Science IS religion

[dad]

Whoa, dad.

Before you go on, first off.

When you say time were different in the past, then you need to present when time have change, like the date of when this transition occurred.

From ancient history and Scripture, and Jewish traditions, the time when the earth was divided was approx 106 years after the flood. Life spans suddenly dropped and leveled out. No longer do we see spirits marrying women and living here. Trees no longer grow very very fast...etc.


Looking at scientific evidences we see that at one time continents were joined. That would probably be just before the time of Babel (which was about the time of the change). That also explains how people and animals got all over the world after the flood.

So, in pseudo science time the flood was about 65-70 million years ago or so.. (probably around time of KT layer) In real, actual time it was closer to around 4500 years ago.

Because you are the one who think and believe that time were different to the time we are currently using now, then the burden of proof falls on you.

No. You are conflating deep space cosmology with earth history. Nature being different on earth does not involve time. Time was more or less the same.

You have never presented any evidence for such transitions to time working differently.

It all depends how we view evidences.

Like with “time”, you need to present a date of when that changes to forces have happened, and then you need explain the forces are different in the past, and lastly show evidences that back up your claims.

See above. Time only becomes an issue in deep space.

 

[gnostic]

So that is what I tell them. And I will shut up when they give objective evidence for everything. But so for they haven't been able to do that.

No, mikkel.

You can only challenge objective evidences with objective evidences.

To give you some examples, the modern physical cosmology started shortly after Edwin Hubble, in 1919, discovered the universe is larger than the Milky Way.

So in the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have independently postulate hypothesis on Expanding Universe model, which would later be more popularly known as the Big Bang model (1949).

At that time, the competing hypothesis was Albert Einstein’s Static Universe model (1917), where the universe was eternal and unchanging.

Both the expanding universe hypothesis and static universe hypothesis have used the same General Relativity field equations to derive their respective hypotheses, but used different constants.

Einstein’s used the Cosmological Constant (1917) with a positive value, while Friedmann and others, on the other hand, used negative value constant, known as the Friedmann’s Metric (but now called Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric or FLRW).

Plus, Robertson and then Lemaître have postulated that the universe was expanding by observing distant objects (eg different galaxies) were moving away from each other, if they were redshifted in EM spectrum. This redshift prediction was discovered in 1929, by Edwin Hubble.

This was the first evidence for the Big Bang, and have been verified by other discoveries of more galaxies, where they all exhibited redshifted.

Eventually, Einstein gave up his own Static Universe cosmology, and thought his Cosmological Constant was his biggest blunder he had ever made. (I don’t think it was his biggest; I think his opposition against the Quantum Mechanics was even a bigger blunder.)

In the 1950s till 1964, the biggest rival to the expanding universe model (or Big Bang) was the Steady State Model by Fred Hoyle.

In 1948, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman came up with two related models, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which expanded on the 1920s’ expanding universe model.

In the end, it was Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s discovery of CMBR in 1964 that verified the Big Bang model as a scientific theory, while refuting Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis.

My points with this history lesson, that the Big Bang theory have two important evidences to back up their predictions (Redshift and CMBR), while Einstein and Hoyle failed to present evidences for their respective hypotheses.

You can only argue against objective evidences if you have better and more conclusive objective evidences to back up your own hypothesis.

The importance of science is relying on evidences to determine which is science and which isn’t science, through objective evidences, not on maths or philosophers’ logic and rationalising.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not really 'anything' Some people hold mild beliefs that are seldom thought of. The doctrines of evolution are beliefs that are religiously enforced in education, and fanatically defended, and reverenced ritually, as well as worshiped as responsible for life on earth!

what planet are you from that you conflate the scientific method with religious ritual and dogma?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, mikkel.

You can only challenge objective evidences with objective evidences.

(Evidence for the Big Bang)

...

