Science IS religion

[Truly Enlightened]

ONLY as long as nature has been the same. Otherwise the method is out of date.


A belief does not need to be 'only about the super natural'.

Dictionary.com defines belief here

- something believed; an opinion or conviction:

- confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately
susceptible to rigorous proof:

- confidence; faith; trust:

- a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
Belief based method.

The creed it follows for the basis in origin claims is not objective. It is a belief based set of rules based on a belief that the past was the same nature as today.

In origin claims it provides belief based fables, doubts about creation, with no reality or application or value or evidence. The method is to dunk and taint and color evidence with beliefs!

No. I am saying it may loom large in your head, but can't come out and fight in the field of discussion. You can't even falsify your claimed same nature in the past!

There is no objectivity for claims about the origin of life and the universe. Creation of life and the universe involves more than the physical world science swims around in. If a spirit was in a lab, a scientist would not detect it. In the origins issues what we see is that they try to limit how we must have gotten here to the present natural world they know! Furthermore, they try to exclude all that is outside their little box that cannot be carried into this present natural world, such as historical and Scriptural ancient records, spirits, God, the past, the future, unknown deep space...etc etc.



Some consider that atheists simply do not know what god they serve. That does not make it less than real, it just makes them less than aware!


Mine! There is no aspect of scientific evidence that does not fit. Fossil record? Yes. Continental division? Yes. DNA? Yes. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.



? I have not heard that the forces of nature were 'spacetime' caused? Explain!?
The only thing here that matters is whether science KNOWS what the forces of nature on earth used to be billions of (their imaginary, faith based, claimed) 'years' ago! No other belief matters here, or needs to offer reasons why it believes whatever it believes! Science must defend it's claims here. In case some have trouble with the concept, maybe I can help

You need to say something like....'science knows that laws of nature were the same 100 million years ago, because....this and that and the other reason '


Lurkers, notice he has made a specific claim here? Now, when I ask him to support it, one would hope we get some details and support.

OK, so..HOW do you get a precise distance, say, to the closest star?
There you go again conflating spacetime with nature.

I suggest, to be clear, that, right now as we speak, time is not known to be the same in deep space as it is on earth. I doubt our time ever changed here, or at least significantly. (a year used to be 360 days but that is a small amount of difference and a whole other thread)

The issue with nature today on earth that we live in, and whose laws science uses for models of the past, is that I am asking if science can prove this nature also existed the same right here on earth in the days of Noah. (in 'science time' probably many tens of millions of years ago). Yes or no, can you prove nature was the same?

If so, do it. If not, you have a belief only. Period.

I suppose I can't really expect a serious discourse with anyone who lists their age as 119. I see you are still answering questions with questions. Still misrepresenting, deflecting, and distorting what others are posting. And, still refusing to answer our questions, or provide any objective evidence to support your claims.

I stated that, "if Origin science practices "Methodological Naturalism", then it is based on science, and NOT belief." . You replied, "ONLY as long as nature has been the same. Otherwise the method is out of date". Okay, so prove it. What evidence, or examples can you present that can demonstrate that nature was NOT the same? NONE. I stated, "But if Origin science is based only on the supernatural, then it is a belief and not a science". You stated, "A belief does not need to be 'only about the super natural'." Totally ignoring my point that if Origin science is based on any belief in the supernatural, then it is not science. Shifting my meaning to create a straw man about belief in the supernatural, as an excuse to define the word, 'belief', is just dishonest. Maybe you should try responding to something that I actually did say, and not something that you thought I said. It is sad to see you reduced to this level of avoidance, and intellectual dishonesty. But then you are a creationist, and must change reality(subjective or objective) itself, in order promote your fantasy beliefs as being credible, reliable and valid.

