Was there a First God?

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy,

Presently I’m away from easy access to a computer but would like to respond point by point to your comments.

I will abbreviate in order to respond with something.

PhysicsGuy stated:
OK. Yes. I disagree with you here. I have claimed that science can have some say in religious matters that are practical and deal with day to day decision making. I disagree that science can have any say on fundamental doctrines of religions.

Having recognized that doctrines fundamentally disagree, just what source has any reliable “say”?

You are straw man attacking. I didn’t argue that. Scientific discoveries indirectly contradict various religious doctrines. Notice you say “science” but quickly attempt to escape science and evade science to use the phrase “theoretical science.” It’s disingenuous. That the earth is not the center of the universe is a scientific observation contradicted by various doctrines of religion. Those doctrines are wrong in consensus science. A fundamental error made in truth by assertion. And a fundamental doctrine of religion.

So just what “fundamental doctrines of religion” are excluded from scientific analysis? Your ambiguous statement/vague statement is also disingenuous.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I disagree that science can have any say on fundamental doctrines of religions.

No clarity is perceptible in that statement. Islam is a religion. Hinduism is a religion, Confucianism is a religion. They claimdifferent doctrines than do the many Christian groups.

Your argument is flawed. Wherein science has established evidence, religion does not. Again, just to what specific “fundamental doctrines” do you refer.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I thought you agreed at one point that science (especially theoretical) is not capable of having a say in fundamental religious matters, but maybe I misunderstood.

I made no reference to “theoretical,” you did long after you had responded to references to science with the term “science.” When unable to respond to issues of “science,” you attempted to shift the topic and say you really were talking about “theoretical science.” You were not, and I was not. I gave you references which demonstrated that to be well schooled in science was a prerequisite to “theoretical science.” (That is unless my link was altered by someone as has been my experience on this forum.)

You beg the question:

Who specifically is “capable of having a say in fundamental religious matters...”?

And just how are those “fundamental religious matters” determined?

Thus far, you evade direct response. You generalize. It’s evasive.

Creation myths are religious doctrine. Science has demonstrated evolution of species by evidence. Religion uses truth by assertion.

You continue to dodge who has the say in “religious matters”?

Get specific. Name the group. Name the person. Identify the “who.”

PhysicsGuy stated:
I also disagree when you say "science explains". It should probably be "science tries to explain". It is really just a bunch of educated guesses.


“Probably”? Why probably? You make an assertion. Then you discredit science by calling it science --“just a bunch of educated guesses.”

What does that mean? What’s the difference between “educated guesses” and guesses?

How would you characterize religious doctrine?

How does religious doctrine compare with “just a bunch of educated guesses”?
------------
I don’t have time/opportunity at my present location to address more issues in your post. However, this is more than sufficient to challenge you to respond with specifics to the questions/issues. I’ll attempt to get back to read your responses soon.

JAK

[_Gorman]

PhysicsGuy,

Presently I’m away from easy access to a computer but would like to respond point by point to your comments.

I will abbreviate in order to respond with something.

PhysicsGuy stated:
OK. Yes. I disagree with you here. I have claimed that science can have some say in religious matters that are practical and deal with day to day decision making. I disagree that science can have any say on fundamental doctrines of religions.

Having recognized that doctrines fundamentally disagree, just what source has any reliable “say”?

I don't think we have recognized that science disagree with any fundamental religious doctrines (although there are a few that could be possible). As to what source is reliable, there appears to be no source that can reliably explain religious doctrines from the ground up (similar to how science does things).

You are straw man attacking. I didn’t argue that. Scientific discoveries indirectly contradict various religious doctrines. Notice you say “science” but quickly attempt to escape science and evade science to use the phrase “theoretical science.” It’s disingenuous. That the earth is not the center of the universe is a scientific observation contradicted by various doctrines of religion. Those doctrines are wrong in consensus science. A fundamental error made in truth by assertion. And a fundamental doctrine of religion.

So just what “fundamental doctrines of religion” are excluded from scientific analysis? Your ambiguous statement/vague statement is also disingenuous.

I have already addressed your lack of understanding of the term theoretical science and its relation to science, I won't repeat.

When I say fundamental doctrines I mean things like "God exists", or "Jesus was the son of God", or "Mohamed was a prophet of God", or "An atonement can cleanse sins of man". These cannot be addresses by science.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I disagree that science can have any say on fundamental doctrines of religions.

No clarity is perceptible in that statement. Islam is a religion. Hinduism is a religion, Confucianism is a religion. They claimdifferent doctrines than do the many Christian groups.

Your argument is flawed. Wherein science has established evidence, religion does not. Again, just to what specific “fundamental doctrines” do you refer.

