• 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!

Why Science was built up in such way to depart from Religion?


Veteran Member
A wrong theory is just that: wrong, and therefore invalid.

Falsifiability is not "being wrong", but rather being testable.

Because it makes sense.
Yes, I've come across this confusion before - generally from creationists.

A great gambit: first, misunderstand something, so that it makes no sense - and then laugh at it for not making any sense.


Veteran Member
Team Flat are followers of Flat shape of Earth, team Globe are followers of Globe (like sphere) shape of Earth.

1. The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
Falsifiability - Wikipedia
Same thing: "Science is possible to refute." Why then not to take opportunity? It is just like possibility of opening the can of fish. It is possible to open can, why then not?! "The theory is Scientific, if it can be shown, that theory is wrong." Why nobody is laughing at this Popper's idea? Perhaps theory is Science, if it can be proven or at least confirmed several times? The Popper's idea is not the same as saying "Possibly, the Science is refutable." Latter rejects the Popper as established, unshakable method of Science.

2. You (team Flat) wish to refute team Globe.

3. If team Globe is Science, then it is refutable. Therefore, if you want to refute team Globe, and you would try extremely hard, then you will definitely succeed (indeed, one can not refute the Absolute Truth, therefore, the refutable Science is false and lie: the falsehood is in opposition to Absolute Truth). And even if it did not work out good for you, then team Globe is not Science. And Science is the quest for Knowledge.

4. Therefore, team Globe is now scientifically refuted by their own Methodology.

5. The team Flat should accept another Methodology, which is "Science is confirmable" in order to win the debate.
"You can get it if you really want, but you must try, try and try - you succeed at last"

7. To prove my points I am asking you to want to believe in my correctness. If your mind is set to refute, then you will ``refute'' even God Almighty
by a wishful thinking, like the Immanuel Kant did with St. Thomas Aquinas's five ways of proving of God. So, the Hitchens's razor ``Burden of Proof'', the Occam simplificative razor, and Sir Karl Popper's criterion``Science is refutable'' are not quite perfect ways to build up collective inter-disciplinary knowledge. Indeed, the wrong methods of Science have killed the Science - the
Nihilism ``we don't know what is out there; people might give an answer, but they are probably wrong'' sounds in Dr. Michio Kaku thesis-es:

``Science vs. God: It's The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It''

``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality''

If God incognito here writes a philosophical proof of Himself, can you at least in principle disprove God? After all, if you can not, then God really exists. You would be able to refute the God the All-Knowing and the Almighty?! You're a liar, dude. I asked about the philosophical proof, because the official methods of science in advance exclude God from reality: "methodological naturalism." Therefore, to date, "scientific" proof is absent. Unless you change the methodology of science. And for this you need to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal. And they will see in it a violation of the godless Methodology and protect it. A vicious circle!

8. The fact is not refutable? Yes. Then it is not Scientific. Evolution is a fact? A fact is not refutable? Yes. Then Evolution is not Scientific. Fact is synonym of Absolute Truth (e.g. of a theory), but Truth is not mentioned in Methodology of Popper.

9. There are two conflicting Methodologies:

A. Science is refutable, until it is Absolutely Proved as irrefutable Fact. After that it is not Science, but a religion.

B. Science is confirmable, until it is refuted. So, Theology is Science.

And there is Good-Evil, Paradise-Hell, Darwinism-Creationism, Left Wing - Right Wing, Sin-Holiness: there are dichotomy. Correct?

Opponent: "No one ever claims that Science is a religion".

One hundred percent sure, bro. LOL. "CERN confirms Mock Human Sacrifice took place at CERN" CERN confirms Mock Human Sacrifice took place at CERN |#mockHumanSacrificeAtCERN

10. The Hitchens's razor ``Burden of Proof'' is from hell. Indeed, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has one simple problem: who decides, that there is no evidence presented? If journal editor, then the author looses own right on appeal and gets rejected.
Hitchen's razor justifies any tyranny and highhandedness; and the current methods of Science do not fight the problem of lies and injustice.

11. The Occam's razor ``more simple theory is more true'' drives the Science to most simple theory: reality is just a mass-hallucination (absolute solipsism). ``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality'' (YouTube).

Opponent: "your post is also lacking in clarity of message."

Just because something is very complicated, this thing is wrong? It is Occam's razor speaking in you.

12. Opponent: "Science requires that something is potentially refutable, not that it is refutable. It means it would be possible to refute it if it was wrong, not that you can refute it even if it is correct."

How this is different from "Science is confirmable, until it would be refuted"?
You are talking as a sane person. Therefore you are not using Popper's method. Latter is nihilistic absurd.

Opponent: "Newton's Laws of Motion were never "confirmable" - a situation arose in which where they were shown to be inaccurate.
But they were "falsifiable" because they have been falsified in certain situations. Those laws have served well right to the present day but we now are aware of there limitations."

The laws of Newton are being confirmed in any school on the planet even today: F=ma, F=Mm G/R^2, etc.
They are confirmed in the area of applicability. For high velocities and strong fields we use Einstein. A confirmation of Flat Earth model does not mean, that model is proved. Confirmation is just passing a test. The proof is the Absolute Truth.

Jesus Takes My Burdens Away

13. Opponent:
"On top of that there simply is no flat-earth model that is remotely "confirmable" if that is your criterion.
As a trivial example, this morning at about 05:30, a little after sunrise the sun's direction was about 109°.
Please explain how a sun circling well North of here can appear well South of East? Bendy light?"

Your intuition is perfect. Yes, my bullets below show, that there can indeed be Dark Force, which bends light. Bendy light then. However, the Flat Earth model has much more freedom than Globe Earth model: the Dark Force is arbitrary function of space and time.