? I have not heard that the forces of nature were 'spacetime' caused? Explain!?
The only thing here that matters is whether science KNOWS what the forces of nature on earth used to be billions of (their imaginary, faith based, claimed) 'years' ago! No other belief matters here, or needs to offer reasons why it believes whatever it believes! Science must defend it's claims here. In case some have trouble with the concept, maybe I can help You need to say something like....'science knows that laws of nature were the same 100 million years ago, because....this and that and the other reason

No, genius. You need to say something like, "I KNOW that the laws of nature were NOT the same hundred's of Millions of years ago, because....", since it is you(not science) that is making this claim, and inferring that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today. I have already stated that these fundamental laws(forces) and spacetime are all interconnected. This means that if there were any earlier drastic changes to any of them, we would see some evidence of these changes(cause and effect) today. What evidence can you use to support your claims? I suspect that even if we could time travel back hundred's of Million's of years ago, and test all the properties of these natural forces and spacetime, return back to present time with the results, it would have absolutely no effect on your religious bias. Even God himself couldn't provide enough evidence to satisfy you, or change your worldview. Fortunately, rational people use other cognitive tools to evidence reasonable certainty.

Atheists serve a God? "There is no aspect of any belief-based claims, that does not fit all scientific evidence, history, and scripture? This must include walking on water, creating man from dust and woman from a rib, resurrecting the dead, stopping time, existence of Gods and Angels, Heaven and Hell, and other miracles. Which of these events would you say fits aspects of scientific evidence, and why? What religious evidence supports Genes Evolution, or the Fossil records? Just delusional, like objects moving at different times in the past. Again, no evidence.

OK, so..HOW do you get a precise distance, say, to the closest star?

Maybe these videos might help you better understand how we measure the distances between stars, planets, and galaxies If you are still having problems understanding, how parallax works, how radio signals are bounced off objects, or the brightness spectrum, I will be happy to explain them to you in baby steps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWMh61yutjU
https://lco.global/spacebook/distance/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lsj-Hz-NS4

All you do is fill in the gaps with more ignorance. You hide behind absolute certainty, and impossible limits. For example, since no one will be alive, millions of years from now, to verify changes due to Evolution, therefore, "God did it". Since no one can absolutely verify what nature was like Millions of years ago, therefore, " God changed nature". Since no humans is actually in deep space, therefore, "God controls deep space". Let's just ignore, what all the data, experiments, inductive/deductive reasoning, observations, predictions, falsifiable claims, peer reviews, and evidence is telling us. Let's just take your word for everything, that only exist in your mind. Let's just call it, "Dad's real Science". The mind is truly a terrible thing to waste. Even yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And here is your problem:
"Wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality."

Using words properly in terms of what the words in question mean, is not a problem.

An incorrect statement, is a statement that does not correspond to commonly observable reality. That is what "incorrect" means.

If I let go of my keys, they won't fall to earth but instead stay suspended in midair.

That is an incorrect statement. It does not correspond to commonly observable objective reality.
Gravity will make the keys fall down towards earth. Every single time. That is what happens in commonly observable objective reality. That's who we evaluate that statement as "incorrect".

If you can't contrast a statement against commonly observable objective reality, then you have no way to assess its accuracy.

It's that simple. And I'm still completely clueless on your insistence to argue against that.

It's funny as hell also, that the only way for you to argue against that, is by trying to obfuscate and/or change the meaning of words like "incorrect" or "inaccurate" or "wrong" and even play silly games like suddenly pretending that the word "wrong" in such a context is about moral evaluation instead of physical reality.

It's really foolish.

is a statement itself not a part of the commonly observable reality. You can't observe its contents as the statements works. It is not an observation itself. It is a rule and rules only exist subjectively in the brains of those, who believe in them.

It's a word with a specific meaning when used in specific contexts.
Get over it.

Wrong is not an objective property of a thing in the commonly observable reality

It is in the point at hand.

"If I jump from a skyscraper without technology to guard against the effects of gravity, I will just keep floating midair and be able to descend slowly to ensure a soft landing".

