mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo
The natural world is a belief.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo
Now you made a huge jump. If you want to claim that God is that source of life you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself, one that no theist has been ever to satisfy, You would need to prove that there is a God in the first place.well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?
Please explain.
"God" has nothing to do with science.
Its only discussed when someone tries
to inject "god" or magic of any sort into
science.
Likewise with politics, which people
also try to involve in science.
That does not say or even imply that God has anything to do with science.
Now you made a huge jump. If you want to claim that God is that source of life you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself, one that no theist has been ever to satisfy, You would need to prove that there is a God in the first place.
science only explains....HOW.....God did it
Science can explain how but the "God did it" is a baseless and all but meaningless assertion.
Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.Heck, who has to have proof?
How about at least one datum point?
That does not say or even imply that God has anything to do with science.
Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.
No, science fills in the gaps that used to be (and still are in some people) that said "d'oh, we don't know so god musta dun it"
Of course "burden of proof" is a bit of a figure of speech. It actually means what you requested that they provide evidence for their claim, though to be fair it does go quite a bit past just one datum point. Too many theists can only assume that their god exists. Worse yet when others do have evidence they either lie or demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence when they deny that the other side does not have any evidence.
No, science fills in the gaps that used to be (and still are in some people) that said "d'oh, we don't know so god musta dun it"
Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.You have no evidence for what objective reality is as independent of your mind. Science as naturalism in effect is a belief system like religion.
Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.Science is not knowledge. It is a belief system, which apparently in practice works. You still haven't solved epistemological solipsism. You are a believer like the rest of us, including me
Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.
If you want me to take you seriously you need to up your game a bit.
Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.
Sorry, but you, like creationists do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. You claim to be a skeptic but instead you appear to be a mere denier.
If you want me to take you seriously you need to up your game a bit.
I'm not sure science can even say that, because there is no definition of God that can be agreed on. All it takes is for some religion to decide "God is the laws of nature" or something, and then science would have to say, well in that case, "God", if that is how you want to define it, obviously is necessary for life. (This seems actually to have been Spinoza's and Einstein's idea of God, more or less.)I think science is limited to acknowledging that God is not necessary for life, otherwise science strays into the field of theology.
So take the cure, its only a click away.Epistemological solipsism is a belief that is best solved in person. It is a rare example of a debate that can be solved by a healthy slap to the face. On the internet one can only treat such people as the trolls that they claim to be.