Does Science create any facts?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

man created gods.........how's that for a fact?

Indeed. The proof, of course, is that in every case we look at, it seems that these gods hate the same sort of people that the god's worshipers hate.

Ain't that an amazing coincidence?

 

[Simurgh]

Indeed. The proof, of course, is that in every case we look at, it seems that these gods hate the same sort of people that the god's worshipers hate.

Ain't that an amazing coincidence?

that warrants scientific investigation, i think.

 

[gnostic]

It is evidence, paarsurrey.

Evidences are used to determined what is fact and what isn't fact.

Science explain factual knowledge. That knowledge is explained by scientists, but it is not accepted as scientific theory until there are enough evidences to show it is probable.

If there are no evidences to support the explanation or most of the evidences go against the explanation, then the explanation is not factual and should be rejected on the basis that it is "not probable".

Do you understand probability, paarsurrey?

Science is man-made tool to acquire knowledge and to test them (or to find evidences). God didn't invent science.

 

[gnostic]

In Genesis, God only really creates Light via talking. The rest is already there in some sort of Chaos. He just fiddles with it until you start seeing individual stuff and not just "matter soup". So, if you want to be real nitpicky, God didn't create everything in nature either.

God didn't even create light.

Light requires sources, not words.

The light from stars, including the sun, come from the heat of star's core which incandescence the gases on the surface of outer layer.

In the light bulb, the electricity pass through thin coiled filament, which caused heat and the bulb to become incandescent.

Light from fire come from chain reaction of the combustion of fuel and oxygen.

Light don't just appear out of nothing. And words don't make light.

In Genesis 1, god create the light with just few words, and this light divided day and night, morning and evening, from unknown source; it never say that this light come from the sun.

God didn't appear until the 4 day of creation, along with creation of moon and stars, as if the first light (in days 1, 2 & 3) and the light from the sun, are two different sources of light.

That's the oddity of the Genesis creation.

 

[Quintessence]

Indeed. The proof, of course, is that in every case we look at, it seems that these gods hate the same sort of people that the god's worshipers hate.

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? This statement doesn't even make sense if we're limiting the discussion to the classical monotheist god, and definitely doesn't hold water once we expand out to animism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.

Alas, that's not really the topic of this thread, so I digress. Not that there's that much to discuss with respect to the thread topic.

 

[Falvlun]

Science just discovers them; they exist already in nature created by God. Right?

Please

Facts are human constructs used to describe reality.

Without humans (or other inquisitive sentient life), no facts.

Reality, on the otherhand, exists regardless of humans.

We don't know exactly how reality came to be. Maybe God did it, or maybe it did it itself, or maybe it was just always there.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?

I have observed that in cases where you get systematic hate of a specific group of people, by a majority, the majority's god also hates that same group.

For example, in the USA, among certain brands of "christian", it is Doctrine to hate LGBT people. And indeed, among those brands they are able to "justify" their hate, by pointing to specific passages in their Official Book™ which command them to hate this group. Isn't that convenient?

Now I do not truly know which came first: the hate, or the justification. But I question the claim that the god came before the hate, here-- I personally think that the hate came first, and they leveraged their Official Book™ to try to "explain" what they really just wanted to hate.

My reasoning that the hate came first, is that there are other brands of the religion which purport to use the same Official Book™, but do not teach as Doctrine, hate for the LGBT.

My conclusion is that people will hate who they hate-- and they happily twist whichever religion they adhere to, into a "justification" of that hate.

I am quite certain there are no exceptions to this rule-- regardless of the religion, be it monotheist, pantheist, omnitheist or pink-and-purple weavile-theist.

Why? Because religion never seems to be in a position to tell people to not do what they want to do in the first place....

.... it's as if there really isn't an All-Seeing Overlord in control of anything...

 

[viole]

Science just discovers them; they exist already in nature created by God. Right?

Please

Yes, and that includes you having a fish in the family album.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

I have observed that in cases where you get systematic hate of a specific group of people, by a majority, the majority's god also hates that same group.

For example, in the USA, among certain brands of "christian", it is Doctrine to hate LGBT people. And indeed, among those brands they are able to "justify" their hate, by pointing to specific passages in their Official Book™ which command them to hate this group. Isn't that convenient?

Now I do not truly know which came first: the hate, or the justification. But I question the claim that the god came before the hate, here-- I personally think that the hate came first, and they leveraged their Official Book™ to try to "explain" what they really just wanted to hate.

My reasoning that the hate came first, is that there are other brands of the religion which purport to use the same Official Book™, but do not teach as Doctrine, hate for the LGBT.

My conclusion is that people will hate who they hate-- and they happily twist whichever religion they adhere to, into a "justification" of that hate.

I am quite certain there are no exceptions to this rule-- regardless of the religion, be it monotheist, pantheist, omnitheist or pink-and-purple weavile-theist.

Why? Because religion never seems to be in a position to tell people to not do what they want to do in the first place....

.... it's as if there really isn't an All-Seeing Overlord in control of anything...

That helps me understand a bit better where you are coming from with this. Finding something to rationalize hatred hardly seems to be particular to theism or religion. Humans do that just in general, whether it's rationalizing it with a political ideology, with an economic philosophy, or whatever. I suppose I don't understand why you wouldn't extend this observation to that broader context of any social institution, ideology, etc. Hell, even information from the sciences can (and has been) used to rationalize prejudice.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I suppose I don't understand why you wouldn't extend this observation to that broader context of any social institution, ideology, etc. Hell, even information from the sciences can (and has been) used to rationalize prejudice.

