PhysicsGuy wrote:Whether the science is sure enough about itself to cause religion to retreat at this point is another question.
99% of American scientists accept the theory of evolution. I'd say that the science is pretty sure about itself.
Was there a First God?
-
_silentkid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1606
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Refutation of PhysicsGuy's Flawed Arguments
PhysicsGuy: Post as of Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:14 pm & Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:25 pm
JAK:
You have been fairly clear in your tacit defense of religion and marginalizing of science. Your conclusions are incorrect as my challenges and questions have focused.
Let me detail from your latest posts here (dates above).
PhysicsGuy:
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).
JAK:
An incorrect statement as demonstrated by my examples of religious doctrines which characterize the earth as the center of the universe, the “two great lights” (sun and moon) and the entire fiction of creation by an entity for which there is no evidence. That’s fundamental to some Christian religious doctrine. The assumption God is without merit. No evidence for it. It’s a religious doctrine which is clearly at odds with the understandings of science. There are innumerable disagreements between the claims of various superstitions/religions.
Your statement attempts, wrongly, to minimize the importance and detailed analysis of science. Our common little denominator here is the Internet and our communication on this forum. It’s applied science. It’s not a guess, it’s not speculation absent evidence. With science, evidence is critical. In the main we apply scientific principles to building skyscrapers, developing medical treatments, harnessing frequencies for radio and television, examine the evolution of plant and animal life, generate electrical power, and much more.
Religion offers nothing but speculation and claims absent evidence. As you cite in this comment:
PhysicsGuy:
When I say fundamental doctrines I mean things like "God exists", or "Jesus was the son of God", or "Mohamed (Mohammed) was a prophet of God", or "An atonement can cleanse sins of man". These cannot be addresses by science.
JAK:
You assume the truth which you have yet to establish There is no evidence for “God exists.” There is no evidence for “Jesus was the son of God.” There is no evidence that “Mohammed was a prophet of God.” And one which you didn’t mention. There is no evidence for any supernatural afterlife. All these and more are examples of truth by assertion. They emerge from earlier superstitions which were unreliable also. Superstition/religion is not on a par with science. Evidence demonstrates that superstition/religion is unreliable.
Hence the “fundamental doctrines” which you list have nothing to support them. They are claims and are failed attempts at truth by assertion. That is contrary to science and the very few examples I have listed. Autos, airplanes, space exploration (space station) Hubble telescope, all results of and achievements of science.
Students of science study the particulars which have been established by and are known to the scientific community as reliable. Upon that have been built the things which we implement with reliability.
How are superstitions/religions addressed by science? Science ignores them in the absence of evidence for them. But, science does not just ignore them. Science gives us reliable explanation and builds upon that reliable explanation to produce findings. The religious claim God did it is irrelevant to science and to rational analysis of evidence. Absent evidence, a claim should be rejected. That’s a principle of science as well.
I am addressing your next comment in addition:
PhysicsGuy: 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.
JAK:
You’re incorrect. Science has established evidence. Superstition/religion has not. If you can read this, applied science is reliable (evidence). You are incorrect that “neither has established any evidence.” It’s false. Science has established evidence. It is superstition/religion which fails to “establish evidence.”
Your computer and all you can do with it is established applied science. The examples you gave of religion are not established. They are claims and rely on truth by assertion. Previously, you recognized that truth by assertion is unreliable.
JAK:
You have offered no refutation regarding the achievements of science. Your assertion that “science has not established any evidence that relates to religion” is incorrect. Science offers: tested, skeptically reviewed, evidence for tentative conclusions which it reaches. Superstition/religion does not.
JAK:
Moving on, you stated:
PhysicsGuy:
Nobody can have any reliable "say" in religious matters. It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.
JAK:
On first glance, you are correct here. There is no reliable “say” in religion. The conclusion: there is no reliability. If “religious matters” are “up to the individual to decide...” anyone can “decide” anything he wishes. He can make it all up. There is zero reliability in making stuff up.
Your language demonstrates your flawed larger conclusions.
Applied science (in your computer) which works reliably enabling you to do all you do with it is not on a par with “religious matters” in which people do make it up. Your admission that “It is up to the individual to decide who he believes” demonstrates with clarity failed reliability. I previously pointed that fact out to you by the plethora of superstitious/religious claims. If your computer is working, every time you hit a “J” you get a J, etc. Reliability is one of the hallmarks of science. It is non-existent in superstition/religion.
