Should science be only for atheists

Just laying a bit of ground work in standard pedagogy

If you can't grasp these points, you have graver epistemological issues afoot
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually mission impossible is calling upon the authority of empiricism to validate spurious claims.

You are talking closer to pseudo science than science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've repeatedly accused me of being unable to conceive of a God who is not dualistic. Obviously I can. When invested in an exploration of such matters I no longer conceive of God as being supernatural, but rather as a greater reality from which nature derives. But obviously I can only maintain this position if I believe it to be actually true. How do you suggest that I reach such a conclusion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Show.

 

You only changed your tune a few posts ago (and even then, only for the sake of argument, which is fair enough)

By entering into that greater reality of course

Suppose someone was a successful applicant for an interview for a prestigious university (ie at the threshold of entering into what you might deem a "greater reality" of sorts).

Would the successful applicant humble themself before the overseers or would they tell them that if they were really such a great place of learning, they would give them 15 minutes to make an impression on them?

 

On the contrary

You show.

Of course you can't.

All you can do is post whacky colorful pictures with cryptic headings or stanzas of absurd poetry that you have copy/pasted from other web pages

:shrug:

 

Look into biology see how complex a cell function , you need wisdom to put something like that to function , SUCH arrangement randomly to occur would be a miracle in itself. Then look into chemistry so far since 1953 Miller started to putz around in controlled environment up to the present nothing made yet and to put nucleic acid together so far nothing, So the energy and wisdom must come fro somewhere and that is from before the Big Bang . How sure are we there was a big bang , well science does not have a theory what was before Big Bang. science does not talk about before Big bang. So at the end what do we have ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have been deeply invested in such explorations many times (and not just for the sake of argument), as previously mentioned. But for some reason you just wouldn't accept that as the truth.

Been there, done that. And properly too. Of course that's not really what I think actually happened anymore.

I've been in the situation that your analogy is constructed to characterize, and I did indeed humble myself as is appropriate in such circumstances. My experiences as a Christian were on the whole very positive. I learned much about myself, about others, and about Christian theology. I embraced the experience in every way that a Christian should, but in the end I simply evolved beyond it. It's a long story that spans many years, but my own personal evolution didn't end with God, in many ways it started there.

You will no doubt assume that I'm just one of those people who have lost faith due to some silly theological difficulty that could easily be resolved if I was willing to resolve it, but it's way beyond that and would require a whole other type of discussion to properly explore.

In any case, I am unable to maintain the position that a greater reality that you call God (and which nature derives from) actually exists in reality. I will concede that it is empirically untestable (and therefore unfalsifiable) of course, but I would also maintain the same position about the multiverse. I believe that it may be real, and I ponder the implications of such, but I would never demand that anyone assign the quality of actual existence to it.

 

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. The Universe flashed into being. How can athiests explain it?

No, could a theist explain it? No.

Why subscribe to certainty when its outside the scope of understanding. You guys are really full of yourselfes no?

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Your explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter is JUST as valid as the theory of god; since we cannot conduct the proper investigation.

Why does the universe follow uniform laws in nature?? Are you guys implying that there is no "intelligence" in the universe? Can we say this intelligence is god? Or atleast render it a possibility?

 

you didn't show anything
:shrug:

 

An Intelligent Being could not be First.

THE NATURAL HAPPENINGS Why these little subatomic things, ask the wise, in such amounts and of their special size? Well, I agree that this shows they had to be made, as we see from the causeless quantum’s shade—it’s been shown by aspect there’s nothing there, underneath this necessarily indefinite disorder, whence opposite particles become, unbidden, for causes beneath causes would have no border. So, from this causeless bottom, where bucks stop, hails the ultimate freedom to live and be a lot. This scheme, too, hints that the ultimate yore, if it could ever be, would need cause all the more! Yet, at this very point, which is not an answer, but a call to think no more, and surrender, religion introduces complexity infinite for the downwardly simpler bottom unit. So, there’s no answer given, but only a larger mystery of the one and only, one that is an infinitely larger question there, rendering the entire ‘answer’ much beyond repair.

While both science and religion claim the causeless, they are as opposite as could be, none the less, for one finds no specifics there, none at all, while the other imagines God’s perfect ordered all. If all the above opposed were not bad enough, there is entirely insufficient evidence for God; zero, in fact, in the face of the opposite there, for the one who is supposed to be everywhere. Beyond even the total absence of evidence for the interceding ruler, an obvious nonpresence, leading to the sure evidence of absence, is that a first cause can have no reason to it.

Humanists [nontheists] push science forward, God naturally flunking out, with no push backward, while creationists, with nothing of to push forward, ever attempt to push science backward. This, then, is the end of faith’s season, it becoming the celebration of rational reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQsKANm44s

 

Show how a Being could be First; I showed why it couldn't be.

Then have a crack at the rest.

 

as mentioned before, you only started acknowledging a few posts ago.

Before you were speaking like this :

Until you (or anyone else) can demonstrate otherwise, any demand that we refer to such a greater reality as natural rather than supernatural is absurd.

the issues to be resolved aren't silly.
Surmounting one's conditioned nature is the hardest thing one can ever attempt to do, namely because for the most part the final grade is at the point of death.

Do you remain unconvinced about all things empirically untestable?
Or do you have a range of epistemological tools to fit a range of knowable claims?

 

You didn't show anything except that a being like yourself couldn't be first

 

Accusing you of being unable to conceive of a reality within which God is not present simply because you have done nothing but argue for his existence in this thread would be just as ridiculous as what you're trying to argue above.

Indeed, but I managed to overcome some of that conditioning quite well.

Ultimately, yes.

I don't see how these last two questions are necessarily mutually exclusive considering that even some of the most robust scientific theories model reality using mathematical frameworks that while seemingly accurately describing and predicting certain events may not be presenting a proper account of what is actually happening physically. With that in mind many (if not all) metaphysical assertions should be considered tentative.

 

so what mathematical frameworks do you utilize to know that your wife loves you?

Or that the person claiming to be your mother is in fact your biological parent?

Or do even persons so adamantly empirically robust as yourself have other epistemological tools available?

 

Let's just skip all the bullshit and head right to where this is obviously going.

To a very real extent I take certain things on faith. I can not prove that my wife loves me, or that my mother is in fact my biological parent. In the latter case even a DNA test (even if I was able to conduct one myself) wouldn't necessarily be 100% conclusive and even it was I would have to concede that there is some chance that the entire methodology behind the test was somehow flawed. And while we're at it, why not explore the possibility the entire universe isn't even real; that consciousness is the only fundamental "stuff". Or that this is all some kind of simulation. How far do you want to go? And what's your point?

 

That its absurd to insist that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims

 

my Vote = LG

 

SciWriter you didnt show how a being could not be first.