God can not be disproven by science

[It Aint Necessarily So]

nor do you need to argue that Abrahamic religion is a fairy tale or conspiracy to pervert.

I don't claim that it's all fairy tales. I simply don't believe the claims of any of those religions about gods, their alleged commandments I need to obey, afterlives, spirits or magic.

then show us all how they are the same

No, assuming that you want to be believed, it's your job to show how they're not since that's you brought it for whatever your reason. I don't believe you, and I'm confident that you are incorrect and therefore cannot. Prove me wrong if you think I am.

show us how the Bible and Qur'an do not contain any truth.

Why? That's not my claim. I just say that they're full of error and neither is a resource I would turn to for information or advice.

 

[anotherneil]

Do research.

How much will you pay me to do such research?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, cut to the chase and tell us what's better, in your view.

Well, if you understand science as a methodology then you know that sometimes the correct answer is that it is unknown. What is better is unknown using science as a methodology.

And in my view, my view is subjective and not better nor worse than your subjective view and thus only different.
So here again, the things science don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[muhammad_isa]

..it's your job to show how they're not..

..so you just like arguing for the sake of it.
Nothing to learn here.

 

[firedragon]

How much will you pay me to do such research?

Here you go. I paid myself.

Books By Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD, is an author of many books, most of which relate to critical thinking.

www.bobennett.com

Bo Bennett, PhD - The Dr. Bo Show | LinkedIn

Abbreviated from http://www.bobennett.com and written in the third person so it does not… · Experience: The Dr. Bo Show · Education: Walden University · Location: Sudbury · 214 connections on LinkedIn. View Bo Bennett, PhD’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

www.linkedin.com

Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett

 

[anotherneil]

Here you go. I paid myself.

Books By Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD, is an author of many books, most of which relate to critical thinking.

www.bobennett.com

Bo Bennett, PhD - The Dr. Bo Show | LinkedIn

Abbreviated from http://www.bobennett.com and written in the third person so it does not… · Experience: The Dr. Bo Show · Education: Walden University · Location: Sudbury · 214 connections on LinkedIn. View Bo Bennett, PhD’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

www.linkedin.com

View attachment 96622

Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett

A strawman fallacy is something that includes refuting it; this description doesn't point this out or make that clear at all.

Here are 2 different sources that do make it clear that refuting is involved:

Straw Man Fallacy

What is a straw man fallacy? Are you arguing against your opponent's point or against a position you've made up?

owl.excelsior.edu

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[firedragon]

A strawman fallacy is something that includes refuting it; this description doesn't point this out or make that clear at all.

Here are 2 different sources that do make it clear that refuting is involved:

Straw Man Fallacy

What is a straw man fallacy? Are you arguing against your opponent's point or against a position you've made up?

owl.excelsior.edu

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bye bye.

 

[blü 2]

Well, if you understand science as a methodology then you know that sometimes the correct answer is that it is unknown. What is better is unknown using science as a methodology.

It's self-evident that exploratory science is about identifying, describing and seeking to explain unknowns ─ of which, I'd say, dark matter was the most notorious at this time.

And in my view, my view is subjective and not better nor worse than your subjective view and thus only different.

That sounds like I have better explanations about real things than you do, whereas I assume you accept that E-mc^2 is a useful explanatory equation derived by empiricism and induction.


So here again, the things science don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Your link says ─

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations​

But medical science's brain research shows the presence, nature and origins of certain moral tendencies in humans. The brain's mechanisms that give rise to these tendencies are by no means fully described, but those questions are being worked on. (It will be interesting to see how far, if at all, AI can illuminate our understanding of ourselves.)

Less pressing but parallel is the question of aesthetic judgments. We already have quite persuasive leads pointing to a relationship between aesthetics and sexual attraction. Jared Diamond's speculative Why is Sex Fun? (1997) is an example.

Science is concerned with exploring, describing and seeking to explain the world external to the self aka objective reality. Science observes that the only way the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains.