That is the whole point, science has not established any evidence that relates to religion (in a reliable way), so neither has established any evidence. Neither is any better than the other when discussing these fundamental doctrines of religion.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I thought you agreed at one point that science (especially theoretical) is not capable of having a say in fundamental religious matters, but maybe I misunderstood.

I made no reference to “theoretical,” you did long after you had responded to references to science with the term “science.” When unable to respond to issues of “science,” you attempted to shift the topic and say you really were talking about “theoretical science.” You were not, and I was not. I gave you references which demonstrated that to be well schooled in science was a prerequisite to “theoretical science.” (That is unless my link was altered by someone as has been my experience on this forum.)

You beg the question:

Who specifically is “capable of having a say in fundamental religious matters...”?

And just how are those “fundamental religious matters” determined?

Thus far, you evade direct response. You generalize. It’s evasive.

Creation myths are religious doctrine. Science has demonstrated evolution of species by evidence. Religion uses truth by assertion.

You continue to dodge who has the say in “religious matters”?

Get specific. Name the group. Name the person. Identify the “who.”

I have already answered the questions brought up in this section. Nobody can have any reliable "say" in religious matters. It is up to the individual to decide who he believes. It appears that you believe in extrapolating science into religious realms. That is fine, it is just as good (or bad) a choice as anyone else has made as far as we can tell.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I also disagree when you say "science explains". It should probably be "science tries to explain". It is really just a bunch of educated guesses.


“Probably”? Why probably? You make an assertion. Then you discredit science by calling it science --“just a bunch of educated guesses.”

What does that mean? What’s the difference between “educated guesses” and guesses?

How would you characterize religious doctrine?

How does religious doctrine compare with “just a bunch of educated guesses”?
------------
I don’t have time/opportunity at my present location to address more issues in your post. However, this is more than sufficient to challenge you to respond with specifics to the questions/issues. I’ll attempt to get back to read your responses soon.

JAK

I don't think it is discrediting science by saying that it is just a bunch of educated guesses. That is all it is. We cannot know for sure what we are doing, so we guess based on evidence (educated guesses) as opposed to just closing our eyes and pointing a finger (plain old guessing). Again, this is more true of theoretical science as opposed to experimental science.

[_Gorman]

JAK:

I think we have probably come to an impasse. I think we might just have to agree to disagree, because I really don't think I am getting my arguments across for some reason. I will state a final summary, and you are free to reply to that, but this will be my last post in this thread. If you really want to talk about something, let's start a new thread, and break it down to more digestible pieces.

Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims. This is because science has not given any real evidence related to these religious claims. Any statement made by science (or those who extrapolate beyond science) directed at these claims is not any more or less grounded than the claims themselves are in the first place. A person is then left to believe what he feels most comfortable in believing because there is no way to verify anything related to these claims. If there is a final ultimate 'Truth' or 'Answer', then we have no evidence relating to it (that we know of), and no way of scientifically finding it at this point.

I feel like I have given sufficient evidence for each of the claims I make here.

[_marg]

Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.

Your point is a strawman. Science doesn't address religious supernatural claims. If religious claims are made, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

This is because science has not given any real evidence related to these religious claims.

Your point is ass backwards. Science has no burden to offer counter evidence as you are suggesting. Those who make the supernatural claim have the burden of proof.

Any statement made by science (or those who extrapolate beyond science) directed at these claims is not any more or less grounded than the claims themselves are in the first place.

Give one example in which science is directed against any religous claim.

A person is then left to believe what he feels most comfortable in believing because there is no way to verify anything related to these claims.

What claims are you talking about? A claim of a God? Of course anyone can believe whatever they wish. That a belief can not be disproved, does not make that belief a rational one.

If there is a final ultimate 'Truth' or 'Answer', then we have no evidence relating to it (that we know of), and no way of scientifically finding it at this point.

It seems you are using the words"final ultimate 'Truth' or 'Answer" in replacement of the word God. Why should there be no way of having evidence of a God or some ultimate truth? If there is no God we certainly will not find evidence of that, due to mankind's physical limitations in such a vast universe.

I feel like I have given sufficient evidence for each of the claims I make here.

You've made claims but you've not given evidence. Science attempts to interpret the universe and it does so with evidence and reasoning. It says nothing about religious supernatural claims. There may be theoretical physics theories which are highly speculative, considered fringe, but they are appreciated as such. And those fringe theories offer interpretations of phenomena. Religious supernatural claims are a leap to a conclusion of God or Gods..without the evidence and reasoning to warrant the claim.

[_Gorman]

Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.

Your point is a strawman. Science doesn't address religious supernatural claims. If religious claims are made, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

This is because science has not given any real evidence related to these religious claims.

Your point is ass backwards. Science has no burden to offer counter evidence as you are suggesting. Those who make the supernatural claim have the burden of proof.

