FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
It is not possible for science to disprove anything non-sense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does science support Atheism, positively?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
It is not possible for science to disprove anything non-sense.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Yup. I agree with that.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The above subjects are not disciplined by the scientific method; I meant:
"And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology."
Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please keep this in mind while you make your research on the topic.
Thanks and regards
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Uh, Sociology is at the very least.
I think your view would be news to most sociologists and political scientists.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And please do tell me on the basis of what logic should we believe causality, naive realism, induction and natural laws?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Well, you don't have to, but to deny them really just leaves you in a pit of solipsism.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No1. Buy a dictionary. The term "assumption" should be in there.
No2. Practicality. Science is successful because it works. Nothing else has.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So just take causality on faith? Just make believe that there is some sort of logical reason to believe in causality?
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So you are admitting you are just assuming these things.
Just because it works? We should believe it just because we think it works? How does that work?
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
LOL, do not the titles of the three pages i linked EXPLICITLY say so? You really should get that dictionary. EDIT* you could try a "?" as well.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well one thing science brings to the table is the obvious and total lack of any type of involved deity from all that is observable and testable. It certainly confirms what Athiests put forth.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
What is an assumption? Something that is taken for granted without any proof of the validity of those assumptions. The logical validity of causality, naive realism, induction and natural laws cannot be logically proven.
You are taking those things on faith. Aren't you?
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No knowledge exists without assumption. I refer you to münchhausen trilemma. Assumption can be verified. For instance, if I assume the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and it does, and so on for 2000 years, the assumption is verified. In fact there is absolutely no logic to suggest that the sun will rise again the next day. This is what I mean when I say science WORKS!
If I assume that a super-nature exists, and it has never been verified even once, then it is not verifiable. It is BLIND-faith. That is because it has never been seen.
There is no such thing as CERTAIN knowledge. All knowledge is based on a standard of truth. Science is one standard, revelation & authority is a second standard. Only science provides verifiable prediction.
We all must make an assumption, either we accept the basic assumptions of science and believe what we see, or we accept revelation/authority and believe what we are told and what we read.
There are two other types, those that admit a double-standard. They have not examined the BASIC assumptions of either science or their own brand of theology and somehow have reconciled mutually exclusive basic assumptions in their own mind.
The last type are those that make it up as they go.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So what if it seems to work. You are still begging the question.
You: Science says that the world is real and that humans can accurately perceive and understand the universe. It is by science we can perceive that the world is uniformly governed by natural laws.
Me. How can we know what we perceive is in fact the truth?
You: *Sigh* Because, science says that the world is real and that humans can accurately perceive and understand the universe. It is by science we can perceive that the world is uniformly governed by natural laws.
What's your theory of truth, Cynthia? Do you subscribe to a correspondence theory? The pragmatic theory? Some other theory?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Not really. It just helps form a workable model of the universe.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
No. What I gave you are four options based on what we see. You are the fourth, i.e. you don't believe in anything, you make it up as you go. I never said you have to accept self-verifying assumptions. I said that I do.