Scientifically, the computer/printer is a huge distance removed from the development of a language/vocabulary. It had to be copied one symbol at a time prior to the scientific invention of the earliest printing and the printing press in which each letter had to be meticulously made and set. The printing press was invented in Germany by the engraver Johann Gutenberg in 1450.
We are 550 years from that communications invention to the speed and capacity we enjoy today as a result of applied science.
Superstition/religion are irrelevant.
(Again, I only use this example because I do know you use a computer to communicate -- thus, it’s a common denominator for reference with you.)
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
My belief isn’t at issue.
Science has diminished superstition/religion. The religious doctrines such as you mentioned are irrelevant. We know they are unreliable, that they emerged from superstition to religion to organized groups. We also know the time-frame from which various superstitions/religions developed. It’s virtually impossible for us now to fully appreciate the degree of ignorance which prevailed a thousand or thousands of years ago as various superstitions/religions were invented as a way to explain. Of course, they didn’t explain. Science explains. You are incorrect to have claimed otherwise.
You’re incorrect to diminish science. You do that. Science is superior in method and in conclusion upon which we rely.
Science emerged also. But the critical difference is that science emerged by placing evidence before tentative conclusion. Hence, detailed evidence leads to discovery which has reliability.
Science seeks to find all the facts possible to acquire before setting forward an hypothesis. Hypothesis precedes theory.
See Scientific Method
Superstition/religion/doctrine states with absolute certainty that which it makes up. God was invented along with all the subsequent inventions about what God is like. And, not surprisingly, God is an invented supernatural in the characteristics of man. No evidence for the various God inventions is established for skeptical review, testing, modification.
I don’t know what you mean by your last sentence. “Choice” means what? Children indoctrinated from cradle to adulthood tend to believe what they were indoctrinated to believe. Generally, it’s not a thoughtful process. It’s a controlled process.
PhysicsGuy:
[I don't think it is discrediting science by saying that it is just a bunch of educated guesses. That is all it is.
JAK: You’re incorrect.
The evidence is against such a conclusion. Any time one characterizes something as “just a bunch of...” anything, it’s an attempt to discredit. If fails. If you’re reading this, it’s not a result of “just a bunch of...” It’s a result of many centuries of acquiring information and of discovery which is not guess but rather tested, skeptically reviewed, re-tested conclusions. And so, you do discredit science in your statement.
Evidence is not on your side of the argument.
And you add, “That is all it is.” Again, you’re wrong. It’s much more than that. Medical science is producing treatment and cures for disease. Superstition/religion is guessing. By detailed study, science produces information, knowledge, and discovery. Superstition/religion does not. Your best examples for religious doctrines are guesses and poor ones at that.
{i.e. The boy died as a result of sin and God’s will (religion). Many were crippled.}
That example is truth by assertion the modus operindi of superstition/religion.
But, then we learn the boy died because of a virus -- polio.
Medical science discovered the real reason. Jonas Salk conducted human trials with a polio vaccine and effectively protected a (human) subject from the polio virus (science). Polio has been virtually eliminated because of medical science and the work of Jonas Salk in discovery of the vaccine.
Religion/superstition/doctrine is irrelevant.
PhysicsGuy:
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).
JAK:
Superstition/religion “just closed” eyes and made up stories. You offer no refutation for my analysis. Again:
See Scientific Method
Consensus science is a major driving force driving science today. While one should recognize that science is open to new and even contradictory discovery, our civilization runs on established application of scientific consensus. You appear not to recognize that. your veiled defense of superstition/religion, and your attempt to marginalize science has been cited in my analysis. Your specific wording is evidence of my analysis.
PhysicsGuy:
Again, this is more true of theoretical science as opposed to experimental science.
JAK:
This is irrelevant to my comments and analysis of your comments on science. Your late introduction of the adjective “theoretical” to the discussion is an attempt to shift the debate.
--------------------------------
Now to Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:25 pm PhysicsGuy post.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Your arguments lack evidential support as my analysis has shown. I understand why you wish to withdraw from the discussion. It’s not easy being on the loosing end of an argument. I accept that you have made your last effort to defend tacitly religion and marginalize science.