Any statement made by science (or those who extrapolate beyond science) directed at these claims is not any more or less grounded than the claims themselves are in the first place.

Give one example in which science is directed against any religous claim.

A person is then left to believe what he feels most comfortable in believing because there is no way to verify anything related to these claims.

What claims are you talking about? A claim of a God? Of course anyone can believe whatever they wish. That a belief can not be disproved, does not make that belief a rational one.

If there is a final ultimate 'Truth' or 'Answer', then we have no evidence relating to it (that we know of), and no way of scientifically finding it at this point.

It seems you are using the words"final ultimate 'Truth' or 'Answer" in replacement of the word God. Why should there be no way of having evidence of a God or some ultimate truth? If there is no God we certainly will not find evidence of that, due to mankind's physical limitations in such a vast universe.

I feel like I have given sufficient evidence for each of the claims I make here.

You've made claims but you've not given evidence. Science attempts to interpret the universe and it does so with evidence and reasoning. It says nothing about religious supernatural claims. There may be theoretical physics theories which are highly speculative, considered fringe, but they are appreciated as such. And those fringe theories offer interpretations of phenomena. Religious supernatural claims are a leap to a conclusion of God or Gods..without the evidence and reasoning to warrant the claim.

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument. I feel like I have shown that science cannot address religious claims one way or the other. This I have done through the evidence I have given.

[_Who Knows]

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument. I feel like I have shown that science cannot address religious claims one way or the other. This I have done through the evidence I have given.

Of course not. {core} Religious claims are unfalsifiable and untestable. That's the beauty of religion, right?

[_Gorman]

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument. I feel like I have shown that science cannot address religious claims one way or the other. This I have done through the evidence I have given.

Of course not. {core} Religious claims are unfalsifiable and untestable. That's the beauty of religion, right?

I agree. I think when you have something unfalsifiable and untestable, you will eventually have multiple versions of said thing all claiming to give answers. The same thing happens in science when a theory is unfalsifiable (in the foreseeable future) and untestable (in the foreseeable future).

[_Who Knows]

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument. I feel like I have shown that science cannot address religious claims one way or the other. This I have done through the evidence I have given.

Of course not. {core} Religious claims are unfalsifiable and untestable. That's the beauty of religion, right?

I agree. I think when you have something unfalsifiable and untestable, you will eventually have multiple versions of said thing all claiming to give answers. The same thing happens in science when a theory is unfalsifiable (in the foreseeable future) and untestable (in the foreseeable future).

Where science can come into play, is when falsifiable religious claims conflict with science (creationism comes to mind).

[_Gorman]

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument. I feel like I have shown that science cannot address religious claims one way or the other. This I have done through the evidence I have given.

Of course not. {core} Religious claims are unfalsifiable and untestable. That's the beauty of religion, right?

I agree. I think when you have something unfalsifiable and untestable, you will eventually have multiple versions of said thing all claiming to give answers. The same thing happens in science when a theory is unfalsifiable (in the foreseeable future) and untestable (in the foreseeable future).

Where science can come into play, is when falsifiable religious claims conflict with science (creationism comes to mind).

I think I would possibly agree. Evolution as related to creationism is probably the only major place that I can think of where you might have a case that science and religion overlap. Whether the science is sure enough about itself to cause religion to retreat at this point is another question.

[_marg]

I agree with most of what you say here. I'm not sure if you have followed this interchange between JAK and I, but my whole point has been trying to convince JAK that science doesn't address religious claims. JAK seemed to be arguing otherwise. I was not trying to argue that God exists, merely that science cannot be used in the argument.[/quote]

You haven't addressed or acknowledged my points. Please quote JAK which supports what you say, that he uses science to argue against a God.

From a previous post I'll quote an exchange between JAK and yourself: [/quote]

PhysicsGuy : 2) The evidence theists have for the existence of God is riddled with assumptions, and is no better than the evidence atheists use against God because it is also riddled with assumptions.

JAK: Fundamental misunderstanding: Evidence is not established for God claims. One who does not believe in gods or God is not obligated to present anything in the absence of an affirmative case. You misunderstand the burden of proof for the one making a claim. The affirmative claim of religious pundits is God (generally singular today). Hence, that claim requires evidence which is open to skeptical review.

JAK is correct. You do not appear to appreciate "burden of proof" There is no obligation of atheists to disprove God. And this same concept applies in my previous post to you, regarding science. There is no obligation of science to disprove God, or to say anything at all with regards to a God or Gods.

PhysicsGuy: Neither side has any real evidence (scientifically speaking) supporting its position. This is simply because science does not have the capability.

JAK: Incorrect conclusion. It’s religious myth-makers who have no evidence. You appear to have no concept of Scientific Method.

JAK is correct. And you are illustrating you do not understand conceptually burden of proof.