientiffic value..

 

Bo

[infamous]

I agree with you, infamous. What exact thread do you have in mind? Or is it a general problem here, do you think?

Obviously any thread discussing the existence of God. I believe that some members here intend to bait others into debates where proofs are't possible and then point an accusing fingure because they can present no proof. Maybe we need to treat such topics with a little more flexability or simply construct a format at Hypography titled, (for speculation only).

[Freethinker]

I would love to see specific examples of ANY topic that can not be approached in a logical rational, fact based, manner. I would ask for specific examples, but it seems that those that find this to be a problem are also those that never bother to acknowledge that they have even been asked questions.

 

What we once more hear is that any discussion in which god is brought in for an explanation, should be immune from any need to prove the existence of this god and it's ability to interact in any manner with us. We have seen this approach from hard core believers before here. Threads started with sepcific instructions to exclude even any desire to include facts and logic from the discussion.

 

What is it it that so scares Believers that they want to be able to remove any pretext of critical examination?

 

Foolish question I guess. The answer is obvious to all, Even if those most afraid will refuse to acknowedge it.

 

But it brings up another (most like to also go unanswered) question. Why do believers want to come to a fact/ science based site and then get upset when they are actually asked to stick to facts and science? If you want to ramble on aimlessly, parrotting mindless platitudes and superstitions' dogma, rather than entering into rational, intellectually honest discourse, why not just stay on the Christer sites thar are intended specifically for it?

 

And pgr, I am favorably impressed.

[infamous]

I would love to see specific examples of ANY topic that can not be approached in a logical rational, fact based, manner. I would ask for specific examples, but it seems that those that find this to be a problem are also those that never bother to acknowledge that they have even been asked questions.

 

What we once more hear is that any discussion in which god is brought in for an explanation, should be immune from any need to prove the existence of this god and it's ability to interact in any manner with us. We have seen this approach from hard core believers before here. Threads started with sepcific instructions to exclude even any desire to include facts and logic from the discussion.

 

What is it it that so scares Believers that they want to be able to remove any pretext of critical examination?

 

Foolish question I guess. The answer is obvious to all, Even if those most afraid will refuse to acknowedge it.

 

But it brings up another (most like to also go unanswered) question. Why do believers want to come to a fact/ science based site and then get upset when they are actually asked to stick to facts and science? If you want to ramble on aimlessly, parrotting mindless platitudes and superstitions' dogma, rather than entering into rational, intellectually honest discourse, why not just stay on the Christer sites thar are intended specifically for it?

 

And pgr, I am favorably impressed.

Appears we have found an elegant fit for this pair of shoes.

[Freethinker]

of course most new ideas start without proof, but pure by speculation. "might it not be that...."

Again, show us an example of ANY "new ideas (that) start without proof". Show us how anyone would ever come up with any new idea that was not triggered by some natural (actually occuring) event. Yes the "new idea" might be based on some metaphysical attempt to explain the natural event, but the trigger event, the trigger idea is ALWAYS based on and can be explored by rational factual approaches.

 

That many reject a rational, reasoned, factual approach does not diminision that the fact that reason, logic and facts don't exist for it.

 

And even if we allow for any random "might it not be that....", we can not go anywhere from there without basing the "because..." on factual rational reasoning.

 

Well we could, but then we would be some postmodernistic or religious site instead of a Science based one.

But of course a final answer "... and still i dont agree" has hardly any scientiffic value..

Strange that I would reject this more than the other. If the "... and still i dont agree", is based on a lack of factual support by the proponent, then it is valid. Such as this thread itself.

 

Others have suggested that there are topics that we can discuss on a science site without need for facts or logic "... and still i dont agree" that a science based site ever can.

[Freethinker]

Appears we have found an elegant fit for this pair of shoes.

Yes and you wear them well. As we see that your reply lacks any attempt to validate your original claim, just an attack.

 

Can you, as I asked, actually suggest a single thread that would be relevant to a Science site that does not have a factual, reasoned approach to it?

[infamous]

Again, show us an example of ANY "new ideas (that) start without proof". Show us how anyone would ever come up with any new idea that was not triggered by some natural (actually occuring) event. Yes the "new idea" might be based on some metaphysical attempt to explain the natural event, but the trigger event, the trigger idea is ALWAYS based on and can be explored by rational factual approaches.

 

That many reject a rational, reasoned, factual approach does not diminision that the fact that reason, logic and facts don't exist for it.

 

And even if we allow for any random "might it not be that....", we can not go anywhere from there without basing the "because..." on factual rational reasoning.

 

Well we could, but then we would be some postmodernistic or religious site instead of a Science based one.

 

Strange that I would reject this more than the other. If the "... and still i dont agree", is based on a lack of factual support by the proponent, then it is valid. Such as this thread itself.

 

Others have suggested that there are topics that we can discuss on a science site without need for facts or logic "... and still i dont agree" that a science based site ever can.

I believe that the watercooler might just be the place for such speculative endeavors.

[infamous]

Yes and you wear them well. As we see that your reply lacks any attempt to validate your original claim, just an attack.

 

Can you, as I asked, actually suggest a single thread that would be relevant to a Science site that does not have a factual, reasoned approach to it?

Ofcourse not, but I can suggest a thread which, using factual based evidence allows for speculations that can't be proven. Let's talk about future advancements in the scientific field of medicine. Can you prove that we will find a cure for aids, for that matter any other medical problem. Only when such information becomes current can we then speak with certainty about proof. It is in some respects the same when someone asks questions like, is there a God. Only the future holds the proof. We can speculate about it, but we can't prove it. The only thing that even comes close would be the science of the law of probability. With the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, we can only speculate about probability. We are assuming things that we can't nail down with complete certainty, we are forced to speculate.

[Stargazer]

Obviously any thread discussing the existence of God. I believe that some members here intend to bait others into debates where proofs are't possible and then point an accusing fingure because they can present no proof. Maybe we need to treat such topics with a little more flexability or simply construct a format at Hypography titled, (for speculation only).

Is it always impossible to prove god, or is it just your god? Also, if it's impossible to prove god, then why in the world would anyone even think of defending the position that god exists?

[infamous]

Is it always impossible to prove god, or is it just your god? Also, if it's impossible to prove god, then why in the world would anyone even think of defending the position that god exists?

Faith will wait for proof, if there is no faith, there is no waiting.

[Fishteacher73]

Much of religion is based on the concept that proof is not needed. It is faith that is sought. Proof negates faith.

So theological arguments about the existence of G/god/s essentailly become heretical.