Miracles. God. Afterlife....
It's so funny and sorry, that when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist.
See, you can't box all things within the geometry of science.
In all, It seems atheism at the end is not actually about questioning things to know but about concluding and judging all things in the court science. Sadly, that is what limits its research.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Science is a methodology, and it has proven to be the most reliable method in examining and explaining observable and testable phenomenon.
Science is not capable of examining woo woo such as the god claim.
I propose that it is not the fault or shortcoming of science, but rather the bullshit surrounding the god claim.
Question The Intruder: can you propose a better method in actually examining the god claim and arriving at real truth?
@David Killens, Nice response, which also affirmed what i posted earlier but firstly, let's leave God out of this for a moment, and talk about life after death. For starters, I mean.
Now examine your response.
YOU WROTE: Science is a methodology, and it has proven to be the most reliable method in examining and explaining observable and testable phenomenon.
You used words: examining, observable, testable. Surely, this is the foundation of science. And such a brilliant foundation has birthed many inventions and solutions for mankind. It is important you know that science is as old as mankind and not a recent phenomenon banded by hatred for other non scientific opinion.
Now, know why i told you that science in itself is limited because of the reason you stated above ( it prides in human observable, testable results), that is confined not just in the knowledge of our natural senses but in the KNOWN/EXISTING KNOWLEDGE (observable, testable) OF OUR NATURAL SENSES. I hope you can observe the key difference in the two.
Now, can you answer these for me!
1. Has science, as a methodology of observation, done/completed all its observation/research? I mean has science found out all that we have in this world or still researching?
2. Does it always mean that, when it is not scientifically proven to exist, then it doesn't exist? bearing in mind myriad of discoveries that the limitation of the tools of science once couldn't registered/affirmed or known but now known/accepted over time by the same science based on further studies/
3. How stable has science and its theories be over the history of mankind, are there scientific theories that ruled for centuries but later became discarded by the same science as incomplete? If yes. To what extent can you trust our current observations/research to remain true, final, and same in centuries to come?
YOU WROTE: I propose that it is not the fault or shortcoming of science, but rather the bullshit surrounding the god claim.
When this your proposal becomes a law/fact or scientifically proven (as you say), then we can gist on this. Keep this for now.
1) Of course not. The more we learn, the more we learn we have a lot more to learn. For example, Perlmutter did his study to determine the expansion rate of the universe. The results were the complete opposite of what was expected, that the universe was accelerating in it's expansion.That result lead to the dark energy hypothesis, basically a completely new field of research.
2) For science, you need something to study, to examine, to measure. One can not do that with an imaginary friend (with the exception of psychology and how the brain works).
3) The more we learn, the more we learn we have more to learn. Science is not static, and a scientific theory may be overturned at any moment. For example, the ancient Greeks postulated on the nature of gravity. Later on, such scientists as Galileo added to the learning on what gravity is. Newton finally offered an explanation on the effects of gravity, and Einstein finally explained how it worked. But the discovery of dark energy and dark matter may require another Einstein, one who can come up with a new way of understanding the universe.
But science offers the best explanation at that time, based on our knowledge base.
"YOU WROTE: I propose that it is not the fault or shortcoming of science, but rather the bullshit surrounding the god claim.
When this your proposal becomes a law/fact or scientifically proven (as you say), then we can gist on this. Keep this for now."
Theists have made the god claim, it is incumbent on them to prove their imaginary friend.
@David Killens. The summary is this.
All your response above affirmed the fact that science is good and has helped humanity but not perfect. Imperfection will implies, it is fallible and can be revised.
Science simply cant boast of knowing all about how the world functions and all entity that functions around it. But it seems atheist know all. If science claimed not to be perfect and still continuously depends on tools exposed to it to make more research, i asked you earlier, HAS SCIENCE DONE WITH RESEARCHING? Of course not. metaphysics, teleportation etc are all scientific work trying to find answers more and more. If there are minute success in matter transfer (teleport) dont you think science still have a long way to go in discovering the essence of this earth and even man itself?
When you arent done researching, you dont make conclusions. It will be a scientific folly to make conclusion that something doesnt exist when you arent done researching. Non existence is relative to understanding not fact.
See, science today is still in its embryo, developing gradually, we are yet to see the full power of science and may never see it in our time. That seems good but also that is the limitation of science. Hence, you have no ground on concluding the non existence of God using scientific tools which prides in the journey of time. Let science continue its researching, its answers are far embedded in the centuries of events ahead of us.
Let me chip this in for a good thinker!
The probability of measure of success of scientific theories accuracy over past centuries when measured together will amazed you how unstable science has been. In modern term you will term it as failure due to its unpredictability. Though its understandable but also a food for thought on its assumptions today about the supernatural that may all changed centuries to come.
"Imperfection will implies, it is fallible and can be revised."
Of course scientific theories are being constantly revised. That is not because the scientific process is flawed, but that new discoveries add to our knowledge base, and sometimes old theories are discarded. In science, when you learn something new, you say "OK, we got it wrong, so we will revise our proposals". That is a challenge all scientific researchers face, that the results of their studies may be embarrassing or definitely not what they desire.
