Into the Night
Contributor
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
...and you mentioned it again!
I already know you belong to the Church of No God.
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Lost context already?
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
I already know you belong to the Church of No God.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Into the Night
Contributor
Looks like you lost context again. That didn't take long.
ZenMode
Well-known member
If you can't test it, it's not science.
Almost all the decisions and choices you make in life are based on reason, logic, inference, or intuition.
Almost none of the decisions you make in life are based on a scientific experiment.
You have sufficient information to tell me which of these two options makes more sense logically:
Either a rational and lawful universe was somehow caused by the irrational, inanimate, and immaterial. Or the rational and lawful can only be caused by the rational and purposeful.
I told you 1,000 posts ago that reason and logical inference inform me that there was more to reality than matter and energy, and that a rational and lawful universe must have some type of higher rational agency or organizing principle.
And you are militantly atheist and practice an extreme form of confirmation bias to support your worldview. It's obvious that your reading choices are based on what you already know beforehand are going to support your worldview.
At least I have read some of the most important atheist intellectuals and authors of the 20th century.
Until you read an article by some atheist complaining about how flawed our eyesight and joints were, if never occurred to you that anything was seriously wrong. So you are so committed to atheist belief systems that you are willing to believe an atheist article over your own intuition and daily experience of life.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
bullshit.
you're a fool.
not all rationality is an experiment. well maybe for you.
oversimplified retardation.
you're simple and retarded.
the properties of things can be innate in themselves, and not dependant on a higher rationals agency.
no. he's an agnostic.
you're an idiotic cretin selling hogwash.
That's the first correct thing you have said on this thread.
It is correct that science only makes accurate predictions of the effects of gravity, of quantum fields, of dark matter. It explains how nature works.
Science does not answer the deeper philosophical questions of ultimate cause or purpose.
"Testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method, ensuring ideas are grounded in evidence rather than dogma. To be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable."bullshit!!!
-National Institute of Health
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
you keep asserting it does.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
but all science is not the scientific method.
hypothesizing is a preliminary stage of scientific thinking.
There is only the rational and the irrational.
There is no middle, intermediate option. One can't be just a little pregnant.
The question that keeps getting studiously avoided, is I'd like some to explain to me if it is reasonable and logical to believe the rational and lawful could be caused by the irrational, inanimate, and immaterial.
Speculation and informed guesswork are not unique to science. They happen in all human thought processes.
What is unique to science is that all scientific theories and hypothesis have to be testable. Otherwise, they are not science. They are just fancy, unsubstantiated guesses.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
I didn't say they were unique science.
I said they are scientific.
theories can be scientific yet untestable.
you're an idiot who only has word games.
Nope. A scientific theory by definition is a hypothesis that has been tested and confirmed....or one might say it was not falsified depending on the scientific lexicon one chooses to use.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
No, you literally used the word 'theory'. You're trying to change the meaning of what you actually wrote.
A proper hypothesis is testable.
If it's not testable, it's just speculation or intelligent guesswork.
Speculation and guesswork are not unique to science, and you can't pull those words aside and treat them as uniquely scientific.
ZenMode
Well-known member
So, The two primary explanations for how the universe came into existence are the Big bang and a sky wizard.
If the Big bang theory is not a scientific theory, what is it?
Correct. Logically speaking, science has never been proven wrong by religion. Religion has repeatedly been proven wrong by science.
The ability to write equations to explain some aspects of the universe doesn't mean the universe was created rationally or lawfully. As I've said several times, I could dump a bucket of tennis balls off my roof and, after the fact, an equation could be written to explain each individual balls movement. That doesn't mean I was somehow controlling how they bounce.
Except for the last where you see a micro-organized universe where one doesn't exist and the part where you forget that everything science has disproved religion continually while religion has never disproved science.
Recognizing design flaws has nothing to do with being atheist. Evolution isn't perfect. Evolution has nothing to do with religion or a belief in gods.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
I think a theory can also be untestable tho.
It's very convenient for you to equate what I've been talking about with your cartoon of a wizard in a white robe. I haven't asked you any questions about wizards, Viking gods, or a god of Abraham in a white robe.
The big bang is a scientific theory that explains how the universe started to expand.
It is not a theory of what actually caused the universe.
There is no scientific theory of first cause, and there never will be because it is a philosophical question.
Science and religion are asking different questions. Science does not answer any existential questions about purpose, meaning, love, free will or freedom. Science does not answer teleological questions of first cause or ultimate origin.
You're ignoring the question of why matter and energy follow mathematically rational and lawful rules.
Math is a system of pure logic. Surely you're not saying something as foolish as logic and rationality just suddenly appeared by chance from the inanimate and irrational.
Einstein was famously amazed that the universe is comprehensible, mathematical, rational.
The fact that you just take it for granted that the universe is lawful and rationally intelligible just suggests your education was limited to rote memorization - and you never thought about the really deep questions of ultimate reality.
Science has not disproved religion. The fact that we can make accurate predictions of velocity, momentum, energy, and conservation tell you nothing about ultimate first cause, purpose, or meaning.
Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both thought the rational intelligibility of the universe pointed to something really marvelous. For Newton, it was evidence of the Christian God. For Einstein it was a revelation of some type of universal Pantheism.
You only are aware of "design flaws" because of some atheist article you read.
Prior to that you took extreme delight in your eyesight and body when watching sunsets or playing golf. It didn't occur to you anything was seriously wrong.
You are not thinking about the deepest level of physical reality, in which the universal physical constants and fundamental forces of physics converge at the edge of a razor blade to make complex atomic matter possible.
.
Last edited: