"God is my ATM, prayer is my PIN"

[Cavebear]

If there was a deity, it would not be anywhere as cruel or vaguely understandable as generally depicted.  But since there isn't one, the subject is sort of irrelevant.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think I understand the real reason Creationists hate science so much.  It isn't simply because it makes them related to "dirty animals".

First world science has produced a lifestyle that would be considered heaven just a few centuries ago.  Earth is supposed to be sinful and painful.  Science is countering "Adam's curse".

[alexxmedeiros]

I think I understand the real reason Creationists hate science so much.  It isn't simply because it makes them related to "dirty animals".

First world science has produced a lifestyle that would be considered heaven just a few centuries ago.  Earth is supposed to be sinful and painful.  Science is countering "Adam's curse".

In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blackleaf]

In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)

[Baruch]

In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)

Honest pursuit of quantifiable facts.  Truth isn't x+y=z or my current weight is 200 lbs.  Truth is I am typing with my right and left hands.  Truth isn't propositional, it is personal.  People develop theories about what the quantifiable facts mean ... but that is always provisional ... Newton vs Einstein.  Newton and Einstein were truth ... not their theories ... which disagree.  There are many ways to draw a curve thru data points, it is a matter of perception, which curve should be chosen, and a matter of judgement.  The data points themselves, within measurement error ... are the only facts.  But "matter of judgement" means ... having to trust the science clergy are doing a good job ... you are not relying on your own work, just on a textbook (aka scripture).

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I suspect that if prayer actually worked the Trumpster Fire would already be the king of the earth.

[Mike Cl]

In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God--I will say this--you seem to like to wallow in the 'stupid'--but you seem to be very good at it. 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In order to do science you must first acknowledge that the Christian God exists... or else your worldview will be reduced to absurdity.

2H2 + O2 = 2H20

Where is the Christian God in that equation?

[alexxmedeiros]

In order to do science, you have to enter it with the assumption that the Christian God exists? You clearly have no idea what the purpose of the scientific method is. (Hint: It's to avoid bias in an honest pursuit of truth.)

You can perform the scientific method I'll grant you that. However you have no way to justify the presuppositions that you must hold in order to perform it. One of those presuppositions include the uniformity of nature.

Here's a question for you, how do you know that tomorrow will be like the past? How do you know that the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexxmedeiros]

God--I will say this--you seem to like to wallow in the 'stupid'--but you seem to be very good at it.

We rely on the laws of nature to stay the same in order to perform the Scientific Method. If we believed that the laws of nature were going to change we could have no idea of what would change in our experiments. So, how can you be certain that tomorrow the laws of nature will be the same as they were in the past?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alexxmedeiros]

2H2 + O2 = 2H20

Where is the Christian God in that equation?

You just made a knowledge claim with that equation. How do you know that? Could you be wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

We rely on the laws of nature to stay the same in order to perform the Scientific Method. If we believed that the laws of nature were going to change we could have no idea of what would change in our experiments. So, how can you be certain that tomorrow the laws of nature will be the same as they were in the past?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, we do not rely on the laws of nature to be the same to perform the scientific method.  And we would not know what the laws of nature are without the scientific method.  And we don't know that those laws are the same in all parts of this universe.  We will have to use the scientific method in different parts of the universe to find that out.

Let me run this by you--I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow.  But I think it will, since the past couple of million years (at least) the sun has risen--so, if some day the sun does not rise, I'll then change my mind about it.  But I am very certain that the discovered theories about the laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after.  But if you are unsure, you can easily test those theories.  And if they change, then you can publish those results and others can then perform the same tests you did and it will be accepted that that rule changed. 

In the world of religion one cannot prove anything--it is all personal and subjective.

[alexxmedeiros]

No, we do not rely on the laws of nature to be the same to perform the scientific method.  And we would not know what the laws of nature are without the scientific method.  And we don't know that those laws are the same in all parts of this universe.  We will have to use the scientific method in different parts of the universe to find that out.

Let me run this by you--I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow.  But I think it will, since the past couple of million years (at least) the sun has risen--so, if some day the sun does not rise, I'll then change my mind about it.  But I am very certain that the discovered theories about the laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after.  But if you are unsure, you can easily test those theories.  And if they change, then you can publish those results and others can then perform the same tests you did and it will be accepted that that rule changed. 

In the world of religion one cannot prove anything--it is all personal and subjective.

In order to use the scientific method you are presupposing that the law of gravity, for example, is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today and in the past. If you didn't know if it was going to change or not then you would have no justification.

Saying that you think the sun will rise tomorrow because it's always rose in the past is a circular argument. In fact, using that reasoning I can conclude that I will never die because I never died in the past.

Are you certain that the "discovered laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after."? Could you be wrong about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blackleaf]

Could you be wrong about that?

Would you stop asking that question? Anything is possible, but unless you have evidence to support that the law of gravity is wrong, there is no reason to humor such a stupid question.

[Mike Cl]

In order to use the scientific method you are presupposing that the law of gravity, for example, is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today and in the past. If you didn't know if it was going to change or not then you would have no justification.

Saying that you think the sun will rise tomorrow because it's always rose in the past is a circular argument. In fact, using that reasoning I can conclude that I will never die because I never died in the past.

Are you certain that the "discovered laws of nature will be the same today, as tomorrow and the day after."? Could you be wrong about that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is.  It cannot be used to predict the future.  You can test the theory of gravity all you want and that will show that gravity exists where and when you tested it.  In order to be sure about gravity tomorrow, you have to test for it then.  You can then string the results of many tests over many time frames and see if it changes over time or not.  If not, one can surmise that that is a pattern that will hold.  But to be sure, one needs to test for gravity again after several time periods and note any change. 

As for comparing the rising sun to personal death, that is an analogy that does not hold.  I've seen death all of my life, so I realize that one day I will die--no escape.  I have never seen a day in which the sun did not rise.  Not the same thing at all. 

And the theories of nature will hold forever; or until they are proven wrong.  They will be the same today, tomorrow and forever--or until the theories are proven wrong. 

But your life view will change all the time.  It has changed over time and tomorrow it will be different as well.  No religion is the same as it was in the past or what it will be in the future.  Nothing--not one thing--can be proven about any religion.  When you go to church, the person to your left will have a different set of rules to live by and the person to your right will have a set unique to him/her; and so on for all the people in that church.  You cannot know any truth about anything, for you don't believe in thinking; you believe in belief and faith, which believes thinking to be evil and counterproductive.