questfortruth
Well-Known Member
For example, Bob told the lie A. Can Bob confirm the A? No. But he can admit, that he told the lie. Is it confirmation, that Bob is liar?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ET is enemy of Eastern Orthodox Church Creed
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Meaningless archaic expressions like 'Godless evolution' by backward Creationists does not reflect science which is neutral to the existence of God and not 'Godless' in any way,
Everyone lies, everyone a liar. Can't scientifically disprove it. The truth is a funny thing. People believe something is true. They claim it is true. Does it make them a liar if they are telling you the truth of what they believe?
When it comes to lies and truth with people, I'm not sure how much can be confirmed.
I believe that with anecdotal and subjective beliefs and the related claims there is a vast gray area between truth and lies that is ambiguous.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and the supporting objective verifiable evidence is a standard of knowledge not measured in claims of truth, but those that deny science based on a religious agenda are indeed dishonest 'liars' particularly those of authority with the education to know science like those at the top at the Discovery Institute.
Last edited:
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
That's how I worship.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Science is independent of any religious or non-religious belief."
I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Science is G-dly, as we come to know, to some extent ,the processes G-d set for the Creation . It increases our faith in G-d. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"fact"
How could one say that it is a fact, when science has never taken up this as an issue? It is neither fact nor technical. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"In the sciences one acts as if god does not exist."
It, colored in magenta, is not essential for Science. It is a wrong notion.
Regards
For you,OK, but objectively science is science, and makes no philosophical nor theological position nor claims.
I also believe in God, but that is a separate issue.
Simply the physical existence where there is objective verifiable evidence to form the basis for theories and hypothesis falsifiable by scientific methods.
Atheism is an philosophical assumption beyond the limits of methodological naturalism of ontological naturalism that rejects the existence of Gods, spiritual entities, and spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"atheism"The solipsist is said to be the ultimate skeptic. I suppose there are worst ways to end up.
Who was claiming atheism is scientific? Atheism is a choice to not invest belief into any God. For me, not having a good enough reason to believe in any particular God. So while you can say it's wrong for you it is not wrong for me.
Science only validates what is claimed. The only claim atheism makes is that someone lacks a belief in any God. Atheism is atheism by definition not through scientific validation. The definition being what it is, it is not anything under dispute.
The terms Atheism and or Theism as well as the terms deist and deism are later terms from sixteenth century onward. Right, please?
Regards
The origin of the terms is not an issue, and no it was not a 16th century philosophy. Going back to the the Greeks the existence of God was a question from a materialist perspective was addressed by Epicurus in ~300 BCE, and Atomists like Democritus . The Roman Poet Lucretius ~100 BCE proposed a naturalist physical existence without purpose.
The issue is Atheism is an Ontological Naturalism choice based on philosophy, and not science, which takes no position on whether God exists or not.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Show me a scientific discovery that was based upon the assumption that a god exists.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope.
The word maybe but the idea of "no gods" dates much farther back.