Science fails to exclude God

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

The study that focuses on deities is called "Philosophy" and the first recorded atheists are Greek philosophers (not Greek scientists.) Socrates (a philosopher, not a scientist) was the person on record to be tried on the charge of atheism -- and yet I don't see you denouncing philosophy:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


Well, I am a philosopher, it is what I trained in, and I specifically study Plato and the Greeks, and, its not quite right to call Socrates an "atheist." He was FALSELY accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and was accused of not worshiping "right" for lack of a better simple term, the gods the Athenians worshiped. Impiety, in other words. What actually got him killed was making powerful people look stupid publicly.

But both he, and Plato, were religious, but they did separate ritual and ceremony and the mere dumb going through the motions from the philosophic knowing of the Gods.

And, quite frankly, its retarded to try and separate "philosophy" and "science" in ancient times, as "science" is a child of philosophy, it is an offshoot, and at the time, philosophers WERE the scientists of their day. And, that continued into modern times. Philosophers are responsible for the scientific method, for maths, etc. You are drawing lines between two things that were in fact one until relatively modern times. Its incredibly bad form to do that. Even if some professors also do.

Although many people today read a few philosophy books, (or just the Wikipedia articles or some website online) and hold forth on what philosophers are and do, they are usually wrong. As time has marched on, academics have "split" what was once whole into many parts, (specialties) and modern academic philosophers often are NOT scientists, but in many fields, there is beginning to be convergence once again and some of the better scientists are also philosophers and vice versa, just like in the old days.


Essentially, your whole post is a misinformed trashing of philosophy, which shows clearly you dont even know the history of YOUR field, science.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["What you are saying is that these scientists have methods to keep them on the scientific path.
Methods are procedures specified for a scientific experiment/field."]

That's the idea, yes.

Quote: ["Of Course it has nothing to do with God. Its about the science at hand."]

Exactly.

Quote: ["But, i bet a lot of these scientist have their own thought, don't you agree?"]

Science/logic/objective procedure is not a church or movement for zombification. There will be plenty of subjective attitudes in the average scientist, outside of the scientist function. Many of the great scientists have been highly individualistic.

Quote: ["They must have, since they can argue science contra God."]

This way of 'arranging' the situation, the implicated methods and the debate originating from such a starting-point has been mentioned some 15-20 times already, and rejected by those, who actually KNOW what science stands for and how it's used. I have a great trust in, that you also will understand this eventually, if you try.

Quote: ["They must know God really well if you ask me."]

Before getting to that point, they would have to acknowledge and meet this alleged 'god' first. Scientists do not include imaginary concepts in their scientific work further than to speculate on some of them as options. And even then such speculations would necessitate some evidence first.

You clearly operate from having the absolute answer FIRST, and then work your way backwards from that answer, adapting or inventing things on the way, so you full circle can arrive at your pre-determined answer. Science/logic goes the opposite direction. Starting from observation/data and searching for an answer. Grok?

Quote: ["If not they shouldn't be able to argue science compared to God."]

Try to get a grip on what 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' positions mean.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Before getting to that point, they would have to acknowledge and meet this alleged 'god' first. Scientists do not include imaginary concepts in their scientific work further than to speculate on some of them as options. And even then such speculations would necessitate some evidence first.


What you are saying here is that science can't see further into their scientific studies then their observational technology allows them to. They can't confirm more than what they can observe and measure.

If they can't see the whole picture, how can they deny or argue against a creator/God.
How can they speak about the non existence of God if they can't see the whole specter yet?

I thought scientists only dealt with facts. Their knowledge about God is far from a fact.

I have to add one more thing. What science can do is argue peoples own imaginary believes and understanding of God. But that has nothing to with God, but only peoples wrong delusional understanding of Gods work.
Science can prove that people are wrong about God. But science can't prove or disprove the existence of God.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["What you are saying here is that science can't see further into their scientific studies then their observational technology allows them to."]

With reservation on the definition of 'observational technology', the answer is still the same, as when you asked the same question before: Science has a clearly defined systematic methodology relating to both 'input' (what 'territory' it works with), processing and testing material.

What's outside that is of no scientific concern.

Quote: ["If they can't see the whole picture,"]

What WHOLE picture? Theist additional speculations or guesses making a whole picture. Those are just circle-argumented claims, nothing more.

Quote: ["how can they deny or argue against a creator/God."]

Try to get a grip on 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' positions.

Quote: ["How can they speak about the non existence of God if they can't see the whole specter yet?"]

The pre-determined answer of a postulated 'whole specter'. See above and see my previous post and the thousands of posts from agnostic atheists.

Quote: ["I thought scientists only dealt with facts. Their knowledge about God is far from a fact."]

