Science&Logic-Flawed?

[michel]

Perhaps a question that might be worth bearing on this matter (and I apologize, since I haven't been following the debate in quite as much depth as I should have) is that if science cannot disprove the idea of a god or gods, and faith cannot disprove science...

Unless it's being used for purposes of being rude to one another, why does it even matter?

But then we would'nt be able to have these lengthy debates.........:biglaugh:

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Fade,

Religion has provided us answers that science can not hope to. You may choose to disagree and that is your right. It still doesn't change reality. Science can't prove love: does that make "love" made up? Science has tried to quantify love in terms of chemicals, pheremones and survival instincts. So far it has been completely unsuccessful in doing so. They have yet to determine is love caused the chemicals or if the chemicals caused the love.

It is easy for those who put their COMPLETE FAITH in science to talk dispargingly about those of us who see it's limitations. The sarcasm and condescension only gets in the way of open discussion and makes us want to lash back out. They mock us for our "blind faith" and yet display a remarkable amount of it themselves. I don't discount science, but I sure see that it has limits.

Finally, you seem to think that because I reject your hypothesis and arguments that I don't understand them. It's because I fully understand them that I reject them.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh yeah, Spinks...

good synopsis of abiogenesis. It still does not prove where life came from. It still does not prove that the "spark" did not come from God. There is a lot of faith used to accept this as THE way life originated. Your religion (atheism) dictates that you find a way around God. My religion dictates that God is found in everything. We look at the same evidence and our biases enable us to come to completely different conclusions.

Deut: I am not stupid for believing in God. I am not pathetic. I am not dishonest. I am not lazy. Thanks for your concern.

 

[Fade]

Dear Fade,

Religion has provided us answers that science can not hope to. You may choose to disagree and that is your right. It still doesn't change reality. Science can't prove love: does that make "love" made up? Science has tried to quantify love in terms of chemicals, pheremones and survival instincts. So far it has been completely unsuccessful in doing so. They have yet to determine is love caused the chemicals or the chemicals caused the love.

It is easy for those who put their COMPLETE FAITH in science to talk dispargingly about those of us who see it's limitations. The sarcasm and condescension only gets in the way of open discussion and makes us want to lash back out. They mock us for our "blind faith" and yet display a remarkable amount of it themselves. I don't discount science, but I sure see that it has limits.

Finally, you seem to think that because I reject your hypothesis and arguments that I don't understand them. It's because I fully understand them that I reject them.

How has religion proved love?

I have zero faith in Science. Faith in this case in the sense that you have Faith in your religion. There is a difference.

You reject my arguments because you don't fully understand them.

 

[michel]

How has religion proved love?

I have zero faith in Science. Faith in this case in the sense that you have Faith in your religion. There is a difference.

You reject my arguments because you don't fully understand them.

"I have zero faith in Science" ??? do you mean that?

 

[Fade]

Oh yeah, Spinks...

good synopsis of abiogenesis. It still does not prove where life came from. It still does not prove that the "spark" did not come from God. There is a lot of faith used to accept this as THE way life originated. Your religion (atheism) dictates that you find a way around God. My religion dictates that God is found in everything. We look at the same evidence and our biases enable us to come to completely different conclusions.

Deut: I am not stupid for believing in God. I am not pathetic. I am not dishonest. I am not lazy. Thanks for your concern.

And the wonder of science is that it enables you to draw those conclusions. By gathering data and investigating. Asking science to prove that something comes from God means you still don't understand what science is.

Atheism is not a religion and certainly doesn't dictate that anyone find a way around god.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Religion has provided us answers that science can not hope to.

I agree with this, NetDoc. Religion deals with subjective matters of humans such as spirituality, and that is something that science cannot even address. However, I am sure you agree that science provides some answers that religion cannot hope to. Religious texts were never meant to be science books, for instance.

Science can't prove love: does that make "love" made up? Science has tried to quantify love in terms of chemicals, pheremones and survival instincts. So far it has been completely unsuccessful in doing so. They have yet to determine is love caused the chemicals or the chemicals caused the love.