But to your list above, I'd add:

Science doesn't make absolute statements.​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's self-evident that exploratory science is about identifying, describing and seeking to explain unknowns ─ of which, I'd say, dark matter was the most notorious at this time.

That sounds like I have better explanations about real things than you do, whereas I assume you accept that E-mc^2 is a useful explanatory equation derived by empiricism and induction.


So here again, the things science don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Your link says ─

Science doesn’t make moral judgments​

Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments​

Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge​

Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations​

But medical science's brain research shows the presence, nature and origins of certain moral tendencies in humans. The brain's mechanisms that give rise to these tendencies are by no means fully described, but those questions are being worked on. (It will be interesting to see how far, if at all, AI can illuminate our understanding of ourselves.)

Less pressing but parallel is the question of aesthetic judgments. We already have quite persuasive leads pointing to a relationship between aesthetics and sexual attraction. Jared Diamond's speculative Why is Sex Fun? (1997) is an example.

Science is concerned with exploring, describing and seeking to explain the world external to the self aka objective reality. Science observes that the only way the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains.

But to your list above, I'd add:

Science doesn't make absolute statements.​

Yeah, I am glad you referenced the physical, objective, real, scientific theory of good with its formulas for calculating good and what scientific instruments to measure it with. And I am pleased that you got a Nobel prize for it. Good for you!!!

You don't understand that brains can be subjective and not objective.

 

[AppieB]

Because of epistemological honesty. It is that simple. You make an universal demand for in effect using evidence. I then accept that and explain how it works for best. I.e. there is no evidence.

I still don't undestand quite what you meant. Was your point that saying somethinig is better refers to a value statement and therefore is subjective in nature?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I still don't undestand quite what you meant. Was your point that saying somethinig is better refers to a value statement and therefore is subjective in nature?

Correct. It is subjective and without evidence as per the methodology of science.

 

[AppieB]

Correct. It is subjective and without evidence as per the methodology of science.

And you we thought we didn't know that?

And this is appearently so important to you regarding "epistemical honesty" you decided not to say: "better refers to a value judgement and therefore that is a subjective assesment."
Instead you made the statement: "there is no evidence for that" while not being clear what you actually mean by that.
However at the same time understanding the statement and even agreeing to it, because of evidence.

Was the original statement so ambigious or unclear that this disclaimer needed to be added in a way that attracted (more) confusion? Do you think this was really helpful?

We've had this miscommunication before and I don't think this is ill intend on your part. I think you want to be thorough, but the way you are doing that is by being very unclear and ambigious in your languange. It seems the result you are getting is the opposisite of what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to be 'smart'? Is this a way of getting a 'gotcha'? Hopefully in the future you can get your message clearer to others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you we thought we didn't know that?

And this is appearently so important to you regarding "epistemical honesty" you decided not to say: "better refers to a value judgement and therefore that is a subjective assesment."
Instead you made the statement: "there is no evidence for that" while not being clear what you actually mean by that.
However at the same time understanding the statement and even agreeing to it, because of evidence.

Was the original statement so ambigious or unclear that this disclaimer needed to be added in a way that attracted (more) confusion? Do you think this was really helpful?

We've had this miscommunication before and I don't think this is ill intend on your part. I think you want to be thorough, but the way you are doing that is by being very unclear and ambigious in your languange. It seems the result you are getting is the opposisite of what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to be 'smart'? Is this a way of getting a 'gotcha'? Hopefully in the future you can get your message clearer to others.

There is no objective evidence that science is the best way to understand objective reality, since the evaluation of best is subjective.
That is all. Yes, I have a scatterbrain and is not always precise so there is that. But still, there is no objective evidence that science is the best way to understand objective reality, since the evaluation of best is subjective.

 

[AppieB]

Again, why state the obvious and create more confusion when it is clear what is meant by the original statement? Do we now always have to put a disclaimer on words like good, bad and better when we talk about these things?
What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?