No, let me give you an example.
A human can't fly unaided in earth gravity and if someone tries to do so from a sufficient height, that human will fall to the ground and die, if the surface hit is hard enough.
The Big Bang is not objective in that sense and it doesn't matter in everyday life. Humans before us have lived and died without knowing of the Big Bang.
It is a creation myth. So how do I know this?
There is no direct observational evidence for the Singularity and all evidence is indirect and only works with the idea of a Singularity. But the Singularity can't be observed, because that is not possible. Observation requires an observer and something observed, but that can't be done with the Singularity, because it is a singularity; i.e. no observation possible.
In the end it is an idea in the brains of some humans and it is subjective, because the only thing it does, is make them feel better.
It has no observable effect, because it has no effect on the everyday life of humans, other than being a creation myth.
In the fancy words of science, it is an un-testable hypothesis, which only makes sense as theoretical physics. But theoretical physics is not science in the ordinary sense, unless it can be turned into an observation or test with an instrument. It is subjective, because I can in effect live a life without believing in the Big Bang. Just as some humans live a life without believing in gods.
The Big Bang is naturalistic philosophy and theology and nothing else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

"Why bother with science? We can't really know anything, except our own thoughts, and even then it's suspect."

...

That is the corner stone of your counter argument.
That is selfish, subjective, first person, individual and what not. And there can be given no evidence for it. Further the "we" is not grounded in any kind of evidence, because there is no "we". Why you bother may not be the same as for why I bother.
So here is why I skip a lot of your content. It is in a sense pointless to argue about objective reality, because the reason why we individually bother is that: Subjective, selfish, solipsistic, individual and all these first person variants. You can give no reasons for it with objective evidence, objective knowledge, reason, logic and what not. You do it, because you do it.

I want you to concede this: There is no ground for why you bother with all there fancy words of objective, knowledge, evidence, reason, logic and what not with the use of these words. No matter how many versions of objective reality you come with, it only matters because it matters to you.

So now I am going to answer the point of solipsism. All these variants fall in 2 categories - foundational for knowledge or in effect skeptical about knowledge and they have nothing to do with solipsism as such.
I am not a solipsist. I am a hard core skeptic and I don't believe in knowledge like apparently you do. I use skepticism to show that you always end up being subjective as with this:
"Why bother with science? We can't really know anything, except our own thoughts, and even then it's suspect."

I don't care about what reality really is, because I don't know. And these version of solipsism, which are about existence; I don't believe in that and knowledge, I don't believe in that.
I believe in what apparently works for the idea that the world is fair and that we can trust our reasoning and senses to make sense of it.
Fair as here:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

That is the same principle I apply with the paradox of a Boltzmann Brain and what not.
So I go the route of doubting knowledge to get you to admit that you do this, because it matters to you and you can't use all of these words, you try to make it about: Logic, reason, evidence, objective, knowledge and what not.

If you want it in philosophical terms, I do a variant of phenomenology and a combination of a variant of realism; I believe we are in reality.
But I don't know and I accept limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.

So where does this always end: You speak for a "we" as in "Why bother with science? We can't really know anything, except our own thoughts, and even then it's suspect." But there is no "we". Yet you judge me with a "we", you don't have.

So if we agree we are both in reality, then I question the limit of that "we" and we always end here: What matters to you, might not matter to me and in reverse.
So as a catch-phrase - We are equal as humans and different as individuals. But you had to do it as the route of the standard western approach - Objective reality, knowledge, evidence, reason and logic and what not; and the limit is that it only matters, if it matters to you.

I drag you down to the level of all other humans and show you that you hold no authority over that "we" with all your fancy words. Neither do I, I just know that.
So here it is as with science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.

But you are nowhere close to grounding that "then we have to decide how to use that knowledge", because you take for granted that you speak for a "we".
Since there are these limits for the apparent everyday world we are a part of, we end there. Despite all of the fancy words of: Objective reality, objective knowledge, objective evidence, objectivity, reason, logic, rationality and what not.
That is the myth in western culture. That we can do it with science and opinion based on science. But there are no opinions based on science, because of limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism.

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

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

And to end it:

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

So why do you bother? Well, you can't answer that with science and you can't claim a "we".

So to some people science functions as a part of a religion, because they believe in some version of objectivity and all these other words. They can't be doubted, because without them, it doesn't make sense to All of Us. I doubt that All of Us. You apparently don't. You can believe as you like and it won't stop me from believing differently and so in reverse.

I am good at spotting, when people go subjective or to objective.

"Why bother with science? We can't really know anything, except our own thoughts, and even then it's suspect."
We are in effect playing psychology and you can put all the words you like on my way of coping. I don't care, because it works for me. And yet you believe in a "we", that is not there. That is apparently psychology, but you would know that.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

All matter here on earth and the area of the solar system is affected by the current forces of nature, yes. Of course. The issue is NOT whether forces that exist affect matter, but what forces used to exist!

