Science IS religion

[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

That means your "logical truth" is not true. In order for something to be logically true, it has to be valid and sound. And since you contradicted yourself, your "logic" thinking is neither valid nor sound.

 

[night912]

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.

I'm going by your truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That means your "logical truth" is not true. In order for something to be logically true, it has to be valid and sound. And since you contradicted yourself, your "logic" thinking is neither valid nor sound.

It is a fact, that I believe in God. Now if my thinking is not valid and sound, then that is a fact. So what is your problem with that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm going by your truth.

You have so use some more words.

 

[night912]

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

Never said anything about not letting you believe in god. Just telling you that it's illogical. Where is the problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Never said anything about not letting you believe in god. Just telling you that it's illogical. Where is the problem?

Okay, you keep saying that. If it is illogical, then why do you point it out? Just for the fun of it or what?

 

[dad]

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

When the method consists of using the present as the key to the past and a belief that nature was the same, that is a belief method. You are welcome to show it is more than beliefs here. Why can't you do that!? Ha

Religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When the method consists of using the present as the key to the past and a belief that nature was the same, that is a belief method. You are welcome to show it is more than beliefs here. Why can't you do that!? Ha

Religion.

From there doesn't follow that yours is the correct one. You just have different beliefs. That is the end game of belief and faith.

 

[dad]

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.

Not only do you misunderstand creation, but try to defend your belief based dogmas.

Maybe it is much easier to believe that "God did it all", and apply "top-down" logic to anyone who challenges you.

Only two choices top down or bottom up. Your wisdom is from below.

Otherwise, you might have to spend the better part of your life, using a reliable methodology, that will never achieve absolute certainty

The topic is origin sciences and the methods they use, and that is demonstrably beliefs.

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.

Better than pretending you know when you clearly have no small clue.

Since you cannot present any evidence to support your claims

, You are evidence. My claim is that science doesn't know and that origin sciences are belief based. You confirm it by the barrage of blather, and absolute fail to show it is anything else.

No matter how many times you parrot nonsense, it will still be nonsense to critical thinkers.

Since you cannot show origin models to be anything but belief based, because obviously it is, You try to call yourself a critical thinker for believing! Not sure who you think you are fooling.

This pattern is always the same. You will do anything to avoid presenting evidence, or accepting the possibility that you could be totally wrong.

The evidence is in your fail to show origin methodology to be anything but religious drivel. I do not need scientific evidence (although ALL scientific evidence fits) for my beliefs. The evidences God chose to give were outside the little handicapped cult of so called science.

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 must PROVE they always existed if you claim as much, and do so as a science claim. I simply do not engage in the obstinate denial of Scripture and history that record major differences in our past nature. You not only are willfully ignorant of this, but appeal to us to blindly believe in your claimed same nature in the past for NO reason. That is not science.

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),

If God created the forces and laws, obviously they are in sync. That connection we now see is a connection in the forces NOW in place.

and nothing about if these laws were eternal.

If you claim they go back billions of years you might as well be!

Clearly, you do not have a basic understanding of modern physics, the Quantum Field Theory, or QM.

Clearly you do not understand any of that. The depth required to understand most of what is unknown is not found in science. When they see an effect in QM, for example that appears to strangely go against our concept of time and how it works, they scramble to explain it with fishbowl concepts. When they see things happening in the cosmos that don't fit, they simply declare some 95% of the universe unknown dark stuff! They are a religion of ignorance. They glory in it, wallow in it, preach it.

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.

Relative to what was! Science doesn't know what that is, or even that there ever was any change or will be again! A religion of ignorance.

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.

Thanks for the exhibit of a total lack of understanding on the issue. You seem to be claiming that time depends on motion. So how does that work, if you don't move you will never age!? Ha. If the moon vanished there would no longer be a month? Clocks mark time, that are not time itself.

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.

Spirits apparently are not bound to that rule. Even the quantum world seems to defy the idea.

I would suggest that time as we know it is relative to earth and our solar system area. It exists for us for a temporary period. It is all we know and we color what we see far away by our realities here. Only here is time an arrow!

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?

Forgive me if I find fishbowl philosophy childishly foolish.

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.

You do not KNOW masses or distances or sizes for deep space. So what are you talking about, earth, the solar system? Example?

My perspective of reality has served me well so far.

You are welcome to an opinion.

Regardless of your denials, you still live in the same physical world as me.

Why would I deny the obvious?? Why pretend I deny such a thing? Be honest.

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.

Or that you have a severe comprehension deficit of the core issues.

 

[dad]

From there doesn't follow that yours is the correct one. You just have different beliefs. That is the end game of belief and faith.

Regardless of any other beliefs such as my own, the issue is whether the science claim can be supported in reality and with actual evidence, or not. It can't it is belief based. The issue is not looking at other beliefs here, but looking at whether or not origin sciences models are belief or fact based. If they were fact based would we not see some real logical strong support by now here??