That's objectively incorrect / wrong / inaccurate / not true.

So in effect you use a rule for which you have no evidence.

I use a word with a specific meaning. It's what "incorrect" means: not corresponding to reality.

That is the limit of science

The definition of a word has little to do with science.

I.e. you are not skeptical about your own thinking,

I have no need to be sceptical about the meaning of words.
In fact, communication would become impossible.

A thing, that doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality, can't have an observable property of being wrong, because the thing is not observable, since it doesn't correspond to the the commonly observable reality and thus wrong is not a part of the commonly observable reality.

Obfuscate more, obfuscater.

Meanwhile, the statement

"If I jump from a skyscraper without technology to guard against the effects of gravity, I will just keep floating midair and be able to descend slowly to ensure a soft landing"

is objectively incorrect.

How can something which is subjective, exist objectively? Would you mind explain that?

People objectively hold opinions.
You having opinions on things isn't dependend on what I think or feel or whatever.

Your opinions are subjective.
The fact that you hold opinions is not.

BTW please explain exist?

Please explain "explain" first. And "please". And "BTW"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, as long as you understand that you then can't use science to tell people that religion is wrong or that they have wrong beliefs

Why wouldn't we?

If someone's religious beliefs include that the world is only 6000 years old, then that is demonstrably incorrect. Science proves that belief to be incorrect.

Science is really good at disproving things, you know.

If someone's religious belief is that he can jump from a skyscraper without technology to guard against the effects of gravity and walk away unharmed, then that person's religious beliefs are scientifically incorrect.

And I guarantee you, guarantee you, that an attempted demonstration of that person's religious beliefs is NOT going to end well.

You can only do that as long as you understand that wrong is a first person subjective rule and not a scientific law/theory.

Wrong is a word with a specific meaning wich can be distinguished from it's counterpart "correct" in a specific way. Do you know in what way?

I told you a couple dozen times already but it seems you insist on arguing against it for some mysterious reason.

When you evaluate other humans behavior, you are not doing science. Religion is as a human behavior a fact. It can be observed in the world and thus it is a fact of how the world works.

Statements or beliefs about reality being correct or incorrect has nothing to do with behaviour and everything with how reality matches those statements or beliefs.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Now, we're discussing semantics.

"Right" and "Wrong" in matters of philosophy and morality are definitively subjective.

"Right' and "Wrong" in matters of how the world works possess subtle differences from the same words used when discussing morality or philosophy. In matters of science -- explanations of how the world works -- "right" and "wrong" could be interchanged with "factual" and "fallacious" or "correct" and "incorrect".

We can definitely state that 7 day creation and "Evolution is a lie" as being factually incorrect statements because it makes statements on how the natural world works that is inconsistent with evidence and observable reality. We can definitely state that there was no world wide flood, as this claim is opposed to practically everything we know about how the natural world works and an utter lack of evidence that isn't there ... but WOULD be there if such an event actually occurred. So we can say to the scriptural literalist who holds these beliefs that they are "wrong".

Does life begin at conception? To answer that as "correct" or "incorrect", (Right or Wrong) one must have a precise definition of "life" and that definition agreed upon. Once this definition is agreed upon, we are then empowered to seek methods of observation and experimentation to answer that question and test the answer to determine if it is "correct" or "incorrect".

Is abortion wrong? That is matter of philosophy or religion, where the above words take on meanings with moral implications rather than simply factual implications.Science may be able to answer "When does life begin?" but can not answer "Is abortion wrong?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, we're discussing semantics.

It seems to me that that is all that @mikkel_the_dane ever does.

He can't even bring himself to acknowledge that saying something like "if I jump from the empire state building without technology guarding against the effects of gravity, I'll be suspended midair and be able to slowly descend to make for a soft landing and walk away unharmed" is an objectively incorrect statement.

Instead, he starts arguing semantics and engage in obfuscation about words like "incorrect" and "objective" and all kinds of other nonsense.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Goalpost shifting, 'eh?
Thanks for the warning!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me that that is all that @mikkel_the_dane ever does.