Well, I have observed that religion makes prejudice ever so much easier. I attribute this to the fact that Official Religious Books™ are written so vaguely that it's pretty easy to twist their meaning around to fit whichever group is to be Officially Hated This Year.

Purely secular institutions are based in purely secular ideas-- and as such, can be argued one way or another--- you can argue these, as they are a matter of opinion. Compromise is therefore, possible.

Religious institutions are based on the inarguable claim of "God Said". The only counter-argument is "No, He(She/It) Didn't". There is no possibility of compromise with "God Said"...

With religion, it is as if there isn't any outside authority that governs the Real Meaning™ of these "holey" books...

I maintain that any religion that requires mere human beings to relay the "message", cannot possibly be of divine origin. I expect personal communication from any being worthy of the title "god".

If the god in question cannot be bothered? It is pretty safe to assume that it doesn't matter at all, what *I* think about said god.

If it does? Then? The god in question is evil-- for simple neglect, if nothing else.

 

[Quintessence]

@Bob the Unbeliever

It sounds like what you are saying applies to only a limited spectrum of religions. I understand that Westerners use Christianity as the exemplar of what religion looks like, and that Christianity as a sacred text or dogmas, but that are absent in other traditions (or at the very least, not given the kind of weight they are in some Christian traditions). Many religions actually operate more like what you describe as "secular." As someone who is not Christian, I'm hoping you might understand my confusion at some of your words.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@Bob the Unbeliever

It sounds like what you are saying applies to only a limited spectrum of religions. I understand that Westerners use Christianity as the exemplar of what religion looks like, and that Christianity as a sacred text or dogmas, but that are absent in other traditions (or at the very least, not given the kind of weight they are in some Christian traditions). Many religions actually operate more like what you describe as "secular." As someone who is not Christian, I'm hoping you might understand my confusion at some of your words.

My observation applies to all religions who use either Tradition or Special Literature, to pass on their dogma.

Religions without dogma? May as well not exist-- as they only last as long as the individual who imagined them does.

Until gods actually prove themselves to everyone, equally? Gods are either 1) evil (because of playing favorites), 2) indifferent and uncaring or 3) not-existing.

Indifferent and uncaring may safely be ignored, and treated as not-existing.

That leaves evil deities....

 

[psychoslice]

What is god ?.

 

[minorwork]

Science just discovers them; they exist already in nature created by God. Right?

Please

The language of Creation/Nature's God is presented without a Rosetta Stone, only human perceptions of patterns in a model contrived in the brain. Retransmission in a spoken and written language concerns measurements of changes that are referred to as "facts." Theory, then, organizes the facts by associating them with each other in a time-based manner.
Time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance. Facts are measurements. Can't measure then there is no fact only an idea that can be discussed.

 

[paarsurrey]

I create facts, I don't see why scientists couldn't.
Sometimes it's necessary to create standards. Like in manufacturing, all "wigets" have to pass certain standards. That they have to pass those standards becomes a fact.

Really depends on the context. Scientists do both, create some facts and discover others.

Just to add, Ann Rand distinguishes the difference as being metaphysical facts versus man made facts.

Metaphysical facts are discovered. These would exist whether man was present or not.

OTOH it's a fact there are 50 states in the US. That's something man created. We could have divided up the US into a different number of states.

So science could create "man made facts" but discovers "metaphysical" facts.

"it's a fact there are 50 states in the US. That's something man created. We could have divided up the US into a different number of states.
I don't agree".

The facts or the real facts are realities. Man itself is a temporary being, the same is of the Earth and its portions only named as US of America, some centuries ago after Amerigo Vespucci,the Italian explorer, who explored the new continents.
The realities have the characteristic of permanence. Right? Please
Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Science just discovers them; they exist already in nature created by God. Right?

Please

Yes, they already exist in nature.

I as a Baha'i believe in God, a more universal relationship of God and Creation that goes beyond Islam, which like other ancient religions they believe Revelation ended with their religion, which over time is a very destructive agenda and dogma.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God didn't even create light.

Yeah, I know, but I was talking about the story.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, they already exist in nature.

I as a Baha'i believe in God, a more universal relationship of God and Creation that goes beyond Islam, which like other ancient religions they believe Revelation ended with their religion, which over time is a very destructive agenda and dogma.

Quran does not mention that revelation ended with Quran/Islam/Muhammad. It is a dogma not a reality or a real fact. Please
Regards

 

[David T]

I create facts, I don't see why scientists couldn't.
Sometimes it's necessary to create standards. Like in manufacturing, all "wigets" have to pass certain standards. That they have to pass those standards becomes a fact.

Really depends on the context. Scientists do both, create some facts and discover others.

Just to add, Ann Rand distinguishes the difference as being metaphysical facts versus man made facts.

Metaphysical facts are discovered. These would exist whether man was present or not.

OTOH it's a fact there are 50 states in the US. That's something man created. We could have divided up the US into a different number of states.

So science could create "man made facts" but discovers "metaphysical" facts.

No you create narrative and call it facts. Gravity is a fact, I can self levitate is not.

 

[David T]

What are facts? If facts = reality, then science does not create it. Fact is a mental concept of reality. Science does not make that mental concept either.

Science is also not about discovering facts. Epistemology explains that science does not deal with the Truth, nor the truth, and the least of all with facts. Science explains and predicts phenomena, and that has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. Exception is mathematics, but the concept of truth there has a different meaning.

God does not create facts. If God is eternal, then that is an eternal fact, which was never created.

A fact is related to experience, narrative is the me talk construct in context to experience.