Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[firedragon]

I apologize for not making myself clear.

I was simply pointing out that your uses of 'metaphysics' was ambiguous ─ which indeed it was.

Nah. It was not. Its used as it should be.

 

[1213]

Science backs its theories with proof...

It is difficult to believe that, if you look at how many times "science" has been wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

No. People back their scientific theories scientific evidence, not science.

That's just semantics, when people refer to what science knows, they mean scientists work that has been verified using the scientific method. What an individual scientist might claim is worthless, even a genius like Einstein or Newton, their scientific genius is only established by the method, anything else is opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

It is only atheistic propaganda without understanding the illogical insistence.

Atheist propaganda, hilarious, someone has a chip on their shoulder about atheism again. Try this, what things other than deities and the supernatural can't science examine? So that's any unfalsifiable claims, and of course all imaginary or non existent things. Now what objective evidence can you demsonrate that separates any deity from that group? A group that contains unicorns, Yetis and mermaids for example.

 

[blü 2]

Well, since no one made that argument, I guess you just made that up as a preaching methodology. You know, for a shock effect.

I have nothing against shock effect, it's true, but the idea I mentioned seems to me innate in your statement above :

You are displaying propaganda atheists have developed just like evangelists of any other religion.​

You have not made any argument.

I have set out both what my position is and how I derive it. Hence if you disagree, you have only to present your reasoned disagreement.

But since apparently you don't wish to do that, by all means move on.

 

[Sheldon]

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfilment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

So I see 2 claims there, the first that prophecy exists and the second that it "proves" scriptures. I disbelieve both claims, but the second one being wrong would negate the first anyway, so I'll start there.

Lets say for the sake of argument you can show an example of a prediction that was not at all ambiguous, and that it came true in so accurately we couldn't explain it.

We have an occurrence we cannot explain, making an assertion that something is proved because there is not contrary explanation or evidence I called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Such claims are irrational by definition, and miracles which are defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency", are irrational by definition (see emboldened) as they use the same logical fallacy.

 

[firedragon]

Atheist propaganda,

Yep.

 

[firedragon]

I have nothing against shock effect, it's true, but the idea I mentioned seems to me innate in your statement above :

False. You made that up blu.

I have set out both what my position is and how I derive it. Hence if you disagree, you have only to present your reasoned disagreement.

Im sorry. I dont wish to engage with some irrelevant matter you wish to discuss responding to someone else's problem. Apologies.

 

[firedragon]

That's just semantics

Rhetoric. And more rhetorical responses are anticipated.

 

[Sheldon]

Can you show me in philosophy of science where scientists don’t take methodological naturalism as an axiom?

Go ahead. That’s the beginning.

Can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence that anything beyond the material and physical exist/

Basing a belief firmly in the category of undetectable things isn't a start, it's an end, in go deities and religion with unicorns, mermaids, and leprechauns et al.

 

[firedragon]

Can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence that anything beyond the material and physical exist/

What do you mean by "objective evidence"?

 

[Sheldon]

Rhetoric. And more rhetorical responses are anticipated.

Handwaving, and sophistry.

 

[Sheldon]

What do you mean by "objective evidence"?

Same as the last time you asked, and the time before and the time before etc etc etc...more obfuscation. Which word is tripping you up?

 

[firedragon]

Basing a belief firmly in the category of undetectable things isn't a start,

Thats exactly what the atheist I responded to did. So you should speak to him and tell him to not base his belief in the category of undetectable things as his foundation.

 

[firedragon]

Handwaving, and sophistry.

Rhetoric. Thats all you will keep doing. Cmon, one more post.

 

[firedragon]

Same as the last time you asked, and the time before and the time before etc etc etc...more obfuscation. Which word is tripping you up?

I dont remember you mate.

 

[Sheldon]

It is difficult to believe that, if you look at how many times "science" has been wrong.

Less times than religions, and science corrects or amends mistakes in line with the evidence, unlike religions which are left embarrassingly clinging to errant nonsense. This inbuilt ability of the scientific method, to amend or even abandon any idea if the evidence demands it, is one of it's greatest strengths. It always makes me chuckle when theists cite this as if it is a flaw in reasoning to admit an error, when the opposite is true? It says a great deal about the religious mindset.

I guess it's just easier to ringfence superstitious beliefs from scientific scrutiny, and pretend science might be wrong rather than face the fact that the evidence has demonstrated part of their immutable truth from an infallible deity is errant nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

Rhetoric. Thats all you will keep doing. Cmon, one more post.

You might want to look up rhetoric champ, and take a look at a few of your responses here and elsewhere. For the record here was my original post.

That's just semantics, when people refer to what science knows, they mean scientists work that has been verified using the scientific method. What an individual scientist might claim is worthless, even a genius like Einstein or Newton, their scientific genius is only established by the method, anything else is opinion.

See if you can produce something beyond petulant rhetoric, I'm dubious given your posts thus far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s now the consensus that the universe had a beginning; in other words, a moment of creation.

Not quite right. The consensus is that the universe as we know it had a beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is difficult to believe that, if you look at how many times "science" has been wrong.

Yes, science has been wrong. But guess what? The sciences have a self correction mechanism. Aspects of your religious views have been wrong, but you lack such a mechanism. How do you correct the errors in your religious beliefs?