Your position is incorrect. Evidence does not support superstition/religion/doctrine. Evidence does support information, honest intellectual inquiry, and skeptically reviewed tentative conclusions (scientific method).
PhysicsGuy:
If you really want to talk about something, let's start a new thread, and break it down to more digestible pieces.
JAK:
Absent any substantive refutation or evidence from you, it’s wise for you to withdraw from the discussion/debate. It’s a bit like resigning from a chess game when you have nothing left for defense of your king and your opponent has his queen, two rooks, and two bishops.
PhysicsGuy:
Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.
JAK:
You have previously acknowledged that: “It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.” That is a recognition that beliefs absent evidence are unreliable. Science does not discuss directly fundamental religious claims. But indirectly, science refutes the multiplicity of religious claims as without foundation or substance.
“Religious claims” rely on truth by assertion. You have previously agreed that this method (little method to it) is unreliable..
You’re on the loosing side of the debate.
PhysicsGuy:
Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.
JAK:
And all you have offered for “fundamental religious claims” is what the individual wants to believe. There is no reliability in that. You have stated nothing to establish reliability of individual claims.
Again, you stated: “Nobody can have any reliable "say" in religious matters. It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.”
Consensus science uses no such formula for reliability. {Whatever the individual wants to believe} does not make for reliability.
That’s your defense. It fails.
PhysicsGuy:
This is because science has not given any real evidence related to these religious claims.
JAK:
But science has in fact given “real evidence related to these religious claims.” The doctrine of creationism is wrong. Science has real evidence which demonstrates that there was no creation as claimed by religious doctrine. And religion has no evidence to offer which is intellectually honest that refutes science on evolution of species.
Again, you are incorrect in the conclusion state here. The evidence of science overwhelms the assertions and claims of ancient superstition/religion.
It appears you tacitly wish to prop up religion/superstition. Your statement here is false. There is no causal link as you claim here.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Your parenthetical expression is irrelevant. Science is about fact finding. Claims of superstition/religion are not. Many centuries ago, myths were used as an attempt to explain what was not known. Those myths made up stories in an attempt to explain. Those stories were wrong. They were not based on fact, the fact and information we have available today.
Comfort in belief is irrelevant to fact and discovery of genuine information. You’re incorrect that “there is no way to verify anything related to these claims.”
That’s entirely incorrect. There are in fact ways to verify fact. Science is about verifying fact. Religion/superstition is not. Truth by assertion is the antithesis of discovery through fact-finding.
Your claim is false as you defend religion over science. A person is not left to believe the “comfortable.” A person can engage with the research of scientists on the vast quantity of information available.
Your Ostrich approach is not required as you imply. Again, flawed understanding of options. A person is not left as you state. It’s a false choice. Other options are available than the limited ones you state.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Science is an on-going study. It’s not finished and there is more to be learned. Science, as I have illustrated by multiple examples, has found answers to puzzling questions. It is most likely to continue to do that. Superstition/religion, on the other hand, is paralyzed by it’s own dogmas and remains closed minded to honest intellectual inquiry.
PhysicsGuy:
I feel like I have given sufficient evidence for each of the claims I make here.
JAK:
Always nice to feel good, PhysicsGuy. You have given zero evidence for claims here. You appear a stealth defender of religion/superstition here.
I understand entirely that you do not wish to continue discussion. You have nothing further to say. Your claims and ambiguity have been soundly exposed and refuted.
JAK
PhysicsGuy wrote: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.
JAK:
You have been fairly clear in your tacit defense of religion and marginalizing of science. Your conclusions are incorrect as my challenges and questions have focused.
Let me detail from your latest posts here (dates above).
PhysicsGuy:
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).
JAK:
An incorrect statement as demonstrated by my examples of religious doctrines which characterize the earth as the center of the universe, the “two great lights” (sun and moon) and the entire fiction of creation by an entity for which there is no evidence. That’s fundamental to some Christian religious doctrine. The assumption God is without merit. No evidence for it. It’s a religious doctrine which is clearly at odds with the understandings of science. There are innumerable disagreements between the claims of various superstitions/religions.
