Good News Christians!

WaltL1 · Mar 5, 2015

JB0704 said:
I don't know about science, but scientists do have some arrogance about them......most folks who claim authority on any topic are. The same could also be said for literature professors, preachers, lawyers, etc.

Science itself begins with humility. It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.

First I agree assumption are merely that - assumptions.
But I think there are different levels of assuming. Some are based on evidence (doesn't necessarily make the assumption correct) and some are based on just about nothing. Of course evidence can be skewed to fit one's assumptions.
But it is true that in science assumptions stay assumptions until proven to be more than that.

ambush80 · Mar 5, 2015

WaltL1 said:
First I agree assumption are merely that - assumptions.
But I think there are different levels of assuming. Some are based on evidence (doesn't necessarily make the assumption correct) and some are based on just about nothing. Of course evidence can be skewed to fit one's assumptions.
But it is true that in science assumptions stay assumptions until proven to be more than that.

Would you say that inferring that Multiverses could exist based on current maths and understanding of physical properties of matter is akin to looking at a leaf or a child, marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?

Do you see a difference in the strength of the inferrences between the two examples and the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?

WaltL1 · Mar 5, 2015

ambush80 said:
Would you say that inferring that Multiverses could exist based on current maths and understanding of physical properties of matter is akin to looking at a leaf or a child and and marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?

Do you see a difference in the strength of the inferrence between the two examples and the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?

I might need you to simplify or reword the question because Im not sure Im getting it but I think your questions might be covered by this -

But I think there are different levels of assuming

Physical properties and matter are things that actually do exist so the inference is at least drawn from something real. That doesn't make the inference proven however.
Whereas -

looking at a leaf or a child and and marveling at the complexity and then inferring a god?

Is strictly a matter of belief. There is nothing "real" between looking at the leaf or child and the inference of God.

the position of absolute truth that's drawn (or not) from them?

I don't see how either one of them can be claimed to be a position of absolute truth as neither one has been proven to be true.
If my response is heading in the wrong direction please simplify the question(s) for me and I'll take another shot at it.

ambush80 · Mar 5, 2015

WaltL1 said:
I might need you to simplify or reword the question because Im not sure Im getting it but I think your questions might be covered by this -

Physical properties and matter are things that actually do exist so the inference is at least drawn from something real. That doesn't make the inference proven however.
Whereas -

Is strictly a matter of belief. There is nothing "real" between looking at the leaf or child and the inference of God.

I don't see how either one of them can be claimed to be a position of absolute truth as neither one has been proven to be true.
If my response is heading in the wrong direction please simplify the question(s) for me and I'll take another shot at it.

Awwwww Walt. You understood my question completely and answered it. Thanks.

Israel · Mar 5, 2015

WaltL1 said:
You can do better than that Israel.
I hope.

I think you know what's meant. Science as a method, can be made to sound as pure a concept and pursuit as men can attribute.
And, it's not the only one.

gemcgrew · Mar 6, 2015

660griz said:
If a man follows a process, nay, adheres to a procedure, and that process yields consistent results. Could thouest sayeth the procedure worketh?
Yay, I say unto thee, readeth between the lines.

It worketh the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

660griz · Mar 6, 2015

gemcgrew said:
It worketh the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Still better than most holy works.

ted_BSR · Mar 22, 2015

Israel said:
Science doesn't work, scientists do.

Yes indeed.

An interesting video, and it supports a long standing theory that I have. This scientist is obviously very intelligent, but he misunderstands science. It is a very common occurrence. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does not discover anything either. People discover things, and use science to support or not support their hypotheses. When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.

My answer to the op's question is, no, science has not proven the existence of God. It can't prove anything because of the nature of the definition of its process.

WaltL1 · Mar 22, 2015

ted_BSR said:
Yes indeed.

An interesting video, and it supports a long standing theory that I have. This scientist is obviously very intelligent, but he misunderstands science. It is a very common occurrence. Science doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does not discover anything either. People discover things, and use science to support or not support their hypotheses. When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.

