firedragon
Veteran Member
Good going. Cheers.
-
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!
Reason for religious war
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Good going. Cheers.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats not the reason. But I am not gonna pursue this any further because its not gonna go anywhere.
False. Science doe not deal with whether God exists or not. It is neutral to the question of the existence of God.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Repeating nonsense will not make it make any more sense. Science builds testable and falsifiable models of the world. Until and unless there is a testable and falsifiable 'god hypothesis' science must remain silent (neutral) on the issue of the existence of any god(s).
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
What can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
What can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The philosophy of science takes an extroverted approach to reality. Any phenomena in question has to be witnessed and duplicated by more than one person using any combination of the five senses. Tools that extend our senses are allowed in science, i.e., microphones to amplify sound, since these tools can record and produce an output, that can be verified and duplicated by others, using primary senses.
This line in the sand was designed to help separate and factor out subjective realty, so what was left was tangible material reality. For example, if a group of scientists were camping in the woods, for the first time at night, their imaginations may get the better of them. One camper may hear a sound. This sound will not be accepted by the rest of the science group, unless another member also heard it. Or, if someone believes the first, he will investigate to duplicate hearing the sound.
If the another member does hears the sound, and then theorizes this may be due to a bear in the bushes, this will not be accepted by the rest of the group, until at least one other person sees a bear. The idea was to factor out imagination and subjectivity, to come to a consensus as to what is tangible and verifiable by all.
The problem that this philosophy created is there are real phenomena that will fail these tests. For example, say I had a dream and I relay the details of my dream to the others at the camping site. There is no way to verify what I say is true, even though it may have been 100% real and my account very accurate, My dreams cannot be experienced or verified by others, and there are no known tools that can go there. The philosophy would have to deny that this was real, even if valid neural output.
This is why Psychology is often called soft science. One has to bend the rules of science, since dreams are very common, even if the remembered details cannot be verified by others, to the letter of the law. These are unique data, which form a class of observations, that have wide spread commonality. To investigate this type of phenomena, science would have to change the rules; modernize from the strict 17th century rules of science. The compromise is called soft science.
As far as evolution, good science theory should be able to make verifiable predictions. This is where the theory of evolution fails. Evolutionary theory cannot pin point a prediction in advance. It can only point out data, that appears to correlate to the theory, after the fact. Evolution, as designed, is very weak theory.
The theory of Helios riding his chariot, as the reason for the rising and setting sun, was better at making a daily solar prediction, than current evolutionary theory is for life observations. This is not to say the gist of evolution does not make sense. However, its theoretical foundation is half baked theory, and should not be glorified as being more than half baked. This is why politics has been attached; used to avoid the strict scientific method via a subjective prestige affect.
Recently, NASA landed a rover on Mars. Because of the distance between Mars and Earth, the landing had to be preprogramed down to the details. There was too much time delay to land the rover manually. This is how excellent theory works. If NASA's theory for landing the rover was as good as evolutionary theory, it may have hit the sun, but they would no know until after the fact.
Politics, Evolution and Gambling all use the same math modeling; statistics. This was never part of the age of reason, since it was on the other side of the line; whims of the gods. This math is different from data like dream details, which are unique tangible neural output designed for internal information.
Religion assumes an omniscience God, which implies accurate predictions. This was also the goal of the Age of Reason and rational science, like theory used to land the Mars rover.
Statistics is like the idiot savant brother of God; alternate religion, who can get anywhere; odds, but only on a whim. He has no plan, he is not rational, but rather acts on impulse with jackpots appearing here and there; first life. This type of thinking pre-dates the age of reason and even pre-dates monotheism type religions. Evolution depends on this idiot savant God to act, but has no idea when he will awaken. They design math oracles to help conjure him; soft science at best.
This line in the sand was designed to help separate and factor out subjective realty, so what was left was tangible material reality. For example, if a group of scientists were camping in the woods, for the first time at night, their imaginations may get the better of them. One camper may hear a sound. This sound will not be accepted by the rest of the science group, unless another member also heard it. Or, if someone believes the first, he will investigate to duplicate hearing the sound.
If the another member does hears the sound, and then theorizes this may be due to a bear in the bushes, this will not be accepted by the rest of the group, until at least one other person sees a bear. The idea was to factor out imagination and subjectivity, to come to a consensus as to what is tangible and verifiable by all.
The problem that this philosophy created is there are real phenomena that will fail these tests. For example, say I had a dream and I relay the details of my dream to the others at the camping site. There is no way to verify what I say is true, even though it may have been 100% real and my account very accurate, My dreams cannot be experienced or verified by others, and there are no known tools that can go there. The philosophy would have to deny that this was real, even if valid neural output.