Your statement attempts, wrongly, to minimize the importance and detailed analysis of science. Our common little denominator here is the Internet and our communication on this forum. It’s applied science. It’s not a guess, it’s not speculation absent evidence. With science, evidence is critical. In the main we apply scientific principles to building skyscrapers, developing medical treatments, harnessing frequencies for radio and television, examine the evolution of plant and animal life, generate electrical power, and much more.
Religion offers nothing but speculation and claims absent evidence. As you cite in this comment:
PhysicsGuy:
When I say fundamental doctrines I mean things like "God exists", or "Jesus was the son of God", or "Mohamed (Mohammed) was a prophet of God", or "An atonement can cleanse sins of man". These cannot be addresses by science.
JAK:
You assume the truth which you have yet to establish There is no evidence for “God exists.” There is no evidence for “Jesus was the son of God.” There is no evidence that “Mohammed was a prophet of God.” And one which you didn’t mention. There is no evidence for any supernatural afterlife. All these and more are examples of truth by assertion. They emerge from earlier superstitions which were unreliable also. Superstition/religion is not on a par with science. Evidence demonstrates that superstition/religion is unreliable.
Hence the “fundamental doctrines” which you list have nothing to support them. They are claims and are failed attempts at truth by assertion. That is contrary to science and the very few examples I have listed. Autos, airplanes, space exploration (space station) Hubble telescope, all results of and achievements of science.
Students of science study the particulars which have been established by and are known to the scientific community as reliable. Upon that have been built the things which we implement with reliability.
How are superstitions/religions addressed by science? Science ignores them in the absence of evidence for them. But, science does not just ignore them. Science gives us reliable explanation and builds upon that reliable explanation to produce findings. The religious claim God did it is irrelevant to science and to rational analysis of evidence. Absent evidence, a claim should be rejected. That’s a principle of science as well.
I am addressing your next comment in addition:
PhysicsGuy: 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.
JAK:
You’re incorrect. Science has established evidence. Superstition/religion has not. If you can read this, applied science is reliable (evidence). You are incorrect that “neither has established any evidence.” It’s false. Science has established evidence. It is superstition/religion which fails to “establish evidence.”
Your computer and all you can do with it is established applied science. The examples you gave of religion are not established. They are claims and rely on truth by assertion. Previously, you recognized that truth by assertion is unreliable.
JAK:
You have offered no refutation regarding the achievements of science. Your assertion that “science has not established any evidence that relates to religion” is incorrect. Science offers: tested, skeptically reviewed, evidence for tentative conclusions which it reaches. Superstition/religion does not.
JAK:
Moving on, you stated:
PhysicsGuy:
Nobody can have any reliable "say" in religious matters. It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.
JAK:
On first glance, you are correct here. There is no reliable “say” in religion. The conclusion: there is no reliability. If “religious matters” are “up to the individual to decide...” anyone can “decide” anything he wishes. He can make it all up. There is zero reliability in making stuff up.
Your language demonstrates your flawed larger conclusions.
Applied science (in your computer) which works reliably enabling you to do all you do with it is not on a par with “religious matters” in which people do make it up. Your admission that “It is up to the individual to decide who he believes” demonstrates with clarity failed reliability. I previously pointed that fact out to you by the plethora of superstitious/religious claims. If your computer is working, every time you hit a “J” you get a J, etc. Reliability is one of the hallmarks of science. It is non-existent in superstition/religion.
Scientifically, the computer/printer is a huge distance removed from the development of a language/vocabulary. It had to be copied one symbol at a time prior to the scientific invention of the earliest printing and the printing press in which each letter had to be meticulously made and set. The printing press was invented in Germany by the engraver Johann Gutenberg in 1450.
We are 550 years from that communications invention to the speed and capacity we enjoy today as a result of applied science.
Superstition/religion are irrelevant.
(Again, I only use this example because I do know you use a computer to communicate -- thus, it’s a common denominator for reference with you.)
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
My belief isn’t at issue.
Science has diminished superstition/religion. The religious doctrines such as you mentioned are irrelevant. We know they are unreliable, that they emerged from superstition to religion to organized groups. We also know the time-frame from which various superstitions/religions developed. It’s virtually impossible for us now to fully appreciate the degree of ignorance which prevailed a thousand or thousands of years ago as various superstitions/religions were invented as a way to explain. Of course, they didn’t explain. Science explains. You are incorrect to have claimed otherwise.