"Again, stop trying to blatantly misrepresent Falsifiability of Popper.
All this means is that if it is wrong, you can show that to be the case.
That certain hypothetically possible observations (which don't necessarily have to actually be observed in reality)
This distinguishes it from non falsifiable things, where no observation would be capable of disproving it.
For high velocities the Newton is wrong."

Again and again you are describing not the Popper's absurd method. You are describing the constructive method: "by a test we can confirm Einstein Theory, but if sadly happens, that test refutes Einstein, then Einstein is not scientific in this area and conditions." And Newton is right in own area of applicability. Many theories have such area. Even Einstein is not applicable in Black Hole singularity. But that does not mean, that Einstein is wrong somehow. "Happy people do not fail, happy people just learn":
Little Big Town - Happy People

Suppose, that we make scientific hypothesis: there is a baby bear in W House. It is confirmable hypothesis. Security will confirm, that bear is in WH. Or the rigorous search will refute it, however, falsification task is more hard and less reliable, than the confirmation task. Bear can be found. So, he is found-able. Read: confirm-able.

Opponent: "But there are many older theories that seemed to have been confirmed many times but they are falsifiable and have been falsified."

Once falsified (refuted) thing is not confirmable anymore, and not scientific. This method is "Science is confirmable". This is opposite to "Science is refutable": refuted things is Science for Popper. LOL.
John P.A. Ioannidis, ``Why Most Published Research Findings Are False''. PLoS Medicine. 2: e124, 2005.
Is Most Published Research Wrong?

Ignorance -- the critical driver for science | Stuart Firestein | TEDxColumbiaEngineering

6. Opponent: "The key part of science is that you can refute it if it is wrong, not that you can refute it in general."

It is not the Official wording of Scientific Method. There are no words "confirm", "provable", "Absolute True" in the section of Science called "Methodology". You are working without the Popper's criterion, you are working within "Science is confirmable" Method. The Science is "confirmable until it would be refuted". Otherwise once refuted things are forever refutable, so are scientific.

1. You are nervous, because I am winning the debate.
2. You are describing my method, not the method of Popper.
3. The Popper has different wording. Do not put your fantasy as idea of Popper. His idea sounds simple: "Science is refutable." That is all. There is no mumbling "Things which can be shown to be wrong, if they are wrong, is science" in Popper's final conclusion.


Consider in your imagination three bullets, which fly on a ring orbit around the Sun. The distance between the bullets is just couple decimeters. The bullets A and B are non-rotating bullets, but bullet C rotates around own axis of symmetry W. The segment AB has same direction as the axis W.

According to Newton the inertial frame is such reference system, where free objects (our bullets A and B, and even C) hold the constant position (or velocity vectors, and angular momentum vector (of C)). Thus, there is no global huge inertial frame. Why? Because in addition to Newton's contribution, the Einstein has found out, that Gravity is not a force, thus, free falling objects (and free orbiting Sun bullets) are truly free. Therefore, the needed inertial frame is small and local, it co-moves with bullets.

Therefore, while the motion of these group A,B,C around the Sun, the segment AB (and W) changes its direction, it is not fixed on North Star. Hereby we are not talking about slow hypothetical precession of W axis (over 10 000 year period), but we are considering large changes of direction during one year period.

Note, that the axis of rotation of the Earth (the bullet C is the model of Earth) is not perpendicular to the plane of
the orbit around the Sun. If the Celestial Pole has 23 degree angle from the perpendicular to solar system, then the annual motion of Celestial Pole would have 23 degree radius unless the "Dark Force'' is present.

It turns out, that in Newton's theory, in addition to Dark Matter, there is also a
Dark Force turning the axis of the Earth towards the North Star.
However, the Dark Force might not be introduced, if the Flat Earth model is used.
But even if it is necessary for FE, then it accounts for visible effects in FE model,
which otherwise would point to Globe Earth model.
I really like concise and short opening posts.

And this isn't either


"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Mine blew out all the prefamulated amulite in its ambiphasiant encabulator!
And my unilateral phase detractors are all out of magneto reluctance now.
Couldn't have said it better. Is science EVER going to be taught to Americans, I ask myself? (Hoping the answer is "yes," yet terrified that it might be.)


It confounds me that so many misunderstand scientific concepts at a very basic level. Okay, I lied. It doesn't confound me, it just frustrates me. I know exactly why so many don't get it.

I tried to read the whole post but my eyes kept rolling back so far I couldn't see. So just to clarify the understanding of what falsifiability means.

For something to be falsifiable means that there are ways that, if it we're false, that could be shown. For example, the claim is that I weigh 60kg. This claim is falsifiable, because if it we're false, that could be demonstrated by weighing me on a precise enough scale. If I am weighed and I am indeed 60kg, then the attempt at falsification has been successfully failed (fun oxymoron, yeah). Something is falsifiable if you know how you could demonstrate that you were wrong, not that it would be proven wrong if you tried long and hard enough.

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Did you add the text? If not hilarious find.
Nope, completely serendipitous find, the comic is called xkcd and covers a huge range of subjects, and he just happened to post that comic within days of this discussion. I'm glad you liked it, though.



Veteran Member
Nope, completely serendipitous find, the comic is called xkcd and covers a huge range of subjects, and he just happened to post that comic within days of this discussion. I'm glad you liked it, though.


I thought it was hilarious due to some of the posts in this thread. Like a "Hold my beer" moment.


Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Reminded me of my line that there is "no proof" that I am not a werewolf from Alpha Centauri with a genuine claim to the throne of Norway.