• 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!

Science is a false God

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that he is misinterpreting what science tells us. Ideas can be shown to be wrong when their model fails. That creationists will not even make a testable model shouts volumes. He appears to be that to refute his model, even though it is a very informal one, would take infinite knowledge when only a small amount is needed to find self contradictions in it. Self contradictions causes a model to fail too.


Exactly.

Any model that is self-contradictory can be eliminated.

Any model that fails to make specific, testable predictions can be eliminated.

Any model whose predictions have been shown to be wrong must be either eliminated or modified into a new model.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Yet your version of God is different from the versions of God that others have ascertained through "truth search by truth accommodation".
Did they also go to University to study science and practice law extensively?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The work of Science is not to say "I do not know". The work of the scientist is to propose possible theories that explain observed phenomena. It is, after all, omniscient and infallible...
How silly. If "science" did know, there would be no reason to investigate.

It is only when science says "I do not know", that true investigation can begin.

That's what separates science from religion. Religion and religious people do think they know everything.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
How did the evil fetuses that God slaughtered, create evil for themselves?
To which someone replied:
I know his answer! He is going to demand that you prove that they would not be evil when they grew up. Don't worry, I got him rather angry when he was rude to me and appears to have put me on ignore. I asked questions about slavery that he had no answer for. He won't see this post.
Glad to be of assistance.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The work of Science is not to say "I do not know". The work of the scientist is to propose possible theories that explain observed phenomena. It is, after all, omniscient and infallible...

We prefer to leave the label “omnsicient and infallible” to beings who cannot even write.

Ciao

- viole
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Rather than delusions of omniscience, then, shouldn’t the reality that the sciences are not unfailing or omniscient bring you to humility as opposed to contemptuousness and openness instead of bigotry?
You are not listening. Science is not omniscient and I have not said it is. Who is suffering delusions that it is?

On the contrary, I said this: "Nobody, however, is saying we know the model is definitively right or complete. That would be a quite different claim. A scientifically literate person would not make such a claim, since no theory in science can be proved true."

Do you need me to explain this? It means that in science all "truth" is only provisional and subject to being overturned or amended by later discoveries about nature.

That is not omniscience. It is intellectual humility, born of the experience of history.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco said:
Yet your version of God is different from the versions of God that others have ascertained through "truth search by truth accommodation".


Did they also go to University to study science and practice law extensively?

Are you asserting that one needs to study science and practice law extensively in order to find God?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Can you understand that "helpless" and "innocent" are not the same thing?

Yes, but it makes no difference to your double standards. Children tend to be helpless in the face of an army whether you class them as innocent or not.

On the one hand, you argued for objective morality on the basis of near universal reaction to killing helpless children as being "morally abominable". On the other, we have you defending the very same act when it's ordered by your god in your favourite book of stories.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
Yet your version of God is different from the versions of God that others have ascertained through "truth search by truth accommodation".




Are you asserting that one needs to study science and practice law extensively in order to find God?
Truth has to be totally and utterly pursued at all costs in ones quest to discover whether God exists in reality.
 

Timothy Spurlin

Active Member
The fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes probative evidence of the existence of its author, Jehovah God.

This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of neurotypical individuals today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin. I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

quote-it-s-sometimes-easier-to-reject-strong-evidence-than-to-admit-that-we-ve-been-wrong-carl-sagan-142-6-0673.jpg

Name them.
 
Top