It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


No scientist has EVER said they are close to understanding the universe and most will say that we've barely scratched the surface of the depth of knowledge out there.


Yet, while you state this admission, you rule everything else out. You're a laugh a minute! LOL!




posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Lol no. At not point is the Bible the same as everything else. I SPECIFICALLY ruled the bible out because it has been disproven scientifically. My mind is always open to new and expanding ideas (provided they build on or modify existing scientific knowledge). If you think bible == everything else then you need to go back and restudy english definitions.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL! You haven't disproven anything! All you've done is claim that God can't possibly exist because he hasn't been scientifically proven!

You remind me of the author of this post. As much as you admit that science lacks knowledge, you REFUSE to rule out the fact that science could be....WRONG! How much logical thinking goes into that?! Hilarious!



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t

LOL! You haven't disproven anything! All you've done is claim that God can't possibly exist because he hasn't been scientifically proven!

I never claimed to have disproven anything. I STATED that science has disproven the bible. Seriously, is English a second language to you or are we just having two separate conversations? Or do you just not respect my position enough to actually use your brain to decipher my text? I'm really confused how you keep attributing nonsense statements and claims to me by twisting my words around.


You remind me of the author of this post. As much as you admit that science lacks knowledge, you REFUSE to rule out the fact that science could be....WRONG! How much logical thinking goes into that?! Hilarious!

Yo. I'm an agnostic. Agnostics admit they can be wrong. If god exists, PROVE IT! I asked another poster to scientifically define god. Yet another I asked for a scientific test to quantify god. Neither has produced. And you are just being arrogantly obnoxious with your position. I am no further convinced of god's existence than when I first entered the thread. Though my biases that religious people will use any number of logical fallacies to waylay a conversation about science because they can't meet science's testing standards for their beliefs has been reinforced. So there's that.
edit on 2-4-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I have a question for you. Why is god even necessary for existence?
The creator God is the best explanation for existence . Anyone that claims to have proof of God's existence is not thinking it through very well . He (God) demands faith ... If it was a matter of proof then faith would not matter .God has a plan and He makes the rules . But as most will claim that faith is something that can grow stronger and more convincing . Proof does not have that aspect . Its either Proof or it is not . Knowing that quantum mechanics is real and is proof that there is something faster then the speed of light kind of brings up a puzzle . How and why ... Does it disprove Einstein's s theory . Could Einstein's theory actually be stating more then it should ? If nothing is faster then light then quantum mechanics is wrong . is there more to science then "the method"



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I have a question for you. Why is god even necessary for existence?
The creator God is the best explanation for existence .

Why? and says who?


Anyone that claims to have proof of God's existence is not thinking it through very well . He (God) demands faith ... If it was a matter of proof then faith would not matter .

Actually if you had proof you wouldn't have to worry about that silly "faith" concept so you instead try to make it like proof isn't necessary. Proof is all that matters. If god is truly as petty as religious people claim and that he needs to be self-validated by his creations then he can get off his lazy ass and prove his existence. It's that simple. We all know that would end the debate once and for all, but since you are willing to blindly believe in something you were told is true since birth instead of questioning and testing it you tell us that faith is all that matters.


God has a plan and He makes the rules . But as most will claim that faith is something that can grow stronger and more convincing . Proof does not have that aspect . Its either Proof or it is not .

None of this answers the question I asked. It's just empty religious rhetoric.


Knowing that quantum mechanics is real and is proof that there is something faster then the speed of light kind of brings up a puzzle . How and why ... Does it disprove Einstein's s theory . Could Einstein's theory actually be stating more then it should ? If nothing is faster then light then quantum mechanics is wrong . is there more to science then "the method"

This is just an aspect of science self-correcting. That's all.
edit on 2-4-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

I never claimed to have disproven anything. I STATED that science has disproven the bible. Seriously, is English a second language to you or are we just having two separate conversations? Or do you just not respect my position enough to actually use your brain to decipher my text? I'm really confused how you keep attributing nonsense statements and claims to me by twisting my words around.


You're just playing word games because you don't have an argument. The truth is, neither you or science has disproven the Bible.


Yo. I'm an agnostic. Agnostics admit they can be wrong. If god exists, PROVE IT! I asked another poster to scientifically define god. Yet another I asked for a scientific test to quantify god. Neither has produced. And you are just being arrogantly obnoxious with your position. I am no further convinced of god's existence than when I first entered the thread. Though my biases that religious people will use any number of logical fallacies to waylay a conversation about science because they can't meet science's testing standards for their beliefs has been reinforced. So there's that.


Who's the one being arrogantly obnoxious with their position? Let me quote you from your previous comment...

"But if you are going to cop out and say that science cannot define god then your god doesn't exist. It's just that simple. I'm not going to waste brain power contemplating some magical being that no one can pinpoint how to describe. Might as well just call it "Magic" and move on. "

As for your statement that, "through my biases that religious people will use any number of logical fallacies to waylay a conversation", welcome to your own hypocritical world, as you and the author of the original post aren't any different. Welcome to reality.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
You're just playing word games because you don't have an argument. The truth is, neither you or science has disproven the Bible.

No. I'm wording my expressions carefully to express an idea that you deliberately refuse to grasp the nuance to because you can't refute my words. I'm still waiting on those scientific papers that validate the bible.


Who's the one being arrogantly obnoxious with their position? Let me quote you from your previous comment...

"But if you are going to cop out and say that science cannot define god then your god doesn't exist. It's just that simple. I'm not going to waste brain power contemplating some magical being that no one can pinpoint how to describe. Might as well just call it "Magic" and move on. "

Yeah. That statement isn't worth investigating because there is nothing to investigate. If you quantify god and can show his existence with proof then I'll listen. It's not a hard concept to grasp, but you are intentionally making it confusing for yourself.