Naturally the laws of nature are synced. That does not mean they are eternal.



You don't seem to get the basic concept of time itself being different. In our time and space time exists in a certain way. For example, so a car moving at a certain rate or speed will take so much time to go, for example a mile. Let's say that speed is 70 miles per hour. Now imagine we take time away and replace it with another 'time' which is nothing like the time we know. Let's say for example, that the new time would result in a car moving at that same rate would travel one mile in one second of the new time. The speed has not changed, only the time involved in going the distance!
So if time and space in the distant universe is not as we know it here, we cannot say that anything (including light moving a certain distance) takes the same time!

Only if distances/sizes mass are known.


Firstly, we do not know that gravity has changed. Secondly acceleration of gravity is caused by the force of gravity! So if the force changed I suppose we might see some change in how things get accelerated by that force?

You might as well ask how you create them in the first place! Science doesn't know.
Great, so let's have them all come to exist at once! Whatever was changed was not that. That was what we had as a result of the former nature changing.


Once again you are envisioning changes IN OUR nature. No. Our nature is the result of the former nature changing, not our nature.
Exactly! How does science know? It has no clue, so it has assumed what we see is what we always had.

I don't have to know! Science does, IF it claims a certain set of forces existed! I am happy to default to the historical and Scriptural records. If you claim nature was a certain way, for heaven sake we would hope you have some sort of reason for this!




Actually the theories are constantly falling and being changed as new info unfolds. How far you think you look into the past depends on what time is like out there! You thought it depended on a fishbowl perspective.

The universe consists of more than natural phenomena. (especially more than the current nature in the fishbowl)
Origin pseudo science is the antithesis of science! It is faith based.

Including your thermal vent/Darwin's pond/comet sprinkled gook stories!

Oh I do see way beyond those fishbowl concepts!

I'm beginning to feel that I am just peeling back layers of ignorance, and not getting any closer to the core. This is exactly the dangers inherent in scientific illiteracy. Not only do you lack the a basic understanding of how cause and effect is related to all natural phenomena, but you actually try to defend your lack of understanding, by appealing to the unknown or abstract. I'm beginning to agree with "Subduction Zone". Maybe self-imposed ignorance gives you bliss, security, happiness, and a sense of scientific truth. Maybe it is much easier to believe that "God did it all", and apply "top-down" logic to anyone who challenges you. Otherwise, you might have to spend the better part of your life, using a reliable methodology, that will never achieve absolute certainty. I realize that God himself could never change your mind, or convince you to take a hard look at the flaws in your own logic. But, for rational thinkers, just ONE piece of verifiable, objective, and falsifiable evidence, would do it immediately. Just one fallacy-free logical argument would also work. Both you and mikkel the_dane can only "poison the well" by hiding behind absolutes, appeals to Religion, Spirituality, the Infinite, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. This reasoning only accelerates the "dumbing-down" process in America among the gullible. Since you cannot present any evidence to support your claims, you have no choice but to misrepresent, obfuscate, and respond with incoherent gibberish, to baffle and appease Non-critical thinkers with BS. No matter how many times you parrot nonsense, it will still be nonsense to critical thinkers. This pattern is always the same. You will do anything to avoid presenting evidence, or accepting the possibility that you could be totally wrong.

I stated that all matter is affected by the 4 natural forces in nature. You deflected with, "The issue is NOT whether forces that exist affect matter, but what forces used to exist!". Of course you provide NO evidence to explain what different forces existed in the past. You later said, "Naturally the laws of nature are synced. That does not mean they are eternal.". My comments were that the laws were "interconnected"(not in sync), and nothing about if these laws were eternal. Both comments(sync and eternal) are not only irrelevant, unsupported, but also incorrect. Clearly, you do not have a basic understanding of modern physics, the Quantum Field Theory, or QM. You are at best a flea biting the back of an elephant. So when you claim that time, and the physical law have changed over time, CHANGED RELATIVE TO WHAT? We just can't simple ignore cause and effect, just because you want to.