"Love" is a word invented by humans to explain certain feelings they experience, etc. I would agree that there are spiritual aspects of love which have nothing to do with science, but as far as the chemical workings of the brain, releases of endorphins, etc., science can explain what makes us feel the way we do.

It is easy for those who put their COMPLETE FAITH in science to talk dispargingly about those of us who see it's limitations.

NetDoc, this statement is ad hominem. Certainly science has limitations. First of all, as I mentioned earlier it cannot address "spirituality". Second of all, science is a bit indecisive at times, and it takes awhile before science ever finally settles on something. However, when it comes to the workings of the natural world, science knows best.

I wonder, NetDoc, if you would be willing to apply the same standards to your religion that you do to science? I see religion as being extremely limiting, do you? You demand perfection from science, and yet you accept no criticism when it comes to your religion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have zero faith in Science.

It's good to see you come around. I concur with your statement here.

You reject my arguments because you don't fully understand them.

Yes, yes, and white is black. Your arguments are not that well reasoned or compelling. Understanding them is easy to do and rejecting them is even easier. Only arrogance will make anyone feel that their arguments are that lofty or above reproach.

 

[Scuba Pete]

However, I am sure you agree that science provides some answers that religion cannot hope to. Religious texts were never meant to be science books, for instance.

Frubals on your head for this. I have always believed this.

NetDoc, this statement is ad hominem.

That statement is an observation and ultimately an appeal to some to stop talking down to us. Rejection of an argument does not mean we don't understand the argument.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Rejection of an argument does not mean we don't understand the argument.

That is very true. However, in my experience, many people cite incorrect evidence, or simply dismiss correct evidence that is offered to them, and these actions display a lack of understanding and willingness to learn, in my opinion.

 

[michel]

I agree with this, NetDoc. Religion deals with subjective matters of humans such as spirituality, and that is something that science cannot even address. However, I am sure you agree that science provides some answers that religion cannot hope to. Religious texts were never meant to be science books, for instance.

If I may make a point here:

If God would have wanted to, He could have written the Bible to be just as scientific a tome was it is spiritual. But He chose not to. Why? Because He is much more interested in our souls, than our bodies.

Another point, is that had He done so, the Bible would be even larger than it is now, and, face it, how many people read it as "short" as it is now?

 

[Scuba Pete]

or simply dismiss correct evidence

This unfortunately true on BOTH sides of most issues. Even more unfortunately, when different opinions are drawn from the same evidence, one or both sides of the issue assumes that the other has simply dismissed the evidence.

It has long been my assertion that you shouldn't try to hammer nails with a screwdriver or install srews with a hammer. Two different tool sets are needed to discern the spiritual and the physical aspects of our lives.

 

[Tawn]

Science is what we humans use as a way of learning about the world, even the universe around us using methods based upon logic. The problem is, logic, and therefore science, has at least one glaring flaw that i cannot get around(maybe someone can prove me wrong so I can sleep better at night). If you see a cat, logically you know that the cat must have been born, and that it must die as well. So if we look at the universe, it must have come from somewhere, and there must be an end.

So we run into a problem.

a) Everything cannot have a beginning, there must be something that has existed, and always will, which flies in the face of everything I know about science and logic.

b) Everything must have a beginning, which flies in the face of everything I know about science and logic.

Either way, science and logic have a major flaw, so since both A and B are equally impossible, we are in a sort of quandry arn't we.

Not really. Why should everything be the same? Whats the problem with some things having a beginning and others not having a beginning?
Youre other flaw is that you think the cat has a beginning. Its has a beginning of sorts.. but its more a transformation. Every piece of matter and energy that constitute that cat existed in one form or another prior to the cat being alive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh yeah, Spinks...

good synopsis of abiogenesis. It still does not prove where life came from.

I completely agree. (This is indeed true of all scientific pursuits, as all conclusions in science are approximate and subject to change with changing evidence. Science generally cannot "prove" things, but it can give us confidence in some explanations over others.)

It still does not prove that the "spark" did not come from God.

I agree.