I am not debating my beliefs as to whether they are right or wrong, that is settled for me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Regardless of any other beliefs such as my own, the issue is whether the science claim can be supported in reality and with actual evidence, or not. It can't it is belief based. The issue is not looking at other beliefs here, but looking at whether or not origin sciences models are belief or fact based. If they were fact based would we not see some real logical strong support by now here??

I am not debating my beliefs as to whether they are right or wrong, that is settled for me.

And your beliefs are not mine, so there it ends. If you play the belief game, then it is subjective. Your beliefs don't work for my, because I have my own. Just as you reject other beliefs than your own, I reject yours. And if you claim they are true and what not, I point out they are nothing but beliefs. So are mine.

 

[night912]

Okay, you keep saying that. If it is illogical, then why do you point it out? Just for the fun of it or what?

No, not for the fun of it. And you pretty answered your own question. It's illogical, that's why I point it out. Why wouldn't I point out something that you claim to be logical when in fact it's illogical. So trying to use your illogical argument against other's means nothing. And if your a skeptic like you claimed to be, why still hold on to that illogical argument?

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo mikkel_the_dane. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.
- Morpheus The Matrix

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not for the fun of it. And you pretty answered your own question. It's illogical, that's why I point it out. Why wouldn't I point out something that you claim to be logical when in fact it's illogical. So trying to use your illogical argument against other's means nothing. And if your a skeptic like you claimed to be, why still hold on to that illogical argument?

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo mikkel_the_dane. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.
- Morpheus The Matrix

Then please explain how it is illogical and not just state it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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

In other words, you haven't got a clue why your belief in your God is the right belief, and others who believe in their God is NOT the right belief. Even a child instinctively knows the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It is only not self-evident to those deliberately trying to "muddy the waters" with obfuscated gibberish. So whatever definition of right and wrong you wish to use, what separates the integrity of your God, from all the other Gods? By definition, there can only be ONE supreme God or Deity. This means that only ONE belief(or no belief) represents the true Supreme Deity, and the others do not. Which does your belief represent? Or, are you going to deflect again, and talk about the subjective belief of the word, "definition", or its 3 forms(formal, informal, or extended)?

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.

So, the evidence that demonstrates that your beliefs are true, is because the beliefs work for the individual, and the beliefs work for the individuals holding the beliefs. This sounds redundant, and circular to me. Therefore, just more nonsense and gibberish. I'm not interested in how your fantasies affect your behavior. That much has already been clearly demonstrated. I'm interested in any evidence that can demonstrate that your fantasies are objectively real, and exist in our physical reality. Let me help you focus. Any verifiable, scientifically controlled validation, of any paranormal activity. Any verified example of, a miracle, faith healing, prophecy, the suspension of any laws of physics, spirits, a verifiable resurrection(no NDE), or a fallacy-free argument will do. I would even accept examples of walking on water, or reading my mind right now.

I don't KNOW if it is right or wrong to believe in God. I do KNOW that there is absolutely no rational reason for me to believe in a God. Why don't you believe in Thor, Zeus, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny? Well, those are the exact same reasons why I don't believe in a God(s).

Since you are not going to deviate from your scripted responses, and will run away to become an invective annoyance on another thread, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Unless, you plan on providing any evidence to support your assertions. Not only is science limited, but so is my patience.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Not only do you misunderstand creation, but try to defend your belief based dogmas.
Only two choices top down or bottom up. Your wisdom is from below.

The topic is origin sciences and the methods they use, and that is demonstrably beliefs.

Better than pretending you know when you clearly have no small clue.


, You are evidence. My claim is that science doesn't know and that origin sciences are belief based. You confirm it by the barrage of blather, and absolute fail to show it is anything else.


Since you cannot show origin models to be anything but belief based, because obviously it is, You try to call yourself a critical thinker for believing! Not sure who you think you are fooling.
The evidence is in your fail to show origin methodology to be anything but religious drivel. I do not need scientific evidence (although ALL scientific evidence fits) for my beliefs. The evidences God chose to give were outside the little handicapped cult of so called science.

YOU must PROVE they always existed if you claim as much, and do so as a science claim. I simply do not engage in the obstinate denial of Scripture and history that record major differences in our past nature. You not only are willfully ignorant of this, but appeal to us to blindly believe in your claimed same nature in the past for NO reason. That is not science.

If God created the forces and laws, obviously they are in sync. That connection we now see is a connection in the forces NOW in place.
If you claim they go back billions of years you might as well be!
Clearly you do not understand any of that. The depth required to understand most of what is unknown is not found in science. When they see an effect in QM, for example that appears to strangely go against our concept of time and how it works, they scramble to explain it with fishbowl concepts. When they see things happening in the cosmos that don't fit, they simply declare some 95% of the universe unknown dark stuff! They are a religion of ignorance. They glory in it, wallow in it, preach it.

Relative to what was! Science doesn't know what that is, or even that there ever was any change or will be again! A religion of ignorance.

Thanks for the exhibit of a total lack of understanding on the issue. You seem to be claiming that time depends on motion. So how does that work, if you don't move you will never age!? Ha. If the moon vanished there would no longer be a month? Clocks mark time, that are not time itself.


