Science ... NOT God ...

[Prestor John]

Are you this aggressive to everyone or only those you disagree with?

Nobody has disproven flying monkeys and pink unicorns either.

Let's try to stay on topic.

You might want to learn how the burden of proof works.

It appears that I may understand it better than you.

The onus for proof was upon you the moment you made the claim in post #71,

"...it doesn't exactly help [it's] case either when it is filled with magical stories that science keeps knocking out of the part one after the other...what with the magical gardens and the talking snakes and impossible floods that never happened and all that jazz."

You made the vague claim that these events recorded in the Book of Genesis (and other records) were refuted by "science".

You also claimed that these events were "magical", "impossible" and that they "never happened".

ps: biblical flood = disproven beyond refute.

I find this hard to believe considering that not all Biblical religions agree on what exactly the Deluge was.
[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6237288, member: 65929Do your own homework. It's your claim.[/QUOTE]
No, it is your claim.


All I did was dispute your claim.

 

[Prestor John]

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you to Prove The Garden of Even, pro-mortal intelligence of animals, and the Deluge.

How is that?

Did I ever make the claim that those things really happened?

All I did was dispute the other member's claim that those things had been disproved by "science".

I said, "No one has disproved the existence of the Garden of Eden, the pro-mortal intelligence of animals and the Deluge."

That is the truth. It is not a claim to the reality of any of these things.

Which these, among others, the theists have desperately tried to do, miserably failed, then wants to shift the burden or proof and rewrite the effective scientific process in order to put the responsibility on everyone else.

People can believe whatever they want without proof.

Considering that you were the one who opened this thread it is you that bears the burden of proof.

 

[Bear Wild]

No one has disproved the existence of the Garden of Eden, the pro-mortal intelligence of animals and the Deluge.

How would I go about doing that?

What do you mean by the pro-mortal intelligence of animals?

 

[Prestor John]

What do you mean by the pro-mortal intelligence of animals?

Oops. That is supposed to read "pre-mortal" intelligence of animals.

Before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and all the other creations upon the Earth had not yet entered into mortality.

It was the effects of the fruit that brought about the knowledge of good and evil and the conditions of mortality, such as; pain, sickness, weakness and death.

These effects are referred to as the Fall in the scriptures and before the Fall all animals could speak as men do.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oops. That is supposed to read "pre-mortal" intelligence of animals.

Before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and all the other creations upon the Earth had not yet entered into mortality.

It was the effects of the fruit that brought about the knowledge of good and evil and the conditions of mortality, such as; pain, sickness, weakness and death.

These effects are referred to as the Fall in the scriptures and before the Fall all animals could speak as men do.

So man eats fruit and god blames not just man but the animals too? Not a very intelligent god. Surely god could have figured out that the animals did not eat the wrong fruit. Very strange belief. Some animal do not eat fruit, just doesn't seem fair.
Also how did sponges, earthworms and jellyfish actually talk?

 

[Polymath257]

Oops. That is supposed to read "pre-mortal" intelligence of animals.

Before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and all the other creations upon the Earth had not yet entered into mortality.

It was the effects of the fruit that brought about the knowledge of good and evil and the conditions of mortality, such as; pain, sickness, weakness and death.

These effects are referred to as the Fall in the scriptures and before the Fall all animals could speak as men do.

Well, I guess nobody has proven the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn either.

 

[Audie]

Religion bad, people stupid, Genesis not true! Live in darkness, religion, boooo. 16thC wow, did you see that dude totally science the heck out that telescope bro? Facts! Wisdom! Science FTW! Man on the moon! In your face religion! Pow!

Uh, Poe's Law?

 

[Shad]

Why do most atheists respect science over religion?
Here's why:

I love this video.

The results.

Still waiting for Jesus to get back?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one has disproved the existence of the Garden of Eden, the pro-mortal intelligence of animals and the Deluge.

How would I go about doing that?

Actually that was done over one hundred years ago. A person's inability to understand does not mean that has not happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More or less but there are not versions of reality, if just is.

So gravity is not a part of reality, reality just is. Water is not a part of reality, reality, reality just is. So what is reality?

 

[PruePhillip]

Where religion -- Christianity in particular here -- fails is when it does. The Bible does give explanations on "how things work". It tells us to slaughter doves and spread the blood around as a treatment for leprosy, for example. It tells us that bats are birds and whales are fish, thus upending the classification systems of modern biology./QUOTE]

And the bible writers mentioned unicorns.
Remember?
Some say that 'unicorn' is a translation of a Hebrew word meaning 'hooved animal"
and had no bearing to modern folktales.
No matter, the bible says "unicorns" and we hold them to that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you this aggressive to everyone or only those you disagree with?

Aggressive? What was aggressive about my post?

Let's try to stay on topic.

I did. I replied directly to the points in your post...

It appears that I may understand it better than you.
The onus for proof was upon you the moment you made the claim in post #71,

"...it doesn't exactly help [it's] case either when it is filled with magical stories that science keeps knocking out of the part one after the other...what with the magical gardens and the talking snakes and impossible floods that never happened and all that jazz."

Evolution disproves the idea of Adam and Eve as "first humans".
Geology, biology and physics disprove the flood (no universal genetic bottleneck, no global flood layer in the geological column).

