Science and hell

[Thief]

You assume a creator not in evidence.

cause and effect is a very safe assumption

matched pair
can't have science without them

 

[Thief]

logic and reason take it.

yep

 

[McBell]

Science is defined by its methods. The basic is to assume the absence of God's influence on nature -- methodological naturalism. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Science is the Babylon Babe from the Revelation.

And yet here you are begging said Babylon Babe to embrace you....

 

[McBell]

cause and effect is a very safe assumption

matched pair
can't have science without them

Can not have God with them either....

 

[ChristineM]

cause and effect is a very safe assumption

matched pair
can't have science without them

There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect in science. It is a human concept but not scientific. There are several examples of thinks happening without cause. For example radioactive decay. What causes it, the answer is absolutely nothing.

 

[Thief]

There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect in science. It is a human concept but not scientific. There are several examples of thinks happening without cause. For example radioactive decay. What causes it, the answer is absolutely nothing.

you can't do experiments without the relationship

all effects ......have a cause

 

[We Never Know]

The Big Bang theory actually says nothing definitive about the presumed very start of the universe. It accounts for the evidence we have - from nature - of an expansion from an initial hot and dense state. If one tries to extrapolate general relativity back from this state, one ends up with infinite density at a finite time in the past, a "singularity".

That's as much as science can say, because that's as much as observation of nature justifies.

Yes that's the common theory However if nature didn't exist how could it be a natural event was the question. If we don't know if nature existed then it can't be claimed as a natural event. Nor can it be claimed a supernatural(a god) event without evidence of the supernatural.
So its simply we don't know.

 

[ChristineM]

you can't do experiments without the relationship

all effects ......have a cause

Tell the fundimental laws of physics that

 

[We Never Know]

This makes no sense.



The big bang first is an unknown event. As in, we don't know what triggered it. The origins of the universe (of the big bang) are unknown at this point.

So it could be a natural event or it could be an unnatural event. Although there is no evidence at all for it being an unnatural event.

And also considering that just about every phenomenon that was once attributed to "supernatural" causes, turned out to have natural causes, I'll put my money on the big bang being a natural event.

Since there is zero evidence of anything supernatural, right out the gates the "supernatural" is always the least likely.

Without nature nothing can be natural. There was no nature until after the big bang.

Exactly its unknown. Anyone claiming other wise is claiming blankly.

 

[McBell]

Yes that's the common theory However if nature didn't exist how could it be a natural event was the question. If we don't know if nature existed then it can't be claimed as a natural event. Nor can it be claimed a supernatural(a god) event without evidence of the supernatural.
So its simply we don't know.

Define "nature"

I ask because you seem to be using one that greatly differs from the one I use:

The whole of material reality, considered as independent of human activity and history​

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Christianity... the most popular understanding of who God is.

What does anything being the "most popular" have to do with whether or not it should be considered correct or whether or not its explanations or models match up closely to reality?

Basically - I can't give a crap if Christianity is the "most popular" in any way. That doesn't matter in the slightest. Christianity will still fail to have its evidentiary ducks in a row throughout all of time until one of you believers finally comes up with something of any actual substance, or explanatory or predictive power that can be readily displayed or demonstrated to any and all human beings. Short of that... who cares what you think about "science?" Who should care? I know I don't... and I honestly hope NO ONE ever cares about the crap you keep spewing on this site.

 

[We Never Know]

Define "nature"

I ask because you seem to be using one that greatly differs from the one I use:

The whole of material reality, considered as independent of human activity and history​

Nature is the natural world; consisting of all things. While natural is that exists and evolved within the confines of a ecosystem.

We go out into nature and see the natural things that have evolved.

 

[McBell]

Nature is the natural world; consisting of all things. While natural is that exists and evolved within the confines of a ecosystem

Why must it be confined to an eco system?
Are there things that are "natural" in one ecosystem that are not "natural" in a neighboring eco system?

 

[We Never Know]

Why must it be confined to an eco system?
Are there things that are "natural" in one ecosystem that are not "natural" in a neighboring eco system?

What happens in the nieghbouring eco system is natural for that system.

 

[McBell]

What happens in the nieghbouring eco system is natural for that system.

That does not address my question.

What is the need for the addition of "within the confines of a ecosystem"?
The only reason I can think of is that there are things that are natural in one eco system that are not natural in another eco system.

 

[We Never Know]

That does not address my question.

What is the need for the addition of "within the confines of a ecosystem"?
The only reason I can think of is that there are things that are natural in one eco system that are not natural in another eco system.

Define within
Define confined
Define eco system

 

[McBell]

Define within
Define confined
Define eco system

Those words are from YOUR presented definition, not mine.

Perhaps you can answer the question and in doing so define those words as you (or or your source) defines them?

 

[We Never Know]

Those words are from YOUR presented definition, not mine.

Perhaps you can answer the question and in doing so define those words as you (or or your source) defines them?

Its not my definition. Its a given definition I accept. Feel free to use google and research to what you are looking for and accept.

 

[We Never Know]

That does not address my question.

What is the need for the addition of "within the confines of a ecosystem"?
The only reason I can think of is that there are things that are natural in one eco system that are not natural in another eco system.

Whats natural within the eco system of the rain forest won't be at Antarctica.

 

[McBell]

Its not my definition. Its a given definition I accept. Feel free to use google and research to what you are looking for and accept.

I did not say it was your DEFINITION.
I said it was your PRESENTED definition.
I even flat out added "(or or your source)"...

Thus meaning since it is your presented definition it is on you to define the words used in your presented definition.
I am not doing your homework for you.