Since the earth would need to be spinning at 3 times its speed in the past, to allow a vehicle to travel a 1 mile per second, your time analogies are meaningless. If the earth were spinning at even twice its speed, many countries would still be underwater, no polar ices, and all kinds of obvious evidence would still exist today. At 3 times its speed, we would be having this conversation in space. Also, the Universe has at least 11 dimension, but only one of which is time. Think of it this way, we can go in a complete circle in space, but only in one direction in time. Although, the string Theory's math supports the idea of a dimension of having 2 times. But this is all conceptualize speculation at this time. So, can we stick to what we do know, or provide evidence to support assertions about what we don't know?

Firstly, we do not know that gravity has changed. Secondly acceleration of gravity is caused by the force of gravity! So if the force changed I suppose we might see some change in how things get accelerated by that force?

Really, the acceleration of Gravity, is caused by the force of Gravity. Doubtful. The more massive an object is, the more Gravitational attraction the object can exert. Please read about how objects moving in a Gravitational field pick up their potential energy. And, then compare how potential and kinetic energy, and Gravitational Energy and accelerated attraction, are proportional to their masses.

Clearly, you are content with spewing out unsupported fantasies assertions, that exist only in your mind. Just like someone on the subway claiming that he is the real Napoleon, and challenges anyone to prove him wrong. My perspective of reality has served me well so far. Regardless of your denials, you still live in the same physical world as me. I can't get even ONE straight answer out of you. This only implies that you are either a chronic attention seeker, or afraid to expose just how ludicrous your assertions really are. If you want to argue from a philosophical perspective, the DON'T MAKE TRUTH CLAIMS.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Science has this limit. You can't give objective evidence for that fact that it is wrong that I believe in God. How, because you can observe that I do.
All the rest you do is to state that you think and feel... If it was impossible like flying unaided in earth gravity for humans, then humans couldn't believe in God. They do. That is the truth. You admit it yourself. You admit that some humans do it and then you subjectively evaluate it as bad. That is subjectivity in practice, you have no objective evidence for the fact, that I live in a fantasy world. That you use this phrase "fantasy world" is derogatory and based on feelings in you.
That is it. You have no objective evidence for your "fantasy world" or "fishbowl". Those words originate in you and are a product of you being subjective.

What evidence(subjective or objective) would be enough to prove to you, that my world is not a fantasy world? What objective evidence can you present, that can demonstrate that your belief in your God is right, and the belief in thousands of other Gods are wrong? You'd be amazed at what an adult is capable of believing in.

 

[Milton Platt]

No, let me give you an example.
A human can't fly unaided in earth gravity and if someone tries to do so from a sufficient height, that human will fall to the ground and die, if the surface hit is hard enough.
The Big Bang is not objective in that sense and it doesn't matter in everyday life. Humans before us have lived and died without knowing of the Big Bang.
It is a creation myth. So how do I know this?
There is no direct observational evidence for the Singularity and all evidence is indirect and only works with the idea of a Singularity. But the Singularity can't be observed, because that is not possible. Observation requires an observer and something observed, but that can't be done with the Singularity, because it is a singularity; i.e. no observation possible.
In the end it is an idea in the brains of some humans and it is subjective, because the only thing it does, is make them feel better.
It has no observable effect, because it has no effect on the everyday life of humans, other than being a creation myth.
In the fancy words of science, it is an un-testable hypothesis, which only makes sense as theoretical physics. But theoretical physics is not science in the ordinary sense, unless it can be turned into an observation or test with an instrument. It is subjective, because I can in effect live a life without believing in the Big Bang. Just as some humans live a life without believing in gods.
The Big Bang is naturalistic philosophy and theology and nothing else.

Science is more than direct observable evidence. You are using your own personal definition, not a standard definition.
Is electrical engineering not based upon science?
Who has observed electrons moving down the surface of a conductor? Who has watched electrons accumulate inside a battery?
Inference made from repeatable calculations or observation of related phenomena are valid ways of knowing

I take it you are not someone who believes in a god?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What evidence(subjective or objective) would be enough to prove to you, that my world is not a fantasy world? What objective evidence can you present, that can demonstrate that your belief in your God is right, and the belief in thousands of other Gods are wrong? You'd be amazed at what an adult is capable of believing in.