There is a lot of faith used to accept this as THE way life originated.

Abiogenesis consists of a number of competing theories, so one does not have to accept any of them as "THE way" life originated. I can't speak for others, but my confidence that life came from the chemical evolution of organic compounds (and please note that confidence is not the same as absolute certainty) is based on the evidence I quoted (and a bunch of fascinating experiments/observations that are explained in the links I provided, which I encourage everyone to read).

If life had not come from the chemical evolution of organic compounds, there would have been plenty of opportunities to demonstrate it scientifically. Geologists could have found evidence that the early Earth could not have supported organic molecules. Astronomers could have found that there would not have been any intense bombardment of Earth which provided the mechanism of natural selection and catalyzed the chemical evolution of organic molecules. Biologists could have observed that complete, living cells form in the lab suddenly (rather than gradually) from inorganic chemicals. Chemists could have shown that inorganic molecules cannot form organic molecules, or that organic molecules could not have formed more complex entities which could have been primitive (though still technically nonliving) organisms. If any of these things had happened, I would very much doubt basic claims of abiogenesis, because my confidence in abiogenesis depends on the observable evidence, not on religious faith. But those things didn't happen, and independent studies in parallel fields all support the notion that life came from the chemical evolution of organic compounds (which themselves came from inorganic compounds).

Your religion (atheism) dictates that you find a way around God. My religion dictates that God is found in everything. We look at the same evidence and our biases enable us to come to completely different conclusions.

I don't agree that atheism is a religion or that it "dictates" anything, but more importantly, abiogenesis says nothing about the god of the Bible or any other god or mystical being. Zeus, ghosts, YHWH, and demons could all exist whether or not life came from the chemical evolution of primitive organic molecules. I know a number of Christians who have no problem accepting abiogenesis.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't even think that -I- have a problem with it in as much as God used it as he does any of his prodigious number of tools. My point was that science fails to hand us the origins of life. In that it fails because it was never intended to give that to us.

Some believe that it will, and to that I applaud their faith.

 

[Ceridwen018]

In that it fails because it was never intended to give that to us.

I think science most certainly is intended to answer the question of, "The Origins of Life". After all, such a question deals with the workings of the natural world. As you say, NetDoc, God can always be involved in scientific theories as in, "God uses the laws of physics to do that" or "God uses evolution to do this", etc., but I don't see why science won't someday be able to more accurately address the issues of how life originated from inorganic molecules, where the first energy and matter came from, etc.

 

[michel]

DId you know that the faster you go, the slower time goes?

So the faster we type, the less we say?

LOL --- just kidding!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't even think that -I- have a problem with it in as much as God used it as he does any of his prodigious number of tools. My point was that science fails to hand us the origins of life.

Could you clarify this point, please? What do you mean that "science fails to hand us the origins of life"? Do you agree or disagree that there is good scientific evidence that life originated via the chemical evolution of organic molecules?

In that it fails because it was never intended to give that to us.

Even if I knew what you meant by science "handing us" an explanation of something, what you're saying here still makes absolutely no sense. If something does not do what it was "never intended" to do, how does that constitute "failing"?

Do you still contend that science cannot (for reasons you have yet to reveal) ever discover how the first cells evolved? What 'flaws' in science and/or logic prevent us from ever possibly discovering how the first cells evolved, yet allow us to discover how the first rodents evolved, and how the first manatees evolved, and how a countless number of other organisms evolved?

 

[michel]

Do you agree or disagree that there is good scientific evidence that life originated via the chemical evolution of organic molecules?

If I may butt in here for a moment with a quick question:

If "science" said that human life came from the ocean, and the Bible said man was created from the dust of the ground, which explanation would you pursue?

The ocean or the ground?

 

[Fade]

If I may butt in here for a moment with a quick question:

If "science" said that human life came from the ocean, and the Bible said man was created from the dust of the ground, which explanation would you pursue?

The ocean or the ground?

Since the genesis account of creation is a myth (not even an original one at that) in the same way that the Earth being a disc travelling on the back of a giant turtle is a myth, I would pursue the scientific avenue.