<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, though I’m not sure why you’re pointing out how often historically science has been wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I agree, but scientific proof is not the same as absolute truth.</p>
<p>^Your basic argument was “No one legitimately believes in Santa Claus, therefore, he does not exist.” My point was that hundreds of years ago someone could have used the same argument to “prove” that the earth doesn’t move. So I was basically trying show that this argument doesn’t constitute scientific evidence.</p>
<p>Hundreds of years ago, *scientific theory *was that the Earth didn’t move. That only changed when better evidence emerged. I think we can agree that better evidence is unlikely to emerge wrt Santa.</p>
<p>the point is that the scientific method does not, and cannot prove nonexistence- I thought that was the point you made before?</p>
<p>Sorry, I was pointing out that real science almost never relies on hard proof. Scientific theories are based on a collection of apparently irrefutable evidence.</p>
<p>But of course if the standard is proof, the rule holds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement is still false.</p>
<p>These arguments are interesting. Let’s change the topic slightly:</p>
<p>If people have predestined lives, do they have free will?</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>No offense, but you’re an idiot for starting a debate thread with God.</p>
<p>^also, that’s a big if. That’s going to be something along the lines of the God arguments.</p>
<p>How about a totally different topic? </p>
<p>What do you guys think about the healthcare reform bill that just passed. Does it go far enough? Too far? Just right? </p>
<p>What do you think about the compromises that brought in the Republic faction of the vote?</p>
<p>I’ve always thought that the advantage of the scientific method and science itself was that we could always go back and change our hypotheses when we found data to refute it. Nothing is set in stone, and because scientists are always trying to prove or disprove other scientists, we can have a nice system of checks and balances that stops us from accepting anything without proper support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that there is a logical flaw in that question, in that it surmises that free will and predestination are correlated. For example, we can often assume a set of events - that does not mean, however, that the free will of the persons involved had their free will taken away. Likewise, predestination might not mean that so-and-so is going to happen because it’s destiny, but rather because this person’s mentality makes it impossible for him not to do so. This person would choose his actions. However, his ability to choose, like all other things, is limited by his mentality.</p>
<p>I don’t think that was a very good way of explaining it, so I’ll try again tomorrow.</p>
<p>You mean that lives can be predestined without taking away free will if people’s free will always/inevitably leads them to the same actions/decisions.</p>