"But it seems atheist know all."
Atheism does not make that claim, although your ignorance makes many atheists look like Einstein. Once again, there is just one definition of atheism, a lack of belief in a god or gods. If religion and superstition is so appealing to you, why has it failed to convince us atheist of the existence of any god?
"See, science today is still in its embryo, developing gradually, we are yet to see the full power of science and may never see it in our time."
Science is a methodology, well developed and consistently producing results. Our human knowledge base in in it's embryo stage, because we have just come out of the dark ages (thanks to religion inhibiting human progress) and over the next few millennium, will continually add to the knowledge.
"When you arent done researching, you dont make conclusions."
The results of scientific research are never presented as hard conclusions, but at best, a tentative explanation until new information is revealed.
Re: The adorable Intruder - "The probability of measure of success of scientific theories accuracy over past centuries when measured together will amazed you how unstable science has been."
Says the guy using a computer and/or smart phone to send that message around the globe over the internet.... *rolling eyes*... Yep, those damn bumbling scientist idiots.
Two more unevidenced claims, and one of them assuming to know what others will think, you've excelled yourself.
Now, how many scientific facts do you deny that don't contradict your religious beliefs in any way?
3. More stable and reliable than any other method, and religious claims would be at the very bottom of those methods, based on them being completely unevidenced, and how quickly and often they have been destroyed by that scientific method. Scientific claims can be trusted to the extent their are supported by objective evidence, as can all claims, thus your religious claims are utterly meaningless, as you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence. Evolution for instance is manifestly and objectively true as the rotundity of the earth, and they are both as likely to be wrong.
There are in fact many ways that non believers judge the claims made theists...
Science is one of these tools and as yet, there is zero evidence to support the god hypothesis.
Then we have logic... and I'll offer the challenge, provide a deductive logical arguement for the existence of god... good luck.
We have rational thinking, are these simply claims made that are on par with other stories invented by moderately evolved primates?
And so on...
And moral questioning, for example... if I was a god, there would be no war, no poverty and children wouldn't get bone cancer(or any disease)... unfortunately, gods of all religions, appear to not care, allow this or are indifferent.
Thus making this simple primate more moral than your invisible cosmic wizard.
There is literally nothing to support a theistic world view, other than superstition, submissiveness and gullibility.
"t's so funny and sorry, that when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist.
You don't english very well do you?
No, if "science" and by that you mean the "scientific method" does not find that a theory or hypothesis stands up under scrutiny, then that is what the scientific method concludes. It does not stand up to scrutiny under controlled conditions. That is all.
The same for historical figures, like your jesus figure. It does not stand up to scrutiny under the Historical Method, therefore it's existence is "not proven".
You are trying like many half witted theists before you to reverse the burden of evidence. Fail.
LogicFTW is your God
...when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist....
See, you can't box all things within the geometry of science.
In all, It seems "me being your god" at the end is not actually about questioning things to know but about concluding and judging all things in the court science. Sadly, that is what limits its research.
So which is it? Am I your god, or is your argument ridiculous?
And he ignores my point.
I can only assume because he realizes he has no rebuttal. Which is true. EIther his argument is shit, or its not, and I am his god.
There is a marked difference between what cannot be proven (yet) by science and requiring the suspension of the laws of physics and/or nature.
Science is limited,.
Can any of you give me proofs that you dream at night
Can you tell me the location of your mind,, in your brain.
When you remember someone face,. When does the image appear in your brain ??
Science can not work with the Spiritual realm
You are just plain ignorant
Please supply your best evidence for a "spiritual realm". Not just a repeat of your factless bluster.
"You are just plain ignorant
That did make me and Captain Cat laugh out loud....well I laughed, CC merely looked disdainfully amused at your complete Muppetness.
"Can you tell me the location of your mind,, in your brain."
Please define "mind".
Yes, but it has the advantage over your religious fantasy of being based on real facts.
Nope, nor with any other non-existent thing, you keep scoring this own goal, must be a slow learner.
Not that is fucking hilarious, an attempt at irony?
@Sheldon, will say it and keep saying it, you are ignorant and speaking from the limitness of your knowledge
1. A human Mind , is the energy body or software that Enable the brain to function and perfrom mental activities, such as thinking, Visualization, and Conscious decision making.
2. Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm,,. You dream yet you can provide evidence for it
3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery,,.
Possibilities are imagined,. Into existence.. I have seen it before and I have done it before.., so you don't know what you are talking about
Alot of people has once encounter spirit yet they can provide evidence,. Does that mean spirit doesn't exist,,
You are just trying to use physical science to explain things
Dude go and learn quantum physics..
Then you will be worthy to argue with me
For now,. You are not just a match for me
You said Science is not Static,. Fine
Then why do you conclude there is no God,,,
Science deals with what they can measure And test because all physical material has limit hence they can be measure
Spirtuality has no limit, hence it can't be measure
@Precious Little Intruder (Bless his heart.) Re: "3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery,,."