I don't want to be rude or impolite, but repeating the same out-of-place argument for the umpteenth time is kind of insulting to me. I'm NOT imbecile. I understood it the first time on this thread, and I understood it the first time I heard it years ago. Find the place, where you and I don't get across meaningful to each other, and we can start from there.

Quote: ["I have to add one more thing. What science can do is argue peoples own imaginary believes and understanding of God. But that has nothing to with God, but only peoples wrong delusional understanding of Gods work."]

Many of our resident theists on ATS claim the same, and disagree with each other. Hardly convincing for a non-theist.

Quote: ["Science can prove that people are wrong about God"]

In some cases, to some extent. E.g. is it from a science/logic perspective unlikely, that the OT 'god' is the creator of the universe.

Quote: ["But science can't prove or disprove God."]

Usually doesn't try to either.



edit on 7-6-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?

Science touches on a few things here like the singularity. Can you explain what scientific methods science have used to form a conclusion of how it was formed. What power formed the singularity?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]

Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.

But I'm afraid, that you wouldn't understand my answer. It's rather specialist (but that's not a claim of patronizing 'authority' from me).

Quote: ["Science touches on a few things here like the singularity. Can you explain what scientific methods science have used to form a conclusion of how it was formed."]

One of the important original experiments is the 'double-slit' experiment, eventually leading to contemporary hypotheses/theories of e.g. strings, M-branes and quantum-foam, none of which are conclusions, but rather interesting directions.


edit on 7-6-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
S & F. OP should really get people thinking.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by sirnex
 







The vast majority of scientists simply do not care nor conduct their researches in their perspective fields with any deity in mind., be they religious or not.


Do you speak on behalf of the majority of all the scientists?
I just wonder how you know what each one of them believe. Have they told you?
Work is one thing, belief is something else.


Please read the text you quoted from me once more. It discusses the work they conduct regardless of their beliefs. Be they religious or not, the work they conduct simply does not factor god into it. A meteorologist for example does describe a theory where rain is caused by billions of angels collectively pissing on our heads because we're all hell bound for not following the word of god, including modern day Christians.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



They can't have facts about God if they haven't studied or gathered knowledge about God and he's work.


You might be interested in Archeological/recorded history. It's a wonderful field of science that can show us the past and history of various cultures, how they came to power, how they fell, what they believed, even their sexual habits. We can learn a lot by studying the past, the artifacts left behind, the written texts, the migratory habits of early man and the subsequent impacts it had on shaping various cultural/religious beliefs. Hell, nearly every Christian holiday was originally a pagan festival that celebrated various gods from various cultures. Christmas, easter, etc... have nothing at all to do with Christianity and thankfully the church is starting to let people in on this. I really think you might enjoy archeology, it's an amazing field.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



You wrote:

["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]

Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.


I'm going to pull the BS card on this one. There is no well established fact of how the supposed big bang occurred, hell even recent observations are casting doubt upon the theory altogether. Which doesn't surprise me much considering a priest came up with the initial idea.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bogomil
 



You wrote:

["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]

Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.


I'm going to pull the BS card on this one. There is no well established fact of how the supposed big bang occurred, hell even recent observations are casting doubt upon the theory altogether. Which doesn't surprise me much considering a priest came up with the initial idea.


Apparantly we're in full agreement on this. My post on it referred to personal speculations, not objective or scientific theories/conclusions. I'm wiser than insisting on my speculations to be more than just speculations.
edit on 7-6-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 





(err... I should also tell you that the correct pronoun for me is "she.")


Great Now you've shattered the wonderful long haired hippi professor persona I had come to like so well. But at least my brain is growing. They seriously need gender icons on these boards. I'm gonna go pull my head out of my arse now Byrd It 's things like this that keep my shades on. Just the same I'm sure the female persona that is now developing will be just as interesting. Getting used to the idea already.





Could we agree on the idea that a lot of people commenting on science use it to promote atheism or denounce parts of religion that they think is extreme or dangerous?


Yes we can. Because I do agree with that. Absolutely.

edit on 7-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


To everyone else I've fallen so far behind here I'm content to read and revive at will unless someone has something specific they would like me to a reply on. I'm so pleased with all your posts. Even you Sirnex.
edit on 7-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Sirnex
If to believe in God and try to present evidence for my belief or as to why I believe is making the claim? Then yes I claim God exists. I am far from trying to convince others and trying to shove anything down other peoples throats tho. OK? That 's also not to say I don't have some aspirations to at least help others see that belief in God isn't an absurdity. As people such as yourself try in vain to make it so.

edit on 7-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You seem to be a very smart person, so I will say it here knowing that you will reflect on what I am saying before you attempt to reply to it. You keep using the expression "science/logic" as if they were either the same thing, or maybe interchangeable concepts. They aren't. Not everything on science is logic and not everything on logic is scientific. They're not interchangeable concepts and do not go hand on hand as you seem to imply. Most importantly, you're incorrect on your previous assertion that logic does not start from a conclusion and backtracks looking for justification. If you ever took an algebra class, you will remember that in many problems, it is sometimes much easier to start from the conclusion and work your way back to the premises. Logic doesn't care which path you took. Logic cares about only two things; soundness of logic and validity of your premises. If your premises are valid and true, and your logic is sound, it doesn't matter which path you took. Your conclusion is correct and should be accepted as true (as long as we are talking about deduction, of course).