You’re incorrect to diminish science. You do that. Science is superior in method and in conclusion upon which we rely.
Science emerged also. But the critical difference is that science emerged by placing evidence before tentative conclusion. Hence, detailed evidence leads to discovery which has reliability.
Science seeks to find all the facts possible to acquire before setting forward an hypothesis. Hypothesis precedes theory.
See Scientific Method
Superstition/religion/doctrine states with absolute certainty that which it makes up. God was invented along with all the subsequent inventions about what God is like. And, not surprisingly, God is an invented supernatural in the characteristics of man. No evidence for the various God inventions is established for skeptical review, testing, modification.
I don’t know what you mean by your last sentence. “Choice” means what? Children indoctrinated from cradle to adulthood tend to believe what they were indoctrinated to believe. Generally, it’s not a thoughtful process. It’s a controlled process.
PhysicsGuy:
[I don't think it is discrediting science by saying that it is just a bunch of educated guesses. That is all it is.
JAK: You’re incorrect.
The evidence is against such a conclusion. Any time one characterizes something as “just a bunch of...” anything, it’s an attempt to discredit. If fails. If you’re reading this, it’s not a result of “just a bunch of...” It’s a result of many centuries of acquiring information and of discovery which is not guess but rather tested, skeptically reviewed, re-tested conclusions. And so, you do discredit science in your statement.
Evidence is not on your side of the argument.
And you add, “That is all it is.” Again, you’re wrong. It’s much more than that. Medical science is producing treatment and cures for disease. Superstition/religion is guessing. By detailed study, science produces information, knowledge, and discovery. Superstition/religion does not. Your best examples for religious doctrines are guesses and poor ones at that.
{i.e. The boy died as a result of sin and God’s will (religion). Many were crippled.}
That example is truth by assertion the modus operindi of superstition/religion.
But, then we learn the boy died because of a virus -- polio.
Medical science discovered the real reason. Jonas Salk conducted human trials with a polio vaccine and effectively protected a (human) subject from the polio virus (science). Polio has been virtually eliminated because of medical science and the work of Jonas Salk in discovery of the vaccine.
Religion/superstition/doctrine is irrelevant.
PhysicsGuy:
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).
JAK:
Superstition/religion “just closed” eyes and made up stories. You offer no refutation for my analysis. Again:
See Scientific Method
Consensus science is a major driving force driving science today. While one should recognize that science is open to new and even contradictory discovery, our civilization runs on established application of scientific consensus. You appear not to recognize that. your veiled defense of superstition/religion, and your attempt to marginalize science has been cited in my analysis. Your specific wording is evidence of my analysis.
PhysicsGuy:
Again, this is more true of theoretical science as opposed to experimental science.
JAK:
This is irrelevant to my comments and analysis of your comments on science. Your late introduction of the adjective “theoretical” to the discussion is an attempt to shift the debate.
--------------------------------
Now to Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:25 pm PhysicsGuy post.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Your arguments lack evidential support as my analysis has shown. I understand why you wish to withdraw from the discussion. It’s not easy being on the loosing end of an argument. I accept that you have made your last effort to defend tacitly religion and marginalize science.
Your position is incorrect. Evidence does not support superstition/religion/doctrine. Evidence does support information, honest intellectual inquiry, and skeptically reviewed tentative conclusions (scientific method).
PhysicsGuy:
If you really want to talk about something, let's start a new thread, and break it down to more digestible pieces.
JAK:
Absent any substantive refutation or evidence from you, it’s wise for you to withdraw from the discussion/debate. It’s a bit like resigning from a chess game when you have nothing left for defense of your king and your opponent has his queen, two rooks, and two bishops.
PhysicsGuy:
Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.
JAK:
You have previously acknowledged that: “It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.” That is a recognition that beliefs absent evidence are unreliable. Science does not discuss directly fundamental religious claims. But indirectly, science refutes the multiplicity of religious claims as without foundation or substance.
“Religious claims” rely on truth by assertion. You have previously agreed that this method (little method to it) is unreliable..
You’re on the loosing side of the debate.
PhysicsGuy:
Science as a whole cannot be reliable when discussing fundamental religious claims.
JAK:
And all you have offered for “fundamental religious claims” is what the individual wants to believe. There is no reliability in that. You have stated nothing to establish reliability of individual claims.