He can't even bring himself to acknowledge that saying something like "if I jump from the empire state building without technology guarding against the effects of gravity, I'll be suspended midair and be able to slowly descend to make for a soft landing and walk away unharmed" is an objectively incorrect statement.

Instead, he starts arguing semantics and engage in obfuscation about words like "incorrect" and "objective" and all kinds of other nonsense.

Yes, I can.
I just point out that it is not all of the world.
From this example you can't infer that it applies to all other human behavior. So your example doesn't work as you intend it to do.
That is the limit of your example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I can.

Then why have you consistently refused to do so? Why is it that EVERY TIME i mentioned it, you started (dishonestly) rambling about the meaning of words by moving goalposts, pretending meanings that only apply in different contexts then used in the statement and thereby obfuscating the entire thing into oblivion?

I just point out that it is not all of the world.

Nobody is talking about "all of the world". Next to a compulsive need to obfuscate, you also seem to have the greatest of problems with sticking to the poitns at hand.

From this example you can't infer that it applies to all other human behavior

The statement is not about human behavior. It's about the objective workings of gravity and the effect it has on a human body that falls from a skyscraper and what the inescapable result of that effect is.

So your example doesn't work as you intend it to do.

It does. The only problem is that you compulsively insist on pretending that my intent is something other then what I'm saying it is.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

PS herein we have another difference that shows science is not religion. Religion depends on absolute truth: as in, an absolute definition of a word or an absolute authority (some dictionary website); whereas science is not so prescriptive and rigid in the exploration of the natural world; so "theory" and "proof" have nuances of different meanings in different fields of study. Thanks for helping us demonstrate our assertion as true that science is not a religion.

 

[dad]

Do you even know what tree rings are?
I doubt it. If you did, you'ld realise how mega nonsensical what you just said really is...

Tell us then, where do you think you saw some error?

The issue is that trees now grow slowly in this nature, compared to how the records says they used to grow in the old world. Science has believed that the way trees now grow represents the time rings also formed in the former times.

Not sure what the issue in your head is that you could not actually post. Ha.

 

[ratiocinator]

Tell us then, where do you think you saw some error?

This is hilarious. Do you know why tree rings form?

 

[dad]

Do you have any idea at all about what science does?

Yes, of course. It spins fables. In regards to deep space they sit here in the fishbowl and try to model the universe by that perspective.

They aren't my conclusions - they have been built up in the same way as any scientific theory: by a process of observation or experiments, hypothesis building, more observation or experiments until we have a model that matches what we observe and is able to predict the outcome of new observations or experiments.

Doesn't matter whose they may or may not be! The issue is how sound are they and what is the basis?

What is observed is entirely consistent with it being exactly the same

That is silly. That is basically saying 'the view from the fishbowl looks normal to me'.

Unless time existed here the same as there who cares what time looks like to you here?? Never mind the fact we can't see time and science doesn't even know what it is!

. Of course - your god could be a liar and it might all be an illusion designed to fool us poor mortals - but otherwise all the evidence is that the same physics is working out there as in the solar system.

Not at all, He set up this world and area to have time and have it just as we experience it here. That does not tell us about time far far far far far far far away. If someone assumed that it was the same, and the result was a deceptive perception of what His universe was really like, that is not His fault.

What we have is copious amounts of evidence

Zero evidence. You have religion. When you automatically assume and believe things you cannot begin to prove or support about deep space, that is really not evidence.

 

[dad]

This is hilarious. Do you know why tree rings form?

That is hilarious. Do you realize it does not matter at all unless you can prove nature was the same? Unless you want to discuss recent history and growth of course. Obviously when Noah sent out a bird and there was no trees, and a week later there was fresh leaves from a tree growing, that would not represent the tree growth cycles and realities of trees today.