You don't use right and wrong as I do.
Since I view all variants of positive metaphysics as subjective, objective doesn't apply. So for metaphysics, I simply state how I subjectively believe.
The only evidence I know of in the everyday world is that these beliefs work, because they individually work for the individual human holding one of them.
Now for the everyday world objective holds for the physical and other hard science aspects, but doesn't hold for utility, morality and other such subjective human behavior. And another version of objective holds for logic and some forms of reason.
There are 4 variants of wrong as I believe in them.

1. It is wrong, that a human can fly unaided in earth gravity.
2. It is wrong, that 2+2=5, though you can make a mathematical system based on that. It is just of limited usefulness, because it entails a contradiction.
3. It is wrong to kill another human.
4. It is wrong to believe in something without evidence.

Now your reason, logic and evidence applies to #1 and 2. But not #3 and 4.
So while I have no evidence of God, it is not wrong according to reason, logic and evidence to believe in God. It is indeed a fact, I can do so and it is only wrong if you believe it is wrong. Note I say nothing of knowledge. I believe in God.

So if you with reason, logic and evidence know it is wrong to believe in a God, you use know in a way, that doesn't apply. I don't know, if you do that. Or if you only believe it is wrong to believe in a God.
As for knowing the metaphysical status of reality, I haven't seem any attempts, which didn't amounted to a subjective belief.
There is a everyday limit to science and knowledge.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

 

[Milton Platt]

You don't use right and wrong as I do.
Since I view all variants of positive metaphysics as subjective, objective doesn't apply. So for metaphysics, I simply state how I subjectively believe.
The only evidence I know of in the everyday world is that these beliefs work, because they individually work for the individual human holding one of them.
Now for the everyday world objective holds for the physical and other hard science aspects, but doesn't hold for utility, morality and other such subjective human behavior. And another version of objective holds for logic and some forms of reason.
There are 4 variants of wrong as I believe in them.

1. It is wrong, that a human can fly unaided in earth gravity.
2. It is wrong, that 2+2=5, though you can make a mathematical system based on that. It is just of limited usefulness, because it entails a contradiction.
3. It is wrong to kill another human.
4. It is wrong to believe in something without evidence.

Now your reason, logic and evidence applies to #1 and 2. But not #3 and 4.
So while I have no evidence of God, it is not wrong according to reason, logic and evidence to believe in God. It is indeed a fact, I can do so and it is only wrong if you believe it is wrong. Note I say nothing of knowledge. I believe in God.

So if you with reason, logic and evidence know it is wrong to believe in a God, you use know in a way, that doesn't apply. I don't know, if you do that. Or if you only believe it is wrong to believe in a God.
As for knowing the metaphysical status of reality, I haven't seem any attempts, which didn't amounted to a subjective belief.
There is a everyday limit to science and knowledge.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia


https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

You are attacking a straw man. Nobody is questioning that you believe something. People argue that such a belief is unfounded, therefore not logical or rational. Believing something does not make it true, otherwise, I would be wealthy and handsome.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is more than direct observable evidence. You are using your own personal definition, not a standard definition.
Is electrical engineering not based upon science?
Who has observed electrons moving down the surface of a conductor? Who has watched electrons accumulate inside a battery?
Inference made from repeatable calculations or observation of related phenomena are valid ways of knowing

I take it you are not someone who believes in a god?

Yes, a computer works. It is objective and can be replicated.

But the Big Bang is not objective as natural science. It is math in the head of some humans and can only be replicated as math.
I can use a computer, but I can't use the Big Bang. In technical terms we are debating different version of realism. I answer that electrical engineering is real, because I can use it. I can't use the Big Bang, so it is not real. The biological theory of evolution is based on observation and back up by genetics and it works.
The difference is that the Big Bang is a hypothesis, which can't be tested. I get how it makes sense, but that is all it has going for it. It is an idea and nothing else. You can show me fossils and what not. You can't show me the Big Bang.

No, I believe in God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are attacking a straw man. Nobody is questioning that you believe something. People argue that such a belief is unfounded, therefore not logical or rational. Believing something does not make it true, otherwise, I would be wealthy and handsome.

Yeah, it is unfounded, not logical and rational, yet it is a fact, that I can believe. You are judging me, based on how you think. I never claimed that it is true, that there is a God. I just state that I believe in God and it is a fact, that I can do so.
You are doing a variant of morality.