My answer to the op's question is, no, science has not proven the existence of God. It can't prove anything because of the nature of the definition of its process.

When you make the leap to saying things like "prove" or "disprove", you have left the rails of science.

I'm not sure I agree but I'm definitely making no claims of having more than a basic understanding of science.
I agree that a person (not science) had an "idea" of a vaccine that would combat polio.
Exactly what would the process be called of injecting people and seeing if it worked or not if not scientific? And didn't the process do more than just support the idea that the vaccine would work but actually prove if it worked it or not?
Seems like attempting to separate scientist out from science is like separating the hierarchy out of the Church.

ted_BSR · Mar 22, 2015

WaltL1 said:
I'm not sure I agree but I'm definitely making no claims of having more than a basic understanding of science.
I agree that a person (not science) had an "idea" of a vaccine that would combat polio.
Exactly what would the process be called of injecting people and seeing if it worked or not if not scientific? And didn't the process do more than just support the idea that the vaccine would work but actually prove if it worked it or not?
Seems like attempting to separate scientist out from science is like separating the hierarchy out of the Church.

Science is actually pretty basic. It's when people add things that the scientific method does not include, like proof that it can get confusing. Proof is in our minds. We observe, and we believe, or not.

bullethead · Mar 22, 2015

ted_BSR said:
Science is actually pretty basic. It's when people add things that the scientific method does not include, like proof that it can get confusing. Proof is in our minds. We observe, and we believe, or not.

I'll take observe and believe or not over unable to observe and believe or not.

ted_BSR · Mar 22, 2015

bullethead said:
I'll take observe and believe or not over unable to observe and believe or not.

One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe. Timing, location, attention span, bias, acuteness of faculties, distractions and so on... might limit one's powers of observation. Not that mine are better or more correct, my statement is simply an example.

660griz · Mar 23, 2015

ted_BSR said:
One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe.

So true. Especially if one has Schizophrenia, or other mental illness that causes hallucinations, and the other doesn't.
Or, perhaps one is in need of Lasik.

JB0704 · Mar 23, 2015

660griz said:
So true. Especially if one has Schizophrenia, or other mental illness that causes hallucinations, and the other doesn't.
Or, perhaps one is in need of Lasik.

I fish with a fella who is a way better fisherman than I am. This dude "observes" things that are completely hidden to me. Always catches more/bigger fish than I do fishing the same spot, same bait, everything.

Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.

660griz · Mar 23, 2015

JB0704 said:
Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.

Yes. Observation is a skill. Experience and knowledge can greatly improve that skill.

JB0704 · Mar 23, 2015

660griz said:
Yes. Observation is a skill. Experience and knowledge can greatly improve that skill.

Yep. I just wanted to point out that the schizophrenic aren't the only folks with insight

660griz · Mar 23, 2015

JB0704 said:
Yep. I just wanted to point out that the schizophrenic aren't the only folks with insight

Gotcha. Except my example is of things that are actually not there but seen. Yours is things that may be there, you just can't see.

JB0704 · Mar 23, 2015

660griz said:
Yours is things that may be there, you just can't see.

Yep.......a better example in this conversation, I do believe.

660griz · Mar 23, 2015

JB0704 said:
Yep.......a better example in this conversation, I do believe.

Annnnnd, we're out.

JB0704 · Mar 23, 2015

JB0704 said:
It's when it assumes answers which are not, cannot be known that it kind-a loses touch with that aspect.

To follow up this post.....I was watching something about dinosaurs this weekend on one of the dinosaur channels. The entire episode, while trying to educate the audience on dinosaurs, was entirely lacking in any scientific evidence beyond the size/shape of the dinos.

Seriously.....it went through this extensive discussion on how this one particular dino found mates. Down to saying "it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth." :huh:

One assumption after the other, including a demo on what the mate-finding nest would ahve looked like, and what the calls sounded like. Nothing but speculation. It was entertainment disguised as science. Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.

On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces? Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.

Good News Christians!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

BANNED

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Senior Member

I Gots Goats

Similar threads

Share this page