As for your statement that, "through my biases that religious people will use any number of logical fallacies to waylay a conversation", welcome to your own hypocritical world, as you and the author of the original post aren't any different. Welcome to reality.

Says the person getting offended because we question their fairy sky man. This is a thread talking about the scientific method. I asked for scientific outlets to back up your position on god. You chose to get offended and twist my words up instead. All you did is just reinforce to me that you aren't interested in denying ignorance.
edit on 2-4-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If you quantify god and can show his existence with proof then I'll listen.


No you wouldn't. You've already proven that you choose to limit your thinking and beliefs to a method that can't prove much of anything. In other words, you embrace ignorance by limiting your knowledge to that which only other limited thinkers are capable of coming up with. When was the last time you tested the spiritual world for yourself? There's so much more to this world than what you can see with your eyes and touch with your fingers. Knowledge is not limited to the human mind, but you'll never know or understand that, much less test it for yourself.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The time of mystic's are going some people cant except that .
The time of owing slaves is going some people cant except that .
The time for god and demons are going .
The time of magic is going .

Once not so long agaio Humans needed these things to understand the world they lived in that could not be understood . Gods trough lightning and made the thunder . Gods made war on humans - Volcanic - meteors -sun flares earth quakes all manor of evil .

Then one day some humans stopped looking up and started looking in for answers and they started finding them .
They learned through studying events and using tools to control events to what ever lv they had at the time .
They dug ditches for water to run for times of drought so then the fields did not dry up and a God died .
They stopped dancing under the full moon to the fertility goddess and used dung to fertlise the fields incress the food supply's again a god dies and magic as well .

Every time humans learn HOW the god did it another god dies . What was so special about your god anyway ?
He brought rain ? men brought it as well with silver iodide . What was so special about your god ?
He brought men back from death ? so have men for death is self can be defeated a person who chokes on food will die But using the Heimlich Manoeuvre that life will be saved from death .

AS for creating life from the dead soon humans are very very close to even that the last thing in a god domain the last magic will be going except it or not changes nothing .



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Humans evolved to bond by the mechanism of shared self-delusion.
That is the purpose of religion.

In the early years of humanity, we couldn't bond together through genuine knowledge..
as we didn't have much.

Now days, we live in the post-factual era.

We skipped our tiny window of humans bonding together through genuine,
verified knowledge.

I imagine we will go extinct, as a result.

Kev



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If you quantify god and can show his existence with proof then I'll listen.


No you wouldn't. You've already proven that you choose to limit your thinking and beliefs to a method that can't prove much of anything. In other words, you embrace ignorance by limiting your knowledge to that which only other limited thinkers are capable of coming up with. When was the last time you tested the spiritual world for yourself? There's so much more to this world than what you can see with your eyes and touch with your fingers. Knowledge is not limited to the human mind, but you'll never know or understand that, much less test it for yourself.

Heh. You don't know me or my thinking processes whatsoever. You can't even properly read the words I type, let alone decipher how I'd behave given proof of god provided to me.

Still waiting on those scientific papers that prove the bible is real, btw.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You don't know me or my thinking processes whatsoever.


I hate to break it to you, but your comments have already given you away on how deep your thinking ability runs, as well as your own lack of self awareness on the issue.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


Humans evolved to bond by the mechanism of shared self-delusion.

That is the purpose of religion.


"Bonding by the mechanism of shared self-delusion" isn't limited to religion, nor is it the purpose of religion.

People bond over shared thoughts and ideas about most anything (delusional or not) whether that includes politics, views on science, views on racism, and anything else insert here >.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Blah blah blah hateful and arrogant ad hominem blah blah blah

I'm tired of debating myself in a thread that isn't about me. Still waiting for those scientific papers proving the bible.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Scientific method is reductionist. It breaks down complexities into simpler components and then applies its rules of test to those more basic building blocks.

Yet we know that there are irreducible complexities, mathematics and philosophy often demonstrate them. But science totally ignores what it cannot probe and is mute on the subject.

The inability of science to make determinations where complexity is not able to be broken down, is a failing and limitation of scientific method.

An example of the breakdown of simplification as a method was the attempt to describe planetary movement by multiplicities of superimposed simple circular orbits - epicycles. The truth was discovered that the orbits were elliptic rather than circular. No amount of epicycles of circular orbits would ever do more than roughly approximate the true orbits. The elliptical orbits could not be broken down into a system of simpler circular ones and the attempted reductionism could never expose the truth.

Much science is probably leading us away from the truth because we are applying reductionist methodology. We are chasing more 'epicycles' and thinking we are getting closer to the truth at each new iteration.

This is why I do not BELIEVE (a very subjective thing) in Scientific Method.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

True.

But I was explaining how religion once had value.. by bonding people together
through shared delusion.

It no longer has any value.. as religious people with access to nuclear weapons
will bond over destroying all life, which is not useful to continued survival.

Kev



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I understand. You've been burned by the Eastern Shamanism you practiced for 20 years and now your views on all religion have been distorted.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pops is a scientist with many titles, and has even been summoned the the white house by a previous Vice President.

PS he says is hiding plenty from us. There is your science you believe in. Lies and falsified info. Hidden artifacts in the Smithsonian. By all means believe what you want



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

That really doesn't mean anything to me and is just an appeal to authority fallacy if he came to his conclusions outside of the scientific method. And this has nothing to do with falsified info. The scientific method is a process for discovery not cataloging known information.







 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join