Spirits apparently are not bound to that rule. Even the quantum world seems to defy the idea.

I would suggest that time as we know it is relative to earth and our solar system area. It exists for us for a temporary period. It is all we know and we color what we see far away by our realities here. Only here is time an arrow!

Forgive me if I find fishbowl philosophy childishly foolish.



You do not KNOW masses or distances or sizes for deep space. So what are you talking about, earth, the solar system? Example?

You are welcome to an opinion.

Why would I deny the obvious?? Why pretend I deny such a thing? Be honest.
Or that you have a severe comprehension deficit of the core issues.

I have provided evidence and logic, that the fundamental forces in nature, could not be significantly different today, as they were in the past. If they were we would see evidence of those changes today. I've given you many examples supporting my rationale and reasoning. If you are disputing my reasoning, then please explain just how you know if the laws of nature were different in the past, than they are today? What examples can you deposit? Simply, ignoring my questions is bad enough, but denying my logic is insane. And, yes I DO know, since we are not all floating in space, the spin of the earth could not have drastically changed in the past. And, yes we do know masses, sizes, and distances of objects in deep space. We can even measure the total mass and energy within the observable Universe. So, how do you know what rules spirits are bound to, or not bound to? You don't do you?

I assure you, I don't pretend to know what I claim to know. I actually do. Why do you have this fear and loathing of science, and its methodology? Science is reliable, verifiable, informative, repeatable, predictable, logical, and falsifiable. Why do you need to hide behind a science of your own creation? Do you condemn science because of its complexity, or because it makes your belief in fairy tales seem silly? What happened to make you loose your curiosity of our physical reality?

Anyway, since you are never going to address my questions, or provide any evidence, all the best.

 

[dad]

And your beliefs are not mine, so there it ends. If you play the belief game, then it is subjective. Your beliefs don't work for my, because I have my own. Just as you reject other beliefs than your own, I reject yours. And if you claim they are true and what not, I point out they are nothing but beliefs. So are mine.

Exactly and origin science is the belief game. Unless it was more than beliefs, people who hold another faith need not embrace them.
The idea here is that people who claim origin sciences are NOT beliefs, but fact and evidence based knowledge, need to support that and show HOW it is so. The thread is not about comparing beliefs, only about how origin sciences is one.

In another thread I could fight the 'compare beliefs' battle quite valiantly. Not here.

 

[dad]

I have provided evidence and logic, that the fundamental forces in nature, could not be significantly different today, as they were in the past. If they were we would see evidence of those changes today.

Claiming that there should be such evidence of different forces once existing by looking at current ones shows you have missed the crux of the arguments.

If you are disputing my reasoning, then please explain just how you know if the laws of nature were different in the past, than they are today?

I don't! The thread is not about defending beliefs, but about some people trying to show origin science is not belief based! I believe that it is likely, based on history and the bible, that the past was quite different. Now if you believe it was not, fine. However if you claim to know, and that science knows, well, you need to show why.

... yes I DO know, since we are not all floating in space, the spin of the earth could not have drastically changed in the past.

The spin of the earth has nothing to do with the forces of nature that used to exist.

And, yes we do know masses, sizes, and distances of objects in deep space.

False. You have a little faith based regime that you insert data and it yields 'distances', and 'sizes', etc. Unless time existed out where stars are none of this is valid, so the only question that matters is this. Do you KNOW time is the same out there also or not? The indisputable answer is absolutely not. Checkmate.

We can even measure the total mass and energy within the observable Universe. So, how do you know what rules spirits are bound to, or not bound to? You don't do you?

No. Same as above, you simply thought you knew it all. As for spirits, all we can do is look at the record. In the bible we can see they are not bound by time or space. Gabriel appeared to Daniel before Daniel finished praying and opened his eyes, and Gabriel had come from across the universe!

Science is reliable, verifiable, informative, repeatable, predictable, logical, and falsifiable.

Science has no relation to origin sciences except in name. The basis of models of the past have no connection to verifiable, repeatable, observable, testable .. etc. None.

 

[night912]

Then please explain how it is illogical and not just state it.

Done that already. It's not my fault that you try to be intellectual but can't understand your own argument. I'm won't waste my time reposting it if you already decided to ignore it. That's the result of having an epistemology based on being illogical.

I've already shown you the door. It's up to you to decide to open it or not.

It's hard for someone to be something that they are not when they themselves don't understand it but still believe that they already are, ie believing to be a hardcore.....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Done that already. It's not my fault that you try to be intellectual but can't understand your own argument. I'm won't waste my time reposting it if you already decided to ignore it. That's the result of having an epistemology based on being illogical.

I've already shown you the door. It's up to you to decide to open it or not.

It's hard for someone to be something that they are not when they themselves don't understand it but still believe that they already are, ie believing to be a hardcore.....

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.

And that was your answer.

So again please explain

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no evidence of a same nature in the past. Science uses that in models. History and the bible record a past that was quite different.

The bible is wrong. The evidence is not.