There is no objective evidence that science is the best way to understand objective reality, since the evaluation of best is subjective.
That is all. Yes, I have a scatterbrain and is not always precise so there is that. But still, there is no objective evidence that science is the best way to understand objective reality, since the evaluation of best is subjective.

You still also seems to be confused about obective statements about the subjective. Once we establisch what we mean by better/best one can make objective assesments in regard to the available evidence wheter something is better or worse than something else.
I'll give you an example regarding morailty:
We agree that the foundation of morality is based on value, preference, goal, desire etc and is therefore subjective. Let's say we agree that morality is based on human well being and that the goal is to enhance human well being. Once this is clear and that this is the goal then we can make objective assesments whether an action contributes to that goal or is detrimental to that goal. Me stabbing a random person with a knife is, objectively, detrimental to that person's well being. That is an objective fact.

The same goes for knowledge. If the goal is to acquire reliable knowledge about objective reality (as the orignal statement was) then we have evidence that science and the scientifc method is the most reliable method to acquire this kind of knowledge. That is an objective fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, why state the obvious and create more confusion when it is clear what is meant by the original statement? Do we now always have to put a disclaimer on words like good, bad and better when we talk about these things?
What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?

You still also seems to be confused about obective statements about the subjective. Once we establisch what we mean by better/best one can make objective assesments in regard to the available evidence wheter something is better or worse than something else.
I'll give you an example regarding morailty:
We agree that the foundation of morality is based on value, preference, goal, desire etc and is therefore subjective. Let's say we agree that morality is based on human well being and that the goal is to enhance human well being. Once this is clear and that this is the goal then we can make objective assesments whether an action contributes to that goal or is detrimental to that goal. Me stabbing a random person with a knife is, objectively, detrimental to that person's well being. That is an objective fact.

The same goes for knowledge. If the goal is to acquire reliable knowledge about objective reality (as the orignal statement was) then we have evidence that science and the scientifc method is the most reliable method to acquire this kind of knowledge. That is an objective fact.

There is no singular human well being and there is no singular objective correct version of knowledge.
There are different subjective versions and yes, we can speak about them in an objective manner, but that doesn't make them objective as such. It only means that we describe them and don't evaluate them.

In effect nobody has solved why we have methodological naturalism as for strong objective facts.

 

[AppieB]

There is no singular human well being and there is no singular objective correct version of knowledge.

Again you're making it more complicated and confusing.
It is irrelvant to the argument I was making. Is it true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being?

There are different subjective versions and yes, we can speak about them in an objective manner, but that doesn't make them objective as such. It only means that we describe them and don't evaluate them.

Again you're making it more complicated and confusing.
So we agree we can speak about it in an objective manner. That's it. It is objectively true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being.

In effect nobody has solved why we have methodological naturalism as for strong objective facts.

This is irrelevant to the argument.

Please answer the question I asked before:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again you're making it more complicated and confusing.
It is irrelvant to the argument I was making. Is it true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being?

Again you're making it more complicated and confusing.
So we agree we can speak about it in an objective manner. That's it. It is objectively true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being.

This is irrelevant to the argument.

Please answer the question I asked before:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

Well, we don't agree about how to understand this. So I will stop. Make of it what you want.

 

[AppieB]

Well, we don't agree about how to understand this. So I will stop. Make of it what you want.

Sure, we don't agree.
But could you at least answer the question I asked before?
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, we don't agree.
But could you at least answer the question I asked before?
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

It is over for now. I did write an answer and then I deleted it.
We don't agree about subjective and objective in some cases. That is that. Make of it what you want.

 

[AppieB]

It is over for now. I did write an answer and then I deleted it.
We don't agree about subjective and objective in some cases. That is that. Make of it what you want.

It's a shame you won't answer the question. I thought this was about "epistemical honesty"?