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


Hi Leahn,

Is there any way you could re-word that to make Christians appear stupid, irrational and ignorant or any combination thereof? That would really help your efforts here in this environment. It's not necessarily that you're comments are erroneous, I'd just like to see you received positively here amongst the regular posters in the forum.

Thanks,

Typ



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



If to believe in God and try to present evidence for my belief or as to why I believe is making the claim? Then yes I claim God exists.


Yet by your previous statement and the logical conclusion therein, you must be god himself to make such a claim.


I am far from trying to convince others and trying to shove anything down other peoples throats tho. OK?


You don't appear to have any trouble with getting rid of all other beliefs, satanism included if I recall correctly.


That 's also not to say I don't have some aspirations to at least help others see that belief in God isn't an absurdity.


If your deity is not an absurdity, then why are others?


As people such as yourself try in vain to make it so.


I only attempt to help you think more objectively about your beliefs rather than blindly following them. Without a valid argument against Odin beyond because god in the bible says he doesn't exist, then your deity is just as absurd.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


My sarcasm detector must be broken. I cannot parse and make sense of what you're saying, at all. Do you mind clarifying?



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


You wrote:

["You seem to be a very smart person, so I will say it here knowing that you will reflect on what I am saying before you attempt to reply to it. You keep using the expression "science/logic" as if they were either the same thing, or maybe interchangeable concepts. They aren't."]

I don't need to reflect. I know this, so I agree with you.

Quote: ["Not everything on science is logic and not everything on logic is scientific. They're not interchangeable concepts and do not go hand on hand as you seem to imply."]

Take mathematics, which sometimes is empirical and pragmatic, leading to basic axioms (a logic conclusion). Sometimes is abstract, operating with imaginary or irrational elements, which need some deductive reasoning to make 'sense'. This mathematics is the companion of science.

Quote: ["Most importantly, you're incorrect on your previous assertion that logic does not start from a conclusion and backtracks looking for justification."]

If you work backwards staying with a reversed deduction it's ofcourse possible. But my criticism is directed against a backwards method adapting the backwards steps to 'prove' the answer.

Quote: ["If you ever took an algebra class, you will remember that in many problems, it is sometimes much easier to start from the conclusion and work your way back to the premises."]

Well, since you asked. I have TAUGHT mathematics in highschool.

Quote: ["Logic doesn't care which path you took. Logic cares about only two things; soundness of logic and validity of your premises."]

As I said above. SOUNDNESS of logic (deduction).


edit on 7-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You are entitled to believe in God, I can disbelieve however and as neither of us can prove the existnence or not, our beliefs are just that - beliefs.
The jump from belief to "truth" is the problem with all the various posters here about God.
I have a book called "the second messiah" which appears to show that the shroud of Turin was worn by the leader of the knights templar when they were arraested and tortured in France.
Is that the truth? I don't know, but it is a possibility however.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Leahn
 


Hi Leahn,

Is there any way you could re-word that to make Christians appear stupid, irrational and ignorant or any combination thereof? That would really help your efforts here in this environment. It's not necessarily that you're comments are erroneous, I'd just like to see you received positively here amongst the regular posters in the forum.

Thanks,

Typ


Buhuuuuuuuu...how about quitting to whine and pretend you're a victim, and instead start providing some real evidence to support your claims? Because until you do, it's kind hard to take your preaching seriously



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by randyvs
 





Yet by your previous statement and the logical conclusion therein, you must be god himself to make such a claim.
Ya I see whaT you're saying Sirnex and you have me cornered but only by wording. So throw a party.




You don't appear to have any trouble with getting rid of all other beliefs, satanism included if I recall correctly.


All religion yes Not God because it's obvious there is one



If your diety is not an absurdity then why are others ?


The shroud for one. logic



I only attempt to help you think more objectively about your beliefs rather than blindly following them. Without a valid argument against Odin beyond because god in the bible says he doesn't exist, then your deity is just as absurd.


Now you're full of crap.


Sailor Sam
Right and the whole point of this thread, is to show that science is doing far more to show there is a God, than
not.

Anything else I blame on Sirnex.
edit on 7-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join