 

[dad]

PS herein we have another difference that shows science is not religion. Religion depends on absolute truth: as in, an absolute definition of a word or an absolute authority (some dictionary website); whereas science is not so prescriptive and rigid in the exploration of the natural world; so "theory" and "proof" have nuances of different meanings in different fields of study. Thanks for helping us demonstrate our assertion as true that science is not a religion.

So you are pointing out that science is unlike truth in an absolute way. OK. Nevertheless there are many religions that believe stuff that have no connection to truth. Science is just one of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tell us then, where do you think you saw some error?

The issue is that trees now grow slowly in this nature, compared to how the records says they used to grow in the old world. Science has believed that the way trees now grow represents the time rings also formed in the former times.

Not sure what the issue in your head is that you could not actually post. Ha.

I think you should at least go through the trouble of looking up how tree rings form and what they actually represent.

Hint: it's not mere growth or pace of growth.

Hint 2 : completion of seasonal cycles. aka, a year.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you realize it does not matter at all unless you can prove nature was the same?

Rings are due to different growth rates due to the seasons, that's why there is one per year. Yes, if nature was totally different so apparent season rings formed faster, then of course we "can't know". But this is the same as your nonsense about space and time and the stars. It's just making up a fairytale to avoid the clear evidence that you don't like.

It would, in effect, make your god a liar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is hilarious. Do you realize it does not matter at all unless you can prove nature was the same? Unless you want to discuss recent history and growth of course. Obviously when Noah sent out a bird and there was no trees, and a week later there was fresh leaves from a tree growing, that would not represent the tree growth cycles and realities of trees today.

yes yes, all trees in existance were planted just Last Thursday.

 

[dad]

We can definitely state that 7 day creation and "Evolution is a lie" as being factually incorrect statements because it makes statements on how the natural world works that is inconsistent with evidence and observable reality.

False. But we can say your statement is factually incorrect.

We can definitely state that there was no world wide flood, as this claim is opposed to practically everything we know about how the natural world works and an utter lack of evidence that isn't there

More inaccurate preaching.

Does life begin at conception? To answer that as "correct" or "incorrect", (Right or Wrong) one must have a precise definition of "life" and that definition agreed upon. Once this definition is agreed upon, we are then empowered to seek methods of observation and experimentation to answer that question and test the answer to determine if it is "correct" or "incorrect".

Science can't test that. It does not so much as even realize man is more than meat!

Is abortion wrong?

Yes.

 

[dad]

Rings are due to different growth rates due to the seasons, that's why there is one per year.

Thanks for the update, perhaps we may get some early grade school lurkers who may find that useful.

Yes, if nature was totally different so apparent season rings formed faster, then of course we "can't know".

Thank you for the admission. Was that so hard?
Therefore, anything built upon that premise is built upon the unknown and is not knowledge or science.

But this is the same as your nonsense about space and time and the stars. It's just making up a fairytale to avoid the clear evidence that you don't like.

Asking questions is not making stuff up actually. Asking what is known is a good thing. There is no evidence I do not like though. Really. Tree rings are fine. How space and time work in the area of the solar system is fine. Fossils are fine etc etc etc etc. ONLY your beliefs foisted ON them are not fine.

It would, in effect, make your god a liar.

No more than bring heaven to us would. The future and the past are different than the present in the bible. You seem to think that if both the future and past are not the same as now in nature, then God is a liar. No. In fact if things did not change how could I live forever?

 

[ratiocinator]

The future and the past are different than the present in the bible. You seem to think that if both the future and past are not the same as now in nature, then God is a liar.

No - what would make your god a liar is if the future and the past (and, according to you, out in space) were different in exactly the "right" way as to tell a false story to people who try to investigate it using evidence and reasoning. Which is what you are, in effect, saying.

Science isn't like your blind faith in an old book. Nobody decided on the answer and then went to look for how to fit the evidence to it. What science has concluded is what the evidence has led it to.