Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[firedragon]

Are you saying that science has no philosophical basis?

Nope.

See, some people have a habit of trying to broadcast things that other people didnt say by saying "Are you saying this that and the other". Its a tactic some TV journalist.interviewer types do. ITs a cheap trick you see! Very hard work you have put, but still, you have not presented a single scientific argument to showcase evidence to your claim about science showing excellent reasons that the supernatural is just made up or imaginary. That was your claim.

When you say "science has given excellent reasons" you have to show scientific evidence. Science only works that way and you should know that. This is your claim, so that's how you should substantiate it.

All you have done is preach.

One more please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.

See, some people have a habit of trying to broadcast things that other people didnt say by saying "Are you saying this that and the other". Its a tactic some TV journalist.interviewer types do. ITs a cheap trick you see! Very hard work you have put, but still, you have not presented a single scientific argument to showcase evidence to your claim about science showing excellent reasons that the supernatural is just made up or imaginary. That was your claim.

When you say "science has given excellent reasons" you have to show scientific evidence. Science only works that way and you should know that. This is your claim, so that's how you should substantiate it.

All you have done is preach.

One more please.

No. Scientific evidence is not used for that sort of support. Scientific evidence supports or opposes scientific theories and hypotheses. It is not used in regards to the accomplishments of the sciences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, no. You are conflating corrections with personal attacks. Did you say that to your teachers? Hmm . . . that would explain quite a bit. You really should learn what an ad hominem fallacy is.

He seems to be using the word as a synonym for insult. I've seen it frequently, and suspect that it will eventually grandfather in as a second usage for the phrase, separated from the word fallacy.

Another one is, "It begs the question ..." People seem to want this to mean "It forces us to ask," and has nothing to do with the logical fallacy of the same name.

 

[KWED]

But the declaration “God is dead, Science has usurped Him”, is without either meaning or value. It’s hollow rhetoric.

What about the declaration "Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"?
Is that also "hollow rhetoric without meaning or value"?

 

[rational experiences]

The AI man's life destruction was his judgements by science.

Yet God by natural cause destroyed life is his aware and re taught I heard a speaking voice pyramid science. Told me how to as a theist. Reaction in the created space moment.

Hence I need the space moment says the theist.

So judgement day occurred already. Human life destroyed when man used machines against us. But the warning God the planet did it in the end.

Yet he Idealised it. He believes.

Moses event was not judgement day as the technology different. As thesis inferred laws is not design.

Design comes from belief of a wisdom about change by a space condition. To enact it by machine reaction.

So the source was God the planet mass.

To convert.

So we taught the sun had in the past attacked all gods as planets and hence a human sun theist was evil by intent.

In modern times power plant is a mini time shifter of God earth mass. Does the shift to a space on small masses. Yet it is very dangerous.

Then men wanted earth whole body time shifted. To say space moment by image state recorded that quotes I was successful. Ignoring all life had died.

God the planet did convert time shift it's mass. How humans got recorded by a huge nuclear earth conversion. Screaming as we died. Heard recorded by many humans life harmed themselves.

Light is only on one side of earth. Light he quotes I force on cold mass to bring it back to life to convert it. Doing he quotes...as I make light I make space but space is the light.

The act taught law how to convert. The moment.

So he coerced himself first I am doing no wrong converting cold earth mass in darkness he says. Yet mass is not in darkness.

Dark is seen as no mass just heat.

Mass was alight just cooled to mass fusion.

Earth held by its fixed point rotates as a term gravitation magnetic they said with iron core.

In a space vacuum historic law O earth was spinning very fast cooling with hot dense particle removal.

What he says he knows is a space law in the past of fast removal of particles whilst a cooling body releases its particles. Into space. A planet on fire cooling.

Is not any machine reaction.

Seeing the pyramid was not mass owner or space owner and the heavens and earths planet core.

So you should realise God did it to us.

The warning.

Ever wonder why a theist seeks God on planet earth and writes movies about man's judgement day. As it is all about the scientist.

His confession in consciousness what I know...what I want. So the bible quotes he is our destroyer.

Not for an irrational idea but because the scientist just a human is known to us all. He lies about what he says a planets form was in the past to copy it in a small way.

His claim what I know he says is exact. So is the state of the body type and the information exact to the model. Which is not any design it is exact.

The new thesis is not a thesis it was planet earths natural form in space in natural history. The lie...not a thesis.

 

[blü 2]

Nope.

See, some people have a habit of trying to broadcast things that other people didnt say by saying "Are you saying this that and the other". Its a tactic some TV journalist.interviewer types do. ITs a cheap trick you see! Very hard work you have put, but still, you have not presented a single scientific argument to showcase evidence to your claim about science showing excellent reasons that the supernatural is just made up or imaginary. That was your claim.

When you say "science has given excellent reasons" you have to show scientific evidence. Science only works that way and you should know that. This is your claim, so that's how you should substantiate it.

All you have done is preach.

One more please.

You (again) forgot to tell me what was wrong, from a scientific point of view, with the points I made.

How do you think science should proceed in the face of those facts?

 

[firedragon]

You (again) forgot to tell me what was wrong, from a scientific point of view, with the points I made.

Its not scientific evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Its not scientific evidence.

Indeed it is ─ not simply the total absence of relevant evidence but the total absence of any hypothesis as to what it could be or how it could exist.

It's exactly as though believers know at some level that what they believe in is imaginary. Thus they never enquire into the manner in which a real god could exist, or what a real god looks like, or how [he] perceives, remembers, reasons, what metabolism keeps [him] going, how [he] breeds] &c.