You made the vague claim that these events recorded in the Book of Genesis (and other records) were refuted by "science".

They are. The flood is directly refuted, as it makes testable predictions (among other things: a universal genetic bottleneck in all species and a global flood layer in the geological column and neither exists in the real world... therefor, the claim of the flood is false)

You also claimed that these events were "magical", "impossible" and that they "never happened".

Well, yes... they require the suspension and/or violation of natural law to one extent or another. That makes them magical.

The anatomy of snakes makes it impossible for them to be able to talk.

The details of the flood (dimensions of the boat, amount of water, etc) make the flood physically impossible.

These stories of the bible are completely and utterly incompatible with the findings of science in every sense.

I find this hard to believe

Fortunatly, reality doesn't depend on your beliefs.

considering that not all Biblical religions agree on what exactly the Deluge was.

The story as written in the book, is demonstrably false.
Also, if "biblical religions" can't even agree on what it was, then claiming it happened is pretty meaningless - as at that point, what is even being claimed? Something that isn't agreed upon / known / understood?

Might as well claim "gooblydockydoo". I don't know what it is, but it exists, trust me!

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6237288, member: 65929Do your own homework. It's your claim.

No, it is your claim.

All I did was dispute your claim.[/QUOTE]
What you are calling my claim, is just a response to the claims of the bible.

I am aware that plenty of them are demonstrably false, as explained above.
The larger point here however, is that such disproval isn't actually necessary.

Even if none of it could be disproven, that still doesn't make any of these stories credible by any stretch of the imagination. Not being able to disprove a thing, does not mean the thing can be regarded as correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said, "No one has disproved the existence of the Garden of Eden, the pro-mortal intelligence of animals and the Deluge."

That is the truth. It is not a claim to the reality of any of these things.

It's not the truth.

The flood has been disproven. It makes testable predictions and the predictions don't check out when tested. That makes the story false.

As for the other magical claims... the findings of science are incompatible with them. That makes them false as well.

People can believe whatever they want without proof.

Especially if they don't care about being rationally justified in their beliefs....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and all the other creations upon the Earth had not yet entered into mortality

So what did they eat?

These effects are referred to as the Fall in the scriptures and before the Fall all animals could speak as men do.

Through magic?
Certainly not through their anatomy, because their anatomy doesn't allow for speaking.
Or did the magical fruit also magically change their anatomy?

 

[ChristineM]

So gravity is not a part of reality, reality just is. Water is not a part of reality, reality, reality just is. So what is reality?

What? Where does that nonsense come from?

Gravity can be measured

So can water

I have already given the definition of reality that you considered invalid, that is not my problem and i do not go around in circles

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What? Where does that nonsense come from?

Gravity can be measured

So can water

I have already given the definition of reality that you considered invalid, that is not my problem and i do not go around in circles

The guy has much trouble with the word "reality", for some strange reason. He seems to be compulsive in confusing everything, including himself.

 

[ChristineM]

The guy has much trouble with the word "reality", for some strange reason. He seems to be compulsive in confusing everything, including himself.

Thanks for that,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The guy has much trouble with the word "reality", for some strange reason. He seems to be compulsive in confusing everything, including himself.

I like words about reality. Here are some:
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Objective: having reality independent of the mind
There are 3 versions of reality:

• Reality in total
• Reality as objective
• Reality as subjective

I can hold all 3.
And I know you do it differently. So you pick your definition and I pick mine. Words are so funny. So what is really real?

And BTW imagination and its connects are real, otherwise we couldn't talk about them. Now how that matches the rest of reality is another fun round of words.

And again: There are at least 5 versions of truth:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

So you keep your truth and I keep mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I like words about reality. Here are some:
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Objective: having reality independent of the mind
There are 3 versions of reality:

• Reality in total
• Reality as objective
• Reality as subjective

I can hold all 3.
And I know you do it differently. So you pick your definition and I pick mine. Words are so funny. So what is really real?

And BTW imagination and its connects are real, otherwise we couldn't talk about them. Now how that matches the rest of reality is another fun round of words.

And again: There are at least 5 versions of truth:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

So you keep your truth and I keep mine.

Thanks for that,

See what I mean?

 

[Augustus]

I'm working my way through these, but it is clear already that this guy doesn't really understand what it means to do science. So, for example, when he notes that Newton was a natural Philosopher, he failed to note that Newton actually *did* science: observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, modification of hypothesis. That *is* the scientific method.

IIRC (going from memory here and not watched them for a while so could be misremembering) that's not really what he is getting at though. He's not talking about when certain aspects of experimental natural philosophy, with hindsight and if taken in isolation, could have potentially been called science, but that in its time science didn't exist conceptually in the manner it does today (and neither did religion).

So he's not saying Newton didn't do anything that could count as science (he is aware that Newton used scientific methods), but that the idea of science as a specific field of enquiry distinct from philosophy (and theology) was not really in existence.

You are making the point that we can say science existed when the scientific method existed (which is fair enough), and he's making a point about how science emerged as a distinct and reified concept concerned with the cumulative and progressive acquisition of knowledge.

He does have a point in that the *words* religion and science have changed over time.

It's not just semantics though but how these concepts fitted in to an overall worldview, and how this evolved in the Western intellectual tradition.