This is why Psychology is often called soft science. One has to bend the rules of science, since dreams are very common, even if the remembered details cannot be verified by others, to the letter of the law. These are unique data, which form a class of observations, that have wide spread commonality. To investigate this type of phenomena, science would have to change the rules; modernize from the strict 17th century rules of science. The compromise is called soft science.
As far as evolution, good science theory should be able to make verifiable predictions. This is where the theory of evolution fails. Evolutionary theory cannot pin point a prediction in advance. It can only point out data, that appears to correlate to the theory, after the fact. Evolution, as designed, is very weak theory.
The theory of Helios riding his chariot, as the reason for the rising and setting sun, was better at making a daily solar prediction, than current evolutionary theory is for life observations. This is not to say the gist of evolution does not make sense. However, its theoretical foundation is half baked theory, and should not be glorified as being more than half baked. This is why politics has been attached; used to avoid the strict scientific method via a subjective prestige affect.
Recently, NASA landed a rover on Mars. Because of the distance between Mars and Earth, the landing had to be preprogramed down to the details. There was too much time delay to land the rover manually. This is how excellent theory works. If NASA's theory for landing the rover was as good as evolutionary theory, it may have hit the sun, but they would no know until after the fact.
Politics, Evolution and Gambling all use the same math modeling; statistics. This was never part of the age of reason, since it was on the other side of the line; whims of the gods. This math is different from data like dream details, which are unique tangible neural output designed for internal information.
Religion assumes an omniscience God, which implies accurate predictions. This was also the goal of the Age of Reason and rational science, like theory used to land the Mars rover.
Statistics is like the idiot savant brother of God; alternate religion, who can get anywhere; odds, but only on a whim. He has no plan, he is not rational, but rather acts on impulse with jackpots appearing here and there; first life. This type of thinking pre-dates the age of reason and even pre-dates monotheism type religions. Evolution depends on this idiot savant God to act, but has no idea when he will awaken. They design math oracles to help conjure him; soft science at best.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Down the rabbit hole again
You asking for evidence when you provide none yourself.
But, I'll play your game for now ...
Come back and ask me questions when you've watched those two videos.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It seems like you have no grasp of basic logic. The statements are vague and inaccurate and the conclusion doesn't follow. As I said, what science does is attempt to build testable and falsifiable models of nature (it's not just 'interested in nature'). Unless there is a god hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable, science can say nothing about any proposed god(s).
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt make any claim so for what should I provide any evidence for?
And no. These videos dont prove anything. Maybe you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims so you just cut and paste URL's for ease.
Thanks for showing that.
Altfish
Veteran Member
You are a scream.
What would you accept of evidence that I am able to provide on a forum?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Evidence that proves your claim.
"Creationism is a 4000-year old idea that has been shown to be incorrect."
You said you have no evidence for "Creationism is a 4000-year old" claim.
And you claimed "Evolution" is the answer for your claim "Creationism is a 4000-year old idea that has been shown to be incorrect" which you have not given any evidence to.
So I think you understand the standard.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Creationism is the anti-thesis of evolution.
They can't both be right.
And evolution definitely isn't wrong.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it's not.
And quite frankly, trying to hide behind the victim card is pretty pathetic.
You sound like a Trumpian crybaby.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
1. is a misrepresentation. Instead, science is not interested in baseless claims. Yes, that includes gods. But gods aren't singled out by virtue of the concept of "gods". Gods aren't interesting to science for the same reason graviton pixies aren't: there's no evidence.
2. a claim that requires evidence. you don't have any
3. science is the study of nature (well, the natural sciences anyway), so yes.
Even if I were to grant you all 3 points, then still this conclusion wouldn't follow.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Once again a non-answer.
I admitted my answer to the origins of Creationism was a stab in the dark; I don't know when it started.
Evolution is the reason/ answer that Creationism is false.
The one who can't articulate the chain of logical reasons that lead him to conclude that he is right, nor refute the chain of logical reasons presented that show him to be wrong -- but believes it 100% anyway.
Altfish
Veteran Member
WRONG
1. Science is interested in god, the person who proves she exists will have fame and Nobel Prizes galore. BUT science can't measure/observe magic and too often all you are left with when talking about god is based on magic. Unprovable magic.
2. That follows on.
3. Yes
Science has found no evidence for god, none at all. So currently the hypothesis is that god does not exist.
I can say this: it is not a logical conclusion.
The very best you could squeeze out of your three premises is that science has not yet found any evidence of God acting on nature.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
No. The most ancient method of Science is Methodological Naturalism: all divine references are not scientific.