An imaginary god made of imaginary qualities is apparently what gives them satisfaction ─ omnipotent and magical, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, on and on.

They don't even study miracles so that they can themselves perform them. They don't write to their governments demanding funding for research to defend themselves and nations against supernatural attack.

They appear not to notice that prayers are answered at the rate you'd expect from simple chance.

If it makes them happy, if it makes them treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, it doesn't really matter what they believe.

But that doesn't make what they believe real, and apparently reality isn't what they're after anyway.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What about the declaration "Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"?
Is that also "hollow rhetoric without meaning or value"?

It’s certainly rhetoric, though perhaps not entirely hollow; Hawking made the point that theoretical science in certain areas had become so esoteric, and the calculus used to support it so complex, that only a handful of specialists were able to follow it in detail. It wasn’t just that four dimensional Euclidean space time, imaginary numbers and imaginary time are difficult concepts to get your head round: Certain concepts like Feynman’s ‘sum over histories’ theory requires calculating probabilities for every possible wave function at any given vector, and involves the concept that a particle has not one history but the history of every possible path in space time.

So Hawking had a point; theoretical physicists had to turn to the most gifted mathematicians to help with that sort of calculus. But no, I certainly wouldn’t have agreed with his rhetorical statement that philosophy was ever dead. Nor would the physicists who have turned to philosophers - Rovelli referencing Nagarjuna being a good recent example - to help them explain and conceptualise increasingly arcane Quantum ideas.

 

[KWED]

You have not studied any of this have you Sheldon?
Can you tell me where in the "Koran" as you cited it says "6 days" as in 24 hour days? What is the word used for day there? Can you explain?

You haven't really studied this beyond Islamic apologetics, have you firedragon?
Surah 7:54 - "Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne."

Now of course, you might want to claim that the word for day doesn't actually mean "day" in this context, and you are free to do that - however, there is nothing that suggests it is anything other than the usual meaning of "day". Ibn Kathir even explains that "These six days are: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday."
If you want to claim it means something very different, you need to explain why, with evidence.

Remember that apologists are constantly using the "Allah had to use terms that would make sense to 7th century Arabs" defence for things that are scientifically inaccurate or make no sense.
So if Allah actually meant "several billion years" rather than "day", he would have used an expression that a 7th century Arab would understand to mean a very, very long time.
Note that when he is describing how long it takes angels to get to heaven, he specifically explains that it is "a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years". So why no such explanation for "a Day the extent of which is a thousand times fifty thousand years" or similar?

 

[firedragon]

Indeed it is

Nope. But thanks.

 

[Firelight]

Science backs its theories with proof to the extent possible today. Research is on for the rest and it is finding new things on a daily basis. Scriptures do not provide any proof and are stalled in BCE or 7th Century.
If you would care, read this: Ask Astro Does dark energy create the voids between galaxy clusters?

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

Do you think that you can do the math?

And why C14 dating?

Your question alone indicates that you could not properly judge the response.

 

[ratiocinator]

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

Why is it that some theists refuse to get it into their heads that science doesn't do proof, it does evidence?

If you're at all interested in radiometric dating, and why we can rely on it, try this (written by a Christian): Radiometric Dating

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that some theists refuse to get it into their heads that science doesn't do proof, it does evidence?

If you're at all interested in radiometric dating, and why we can rely on it, try this (written by a Christian): Radiometric Dating

They often have to work at not understanding. They do try to be honest, but when they start to get close to understanding a part of their brain kicks in to protect them from knowledge that would refute their false beliefs. If they can keep themselves ignorant then they do not have to lie.

Also, since the post he was responding to was about dark matter and dark energy the total non sequitur indicates that he conflated C14 dating with radiometric dating. That is like conflating Chihuahuas with dogs.

 

[blü 2]

Nope. But thanks.

So given the matters I mentioned, how do you say science should respond to supernatural claims?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So given the matters I mentioned, how do you say science should respond to supernatural claims?

I hope you don’t mind me trying to answer this.

The obvious response is, it shouldn’t. Science is the study of the material world, is it not?

However, the closer quantum physicists look at the fundamental particles from which all objects are constructed, the more they begin to question whether the material world has any tangible substance at all. So at this point, physics cannot help but overlap with metaphysics, indeed for the last 100 years it increasingly has been.

Allow me to recommend some reading if you are interested;
Adam Becker’s “What Is Real?”
Carlo Rovelli’s “The Order of Time”, and “Helgoland”
Michael Brooks’ “The Quantum Astrologer’s Handbook”

None of these books are arguments for the supernatural. But they all, from a peer reviewed scientific perspective, invite the reader to question everything we thought we knew about the natural world.

 

[idea]

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

Just curious, do you think the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

"Several dating methods exist, depending on different criteria and techniques, and some very well known examples of disciplines using such techniques are, for example, history, archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomy and even forensic science, .. These methods are typically identified as absolute, which involves a specified date or date range, or relative, which refers to dating which places artifacts or events on a timeline relative to other events and/or artifacts. Other markers can help place an artifact or event in a chronology, such as nearby writings and stratigraphic markers."

Scientist consider and keep considering many things to arrive at dates, it is a continuous process being constantly refined at every step. Science is well aware of the limitations of the various processes. Science does not cheat as others do. Kindly go through the Wikipedia article for more information.
Chronological dating - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

Please provide proof that radio-carbon dating is accurate and trustworthy.

There is a global scientific consensus that it is, based on the scientific evidence. Denying it in favour of archaic unevidenced superstition is your choice I suppose, but it's an absurd position.

Link explaining it's reliability, and dealing with creationist propaganda denials.