Sherlock Holmes might disagree with you on that one. Also, you must have never watched any Scooby Doo, or read any Agatha Christie novels. And having helped in investigations of countless real-life "mysteries", I would say evidence is extremely USEFUL in regards to mysteries.
Scooby Doo is so fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn to watch yeah!
I'm tired of your trolling. I should have my head examined for not banning you already. You are violating the rules for this forum. Don't argue, just stop.
Nope, it's just a dream.
Wrong, it's just how you convince yourself that what makes you feel warm and fuzz has some merit.... it's rank intellectual dishonesty.
You've got to be fucking shitting me?! You're about as much an authority on quantum physics as Stephen Hawkins was an authority on Olympic snowboarding.
Because everything follows patterns of natural causality, from us how we currently are, to evolution from primate relatives, to the formation of the earth from an accretion disc and all the way to the big bang.
There is no sign... not even 0.00000001% of evidence of anything outside of the laws of nature and physics.
And that is good enough!
Most of us do not need some clutch of sinister, child raping virgins to guide us morally!
Most of us realise that religion and all its bullshit books, verses, psalms etc... explain absolute fuck all!
Most of us realise we live in a material universe and that science as a tool can actually offer cogent, proven answers that are testable and demonstrable... we don't need to invoke our imaginary friends simply because we dont understand how certain phenomena exist or occur.
Give your head a wobble you plank.
@ The Intruder
"Then why do you conclude there is no God,,,"
This is the heart of the matter, the antecedent on your behavior. You have been asked to provide proof of a god or gods, and since you understand that there is no valid method to provide any proof, you have decided that attacking science and attempting to discredit science, somehow makes your inability to provide any proof of a god as rational since (to you) science is not a valid tool.
Why do I not conclude that any god exists? Because I have zero proof or reason to believe in this imaginary friend. If you truly desire to score points in this forum, then provide proof. My ears are open, I am listening, convince me with a rational dialogue.
Limitness (sic), another hilarious own goal, for your sake I do hope this was an attempt at irony.
"Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm"
I'm not going to address any of your unevidenced claims, if you can't be bothered to even pretend to evidence them, then in the bin they go, it's no loss as even by theistic standards your verbiage is mind numbingly stupid.
Except this one, which is a lie, I never said that. As is this....
I don't, I simply disbelieve your claim for the existence of something for which no one can demonstrate any objective evidence.
Even by the standards he's previously set, this has to be hands down one of the most idiotic asinine claims I've seen a theist make. Do they even know what a dictionary is?
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.
So Bullwinkle thinks facts can't help explain things that are difficult to explain, priceless.
This was not addressed to me, but....
"1. A human Mind , is the energy body"
What is an "energy body"?
"2. Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm"
Give us evidence that dreams are evidence.
"3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery"
Mystery is just stuff we haven't quite figured out yet. The fact that there are things we presently do not know is in no way evidence for supernatural shit or gods.
"You are just trying to use physical science to explain things"
Physical science is the best (and only) way of learning about Nature. And claiming science is no good for understanding Nature is pretty rich from someone using a computer or a smart phone to promote those claims.
"Dude go and learn quantum physics.."
I have a Ph.d. in physics, and work professionally as a scientist. Is that good enough?
Brilliant, though I fear a slam dunk this obvious might go over this prat's head.
Please, for one, work on your grammar; you often leave out much needed letters and punctuation.
Intruder, you said
> 2. Your dream is the best evidence for spir(i)tual realm
When you say that dreams are evidence for the spiritual realm, you also imply that dreams are interlinked to the spiritual realm, thus making them partially or wholly affected by said spiritual realm.
Then how, I ask you, are can we control our dreams? Many techniques involving the physical realm EASILY let you control your dreams. Lucid dreaming is a learnable skill, and gives us dominion over our dreams. Once mastered, you will be able to control what you dream at will.
How, you might ask, can a physical technique overpower a supposedly spiritual, metaphysical force? Simple; it isn't spiritual at all.
I am not a scientist...just a regular person making my way through this life.
I dream and remember many of my dreams. I once even lucid dreamed which was a surreal experience. When I told my sister about my dream she had confidence that I was telling her the truth. Mostly because she remembers dreams, a common experience (not everyone shares). I could have lied to her about the dream and she’d have no way of “knowing”.
Science can map the brain. There is sleep research... memory research...etc. But they cannot tell us what that person is dreaming or how/what they are remembering... They can demonstrate it’s happening in the brain, certain areas....
The limits are lifting, I mean, a hundred years ago the technology (invented by scientists) wasn’t there to offer some physical evidence that people were in fact dreaming...
I guess my question to you is, what is your definition of “spiritual”? I’m not being argumentative, I really don’t know what you
mean when you used that term.
There is no reason to assume existence without evidence. You do not get to imagine possibilities into existence.
The attached video is obviously very dated. The Professor discusses the similarities of Jesus Christ, Hare Krishna and Ahuro Mazda/Zooroster. The immaculate conception, good versus evil spirits...etc. The video is 12 minutes long and straightforward.