Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

raymundoko
reply to post by ArtemisE

 

So theories are better than facts?

Scientific theories are better than scientific facts because they include scientific facts as well as explaining them.

reply to post by Cuervo

How does that make sense? Agnostic is being open to the possibility. Atheism is actively disbelieving. He understands the difference which is why he is explicit about him not being an atheist.

I have expanded this at lengths in other threads, but I'll summate it.

Agnosticism as it applies to god is that it's unknowable. Unknowable yes implies one should be open to the possibility. It also implies evidence cannot be had. That's why it goes hand it hand with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Atheists lack that belief because there is a lack of evidence.. Most atheists it seems. I think you're referring to the 'hard/strong atheist' who claims positively there exists no god. That's not how atheism is usually defined because that's a rare occurrence among atheists. Most atheists seem to simply lack the belief due to a lack of evidence. This atheist is referred to more fully as an agnostic atheist. Terms are silly. The underlying idea is simply that some people [atheists] choose not to believe in its existence because evidence is completely lacking.

When you get the chance watch the video

As for your thoughts on spirituality. I wouldn't argue that. I wouldn't argue there isn't something real there, even if science cannot yet address it. That said, we need to be honest there as well as it pertains to its reconcilability with science. Until science can evaluate them they are not scientific. That's seems fair enough to me.

reply to post by GetHyped


Interesting this needs to be explained to him considering how strongly he wanted to express himself as a scientist.

Something is awry.

Hmm...

swanne
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Can anybody pretend to know? That's my point.

Appeal to Ignorance/Solipsism.

If you cannot know what God can and cannot do, then why reject the possibility of his existence altogether?

One does not seriously entertain the possibility because of the lack of any objective evidence. I could have created the universe, you have no way of proving otherwise. Do you accept me as your god and bow down to me? I demand it of you. Don't be so arrogant and closed minded as to reject my claim.

Shouldn't we wait and explore the Universe before entertaining prejudices against christians?

We can wait until the end of time but until any such evidence comes along, don't expect any reasonable, rational person to accept claims of God's existence.

Wouldn't a true scientist be open-minded?

Open minded doesn't mean "accept any wild idea without substance". I am free to dismiss claims presented without evidence, that doesn't make me closed minded. It would in fact be closed minded to expect me or anyone else to accept extraordinary claims presented without extraordinary evidence.

Evolution does exist. But what put evolution into motion? Can we be that arrogant and pretend that we know even though we don't?

Explain to me how it's arrogant to not accept spurious claims of some supernatural being wishing life into existence? Seems to me like you're making an ad hominem argument against those who don't credulously accept such extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims by calling such people arrogant instead of addressing the lack of objective evidence.

reply to post by GetHyped


I like how you say he made an ad hominem attack, yet in this post you call Christians irrational, unreasonable and ignorant...

Irony at its best?

It also seems that the more volatile side of this discussion as far as name calling goes is the atheist side. People with far less education than myself are telling me nobody who is educated should believe in god or they are dumb. So who is getting angry about their faith in this thread? Those who have faith in a creator? Or those who have faith there isn't one?

raymundoko
reply to post by GetHyped

 

I like how you say he made an ad hominem attack, yet in this post you call Christians irrational, unreasonable and ignorant...

Irony at its best?

Yeah, except I didn't say that. I said:

We can wait until the end of time but until any such evidence comes along, don't expect any reasonable, rational person to accept claims of God's existence.

Let me spell it out clearer: no reasonable, rational person would accept someone's extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.

It's telling that you avoided my arguments and instead picked out one aspect only to misrepresent it.

reply to post by GetHyped


Oh boy...you're way off.

Nothing beats a fact. You use facts to produce a hypothesis. You make predictions based on a hypothesis to prove it to be a theory. A theory is not a fact. It is a proven hypothesis. Theories are disproven on a regular basis as once they are more scrutinized it can be determined they were going down the wrong track.

Once a theory is disproven or superseded it becomes obsolete.

I like your 2nd grade understanding of scientific theory though. It's adorable.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The question was sarcastic as that person obviously has no idea what the scientific due process is outside if a Russell Brand or Ricky Gervais skit.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Interesting this needs to be explained to him considering how strongly he wanted to express himself as a scientist.

Something is awry.

Hmm...

Yes I agree. I can understand a high school dropout or even someone that was homeschooled not knowing the difference between scientific theory and the laymans definition of theory however for someone claiming to be a scientist to need it explained to them means something stinks.

Edit to add

Person then goes on to claim once S theory's are proven wrong they become obsolete. I guess he never heard of Newton.

The smell persists.

reply to post by GetHyped


So yes...that's exactly what you said...do you really not get that?

reply to post by Grimpachi


You poor soul...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A good well working theory is the best explation of the facts at hand. As science progresses new data becomes available.

For example, see Hawkings redefinition of black holes.

raymundoko
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Oh boy...you're way off.

No, you do not understand scientific terminology.

Nothing beats a fact. You use facts to produce a hypothesis. You make predictions based on a hypothesis to prove it to be a theory. A theory is not a fact. It is a proven hypothesis. Theories are disproven on a regular basis as once they are more scrutinized it can be determined they were going down the wrong track.

See:

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Once a theory is disproven or superseded it becomes obsolete.

I like your 2nd grade understanding of scientific theory though. It's adorable.

Then by all means demonstrate your scientific literacy by pointing out exactly what is incorrect with anything I (or others) have posted on the topic.

reply to post by GetHyped


I never discussed anything you posted on this topic. I specifically responded to your wrong statement about scientific fact (relatively speaking) vs scientific theory.

I also addressed how you attempt to look down on those who believe in god by calling them irrational, unreasonable and ignorant.

reply to post by raymundoko


Oh really?

So theories are better than facts?

Nothing beats a fact. You use facts to produce a hypothesis. You make predictions based on a hypothesis to prove it to be a theory. A theory is not a fact. It is a proven hypothesis. Theories are disproven on a regular basis as once they are more scrutinized it can be determined they were going down the wrong track.

Once a theory is disproven or superseded it becomes obsolete.

You honestly expect us to believe you're a scientist? Please.

reply to post by GetHyped


I think the disconnect is you are confusing theory and scientific theory. They have different definitions...

raymundoko
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

You poor soul...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A good well working theory is the best explation of the facts at hand. As science progresses new data becomes available.

For example, see Hawkings redefinition of black holes.

edit on 23-2-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

Nice backtrack but it doesn't account for your previous posts. As far as I know you just learned it. I don't really care except you have tried to appeal to authority more times than I care to count throughout the thread by claiming to be_______ but at this point you could claim to be the surgeon general but the evidence isn't there for either.

It isn't a big deal to me but from this point on instead of making statements then appealing to authority you should try backing up your statements with links to evidence.

BTW I am not familiar the theory of Hawkins black holes. What is the name of the theory you speak of?

I have read the articles where he calls them grey holes but you speak as if a theory was made obsolete.

Without facts, theories are useless. But you don't necessarily need a theory to establish a fact.

reply to post by raymundoko

It also seems that the more volatile side of this discussion as far as name calling goes is the atheist side.

Not sure I saw name calling?.. I did seem some personal jabs. Like the ones you posted:

"you poor soul"

"your 2nd grade understanding...It's adorable."

"You're reading comprehension is pretty bad."

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


That's beside the point. Remember the topic. Just a friendly reminder.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So recap:

I say theories can become obsolete
You act like I'm an idiot for that
I show you that you are wrong
You say I back tracked...

Oh, its all clear to me now...