Again, you stated: “Nobody can have any reliable "say" in religious matters. It is up to the individual to decide who he believes.”
Consensus science uses no such formula for reliability. {Whatever the individual wants to believe} does not make for reliability.
That’s your defense. It fails.
PhysicsGuy:
This is because science has not given any real evidence related to these religious claims.
JAK:
But science has in fact given “real evidence related to these religious claims.” The doctrine of creationism is wrong. Science has real evidence which demonstrates that there was no creation as claimed by religious doctrine. And religion has no evidence to offer which is intellectually honest that refutes science on evolution of species.
Again, you are incorrect in the conclusion state here. The evidence of science overwhelms the assertions and claims of ancient superstition/religion.
It appears you tacitly wish to prop up religion/superstition. Your statement here is false. There is no causal link as you claim here.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Your parenthetical expression is irrelevant. Science is about fact finding. Claims of superstition/religion are not. Many centuries ago, myths were used as an attempt to explain what was not known. Those myths made up stories in an attempt to explain. Those stories were wrong. They were not based on fact, the fact and information we have available today.
Comfort in belief is irrelevant to fact and discovery of genuine information. You’re incorrect that “there is no way to verify anything related to these claims.”
That’s entirely incorrect. There are in fact ways to verify fact. Science is about verifying fact. Religion/superstition is not. Truth by assertion is the antithesis of discovery through fact-finding.
Your claim is false as you defend religion over science. A person is not left to believe the “comfortable.” A person can engage with the research of scientists on the vast quantity of information available.
Your Ostrich approach is not required as you imply. Again, flawed understanding of options. A person is not left as you state. It’s a false choice. Other options are available than the limited ones you state.
PhysicsGuy:
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.
JAK:
Science is an on-going study. It’s not finished and there is more to be learned. Science, as I have illustrated by multiple examples, has found answers to puzzling questions. It is most likely to continue to do that. Superstition/religion, on the other hand, is paralyzed by it’s own dogmas and remains closed minded to honest intellectual inquiry.
PhysicsGuy:
I feel like I have given sufficient evidence for each of the claims I make here.
JAK:
Always nice to feel good, PhysicsGuy. You have given zero evidence for claims here. You appear a stealth defender of religion/superstition here.
I understand entirely that you do not wish to continue discussion. You have nothing further to say. Your claims and ambiguity have been soundly exposed and refuted.
JAK
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
JAK:
OK. I will say one more thing addressed to you on this thread. This is the final thing.
As you have shown in your last post, the reason I am stopping the discussion in this thread (but would gladly discuss a smaller section of the topic in another) is because you seem to have absolutely no understanding of the answers I have given you. You ask a question. I give an answer. You ask the question again in different wording. I give the same answer in different wording. Then you ask the question again. Ad infinitum. You either have stopped trying to understand my posts about 10 posts ago, or you don't want to understand them.
Pick a piece of the topic we have been discussing and start another thread. I think the overall topic was just too large, and we kept talking past each other.
P.S. It is not smart to try to claim the other person is losing when discussing a topic. It makes you look like your only objective is to win or lose, and you don't even care about learning. Although, if the only thing you ever cared about was winning or losing, that would explain a lot of the reason why we were just talking past each other.
OK. I will say one more thing addressed to you on this thread. This is the final thing.
As you have shown in your last post, the reason I am stopping the discussion in this thread (but would gladly discuss a smaller section of the topic in another) is because you seem to have absolutely no understanding of the answers I have given you. You ask a question. I give an answer. You ask the question again in different wording. I give the same answer in different wording. Then you ask the question again. Ad infinitum. You either have stopped trying to understand my posts about 10 posts ago, or you don't want to understand them.
Pick a piece of the topic we have been discussing and start another thread. I think the overall topic was just too large, and we kept talking past each other.
P.S. It is not smart to try to claim the other person is losing when discussing a topic. It makes you look like your only objective is to win or lose, and you don't even care about learning. Although, if the only thing you ever cared about was winning or losing, that would explain a lot of the reason why we were just talking past each other.