 

[night912]

You don't use right and wrong as I do.
Since I view all variants of positive metaphysics as subjective, objective doesn't apply. So for metaphysics, I simply state how I subjectively believe.
The only evidence I know of in the everyday world is that these beliefs work, because they individually work for the individual human holding one of them.
Now for the everyday world objective holds for the physical and other hard science aspects, but doesn't hold for utility, morality and other such subjective human behavior. And another version of objective holds for logic and some forms of reason.
There are 4 variants of wrong as I believe in them.

1. It is wrong, that a human can fly unaided in earth gravity.
2. It is wrong, that 2+2=5, though you can make a mathematical system based on that. It is just of limited usefulness, because it entails a contradiction.
3. It is wrong to kill another human.
4. It is wrong to believe in something without evidence.

Now your reason, logic and evidence applies to #1 and 2. But not #3 and 4.
So while I have no evidence of God, it is not wrong according to reason, logic and evidence to believe in God. It is indeed a fact, I can do so and it is only wrong if you believe it is wrong. Note I say nothing of knowledge. I believe in God.

So if you with reason, logic and evidence know it is wrong to believe in a God, you use know in a way, that doesn't apply. I don't know, if you do that. Or if you only believe it is wrong to believe in a God.
As for knowing the metaphysical status of reality, I haven't seem any attempts, which didn't amounted to a subjective belief.
There is a everyday limit to science and knowledge.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia


https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

You just logically contradicted yourself.

 

[night912]

Yes, a computer works. It is objective and can be replicated.

But the Big Bang is not objective as natural science. It is math in the head of some humans and can only be replicated as math.
I can use a computer, but I can't use the Big Bang. In technical terms we are debating different version of realism. I answer that electrical engineering is real, because I can use it. I can't use the Big Bang, so it is not real. The biological theory of evolution is based on observation and back up by genetics and it works.
The difference is that the Big Bang is a hypothesis, which can't be tested. I get how it makes sense, but that is all it has going for it. It is an idea and nothing else. You can show me fossils and what not. You can't show me the Big Bang.

No, I believe in God.

Yes, a computer works. It is objective and can be replicated.

But the Big Bang is not objective as natural science. It is math in the head of some humans and can only be replicated as math.
I can use a computer, but I can't use the Big Bang. In technical terms we are debating different version of realism. I answer that electrical engineering is real, because I can use it. I can't use the Big Bang, so it is not real. The biological theory of evolution is based on observation and back up by genetics and it works.
The difference is that the Big Bang is a hypothesis, which can't be tested. I get how it makes sense, but that is all it has going for it. It is an idea and nothing else. You can show me fossils and what not. You can't show me the Big Bang.

No, I believe in God.

So the big bang is real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just logically contradicted yourself.

Okay, then that is a fact, if it is so, Now what? You don't subjectively as your belief accept that? Okay, good for you. But you will have a hard time explaining, how something, which is a fact, is morally wrong. I have no problem with it being with logically wrong, but that is not morally wrong.
And you can't use science for morality.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So the big bang is real.

It lacks some reasoned arguments. BTW real is not an objective referent. It is a first person conceptual idea. Real is not perceptual and not a scientific term.

 

[night912]

Yeah, it is unfounded, not logical and rational, yet it is a fact, that I can believe. You are judging me, based on how you think. I never claimed that it is true, that there is a God. I just state that I believe in God and it is a fact, that I can do so.
You are doing a variant of morality.

You believe that the existence of god is true. So you believing in something that is not true would make it illogical. Both you believing it and your belief itself.

 

[night912]

Okay, then that is a fact, if it is so, Now what? You don't subjectively as your belief accept that? Okay, good for you. But you will have a hard time explaining, how something, which is a fact, is morally wrong. I have no problem with it being with logically wrong, but that is not morally wrong.
And you can't use science for morality.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Never said anything about using science for morality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You believe that the existence of god is true. So you believing in something that is not true would make it illogical. Both you believing it and your belief itself.

I don't believe that the existence of God is true. I believe in God, because it works for me, not because it is true. It is true for me, but not true for God. I am an agnostic and skeptic. I don't believe in truth as you apparently do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Never said anything about using science for morality.

Okay, so why don't you just let me believe in God. Where is the problem?