When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

[leibowde84]

So you desire to draw a line and all others must abide accordingly?

I believe in God because of science.

close enough?

What do you mean by this?

 

[McBell]

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

It indicates science does not know it yet. It does not indicate that knowledge does not exist or that G-d did not cause it.
Regards

Are you ever going to present examples of this alleged "gibberish" you speak of?

Because thus far in this thread, YOU are the one talking gibberish.

 

[McBell]

What do you mean by this?

I suspect he will reply with the whole cause and effect thing but then ditch the cause and effect thing once he gets to his favorite deity.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

It indicates science does not know it yet. It does not indicate that knowledge does not exist or that G-d did not cause it.
Regards

So, you took the time to write this, but still have shown no examples of science gibberish you're talking about?
If I missed it, please point it out to me, thanks.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Provide a couple of instances with quotes of what you think is gibberish and then support your claims. It will be interesting to follow. Make sure you provide your sources so we can fact check along the way.

He's been asked to at least 7 times so far..
..he'll still pop on to make a completely meaningless comment, or prop someone up who agrees with him, but has still not shown an example.

 

[McBell]

He's been asked to at least 7 times so far..
..he'll still pop on to make a completely meaningless comment, or prop someone up who agrees with him, but has still not shown an example.

Let us see how many time he has asked to present examples of, clarify what he means by, etc. "gibberish":

I think you need to be more clear what you mean when you say "gibberish". Do you mean literal gibberish, or just things that you don't understand?

Why would you have to note that this is open to theists and atheists? Why is one's view on God relevant to this?

When does science go "gibberish?"

Define "gibberish".
Please provide an example.

This is an important step to determine if you mean real actual gibberish or if you are calling what you do not understand gibberish.

Tell me, in what area in science that you think is "gibberish"?

Have we gotten an example of the "gibberish" the OP is talking about, so we can evaluate yet?

Is this an example of the "gibberish" you speak about?

I STILL request an example be presented by yourself of this alleged "gibberish".
Until such time as you can meaningfully explain what you are talking about, honest discourse cannot be had.

Provide a couple of instances with quotes of what you think is gibberish and then support your claims. It will be interesting to follow. Make sure you provide your sources so we can fact check along the way.

Are you ever going to present examples of this alleged "gibberish" you speak of?

So, you took the time to write this, but still have shown no examples of science gibberish you're talking about?
If I missed it, please point it out to me, thanks.

 

[Thief]

I suspect he will reply with the whole cause and effect thing but then ditch the cause and effect thing once he gets to his favorite deity.

God is the Cause.

you're welcome

 

[gnostic]

Let us see how many time he has asked to present examples of, clarify what he means by, etc. "gibberish":

God is the Cause.

you're welcome

There you go, Mestemia. There's your "gibberish" - "God is the Cause".

....WHAT...wait a second... that's not science, that religion...

...ok, we have religion speaking "gibberish", not science. Sorry, my bad.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

Either that somebody chose a really bad name for their child, or a concept miraculously obtained a radically different ontological status (THIS JUST IN: concept becomes entity according to verified posters!).

It indicates science does not know it yet.

I wonder why nobody has studied if there are interesting differences among populations more prone to personify "science". I personally find it surprising that most of the time I find religiously-inclined persons doing this, but then most of the conversations I have regarding the sciences are with practicing scientists or on this discussion board, to my evidence isn't just anecdotal, but heavily biased.

It does not indicate that knowledge does not exist or that G-d did not cause it.

What's "it"?

 

[Thief]

There you go, Mestemia. There's your "gibberish" - "God is the Cause".

....WHAT...wait a second... that's not science, that religion...

...ok, we have religion speaking "gibberish", not science. Sorry, my bad.

I'm not religious.
I got faith.
I got science.
I got God on my side.

hehehehe

 

[gnostic]

I got science.

Not if you can't distinguish that not all cause-and-effect are relevant to science and those that are not.

I got faith.

I don't doubt that you have faith.

I got God on my side.

Talk about arrogance and being delusional.

I'm not religious.

That's contradicting your points (2 & 3), above.

Religion and religious are not exactly the same things. You can be religious without following a church or sect.

Buddhism, for example, believe things that are religious in nature, and yet, they don't believe in creator deity (or deities), so theism is irrelevant to one who follow this religion.

 

[Thief]

Not if you can't distinguish that not all cause-and-effect are relevant to science and those that are not.

I don't doubt that you have faith.

Talk about arrogance and being delusional.

That's contradicting your points (2 & 3), above.

Religion and religious are not exactly the same things. You can be religious without following a church or sect.

Buddhism, for example, believe things that are religious in nature, and yet, they don't believe in creator deity (or deities), so theism is irrelevant to one who follow this religion.

now you're just trying to be contrary....

I have no religion.....therefore ...not religious
no congregation, no ritual, no long list of prayers,.......nada....
I follow no one and no one follows me.

I've heard of Buddha....I'm not so inclined...

rogue theologian.

 

[gnostic]

I have no religion.....therefore ...not religious

You believe in god, don't you?

You do believe in Jesus, prophets and the bible, don't you?

If so, then by that very definition, you are "religious".

If you don't want to be associated with any church or be called "Christian", then that's your business. But why are you quibbling over you being "religious", when you are?

You wrote God is on your "side", in post 110. Then clearly, you are "theist", aren't you?

 

[Thief]

You believe in god, don't you?

You do believe in Jesus, prophets and the bible, don't you?

If so, then by that very definition, you are "religious".

If you don't want to be associated with any church or be called "Christian", then that's your business. But why are you quibbling over you being "religious", when you are?

You wrote God is on your "side", in post 110. Then clearly, you are "theist", aren't you?

I don't carry the baggage of dogma.
It's a heavy load and I dropped it long ago.

 

[McBell]

I don't carry the baggage of dogma.
It's a heavy load and I dropped it long ago.

Denial at its finest.

 

[Thief]

thank you.

now as for science....when it goes to gibberish....

and I have seen as much on documentaries!!!!!

 

[McBell]

thank you.

now as for science....when it goes to gibberish....

and I have seen as much on documentaries!!!!!

Does this mean you are able to explain what the OP means when it uses the word "gibberish"?
Would you be so kind as to present an example or two?

 

[paarsurrey]

Reference post #106 above.
One aspect is mentioned in post #108 by me in another thread. One may read it. Please
Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reference post #106 above.
One aspect is mentioned in post #108 by me in another thread. One may read it. Please
Regards

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it useless or can't learn it, and it certainly doesn't make it gibberish. You probably don't know much Latin, but that doesn't make our legal system gibberish, and not knowing ancient Greek doesn't mean the ancient Greeks spoke in gibberish, even though linguists and philosophers debate over the exact meanings of some terms and phrases (just as many linguists and theatre Ph.D.s debate as the meaning of many of the words Shakespeare used). It does not, however, make it gibberish.
This is gibberish:

Using scientific terms is not.

 

[leibowde84]

thank you.

now as for science....when it goes to gibberish....

and I have seen as much on documentaries!!!!!

I think he's asked you 100 times for a specific example. Can you provide one?