-
_marg
PhysicsGuy wrote: As to your question about a first God, the LDS view (although some object to this) states that God once was like humans in the past. If this is the case, then achieving the "rank" of God happens at some point on their time line. The LDS call humans Gods as well, but just in a nascent form without the same abilities. In this sense there was never a "first God", but it appears that there would necessarily be a first "human" to achieve the "rank" of God. How this would even be possible is the 20 dollar question. This, of course, would be easy to explain if time is fundamentally different "there" when compared to what we are used to "here", in that events don't necessarily happen one after the other (this of course would seem to cause lots of other problems).
What you argue for is sheer fantasy with not one shred of evidence, no justifiable reasoning to assume any basis in fact. Even within this fantasy world of reasoning you present, your argument is illogical. “No first God” you opine because any first God would have been human first according to LDS mythology. Sheesh! That doesn’t eliminate a first God conceptually even within the myth. Ah but you add another twist, what if time was different “there” than “here”. Excuse me? Where’s your basis for this different time, and this different “there”? But I have no interest is arguing over which God myth makes more sense. With no basis in reality, none have any merit, they are equal in that regard.
Throughout this thread Physics Guy you have attempted to place scientific theories on par with religious dogmas. It has been pointed out to you that those you make claims have the burden of proof. The scientific method adheres to this principle. Religious claims of the supernatural do not. You’ve demonstrated thoroughly in this thread you do not understand the logics of the burden of proof concept and you’ve ignored this when I pointed it out to you in a previous post. Science does speculate but fringe theories are just that, and do not have consensus. Those fringe theoretical physic theories are not asserted willy nilly with no reasoning and evidence/data to warrant them. On the other hand God myths are simply asserted, with no evidence.
And so we end up, as in this discussion, with those who discuss the possibility of God, with notions taken seriously, arguing over which God myth is preferable or makes more sense compared to another. But there is no indication from those arguing over the myths, including from yourself, that they appreciate their arguments offer no merit worthy of a serious consideration. You yourself argued as if what you had to say was rational and meaningful, that is had some connection to the reality we experience.
(I might go through the thread and quote and comment on some of your other statements, but for now, I'll just address this one quote)
-
_Gorman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:05 pm
marg wrote:PhysicsGuy wrote: As to your question about a first God, the LDS view (although some object to this) states that God once was like humans in the past. If this is the case, then achieving the "rank" of God happens at some point on their time line. The LDS call humans Gods as well, but just in a nascent form without the same abilities. In this sense there was never a "first God", but it appears that there would necessarily be a first "human" to achieve the "rank" of God. How this would even be possible is the 20 dollar question. This, of course, would be easy to explain if time is fundamentally different "there" when compared to what we are used to "here", in that events don't necessarily happen one after the other (this of course would seem to cause lots of other problems).
What you argue for is sheer fantasy with not one shred of evidence, no justifiable reasoning to assume any basis in fact. Even within this fantasy world of reasoning you present, your argument is illogical. “No first God” you opine because any first God would have been human first according to LDS mythology. Sheesh! That doesn’t eliminate a first God conceptually even within the myth. Ah but you add another twist, what if time was different “there” than “here”. Excuse me? Where’s your basis for this different time, and this different “there”? But I have no interest is arguing over which God myth makes more sense. With no basis in reality, none have any merit, they are equal in that regard.
Correct. There is no evidence. I should have mentioned at the beginning of the post that it was pure speculation. I'm not exactly sure why you say that it is illogical though. Given the conditions, it appears self consistent. Maybe not consistent with what we view as reality, but possibly consistent within itself.
Throughout this thread Physics Guy you have attempted to place scientific theories on par with religious dogmas. It has been pointed out to you that those you make claims have the burden of proof. The scientific method adheres to this principle. Religious claims of the supernatural do not. You’ve demonstrated thoroughly in this thread you do not understand the logics of the burden of proof concept and you’ve ignored this when I pointed it out to you in a previous post. Science does speculate but fringe theories are just that, and do not have consensus. Those fringe theoretical physic theories are not asserted willy nilly with no reasoning and evidence/data to warrant them. On the other hand God myths are simply asserted, with no evidence.
And so we end up, as in this discussion, with those who discuss the possibility of God, with notions taken seriously, arguing over which God myth is preferable or makes more sense compared to another. But there is no indication from those arguing over the myths, including from yourself, that they appreciate their arguments offer no merit worthy of a serious consideration. You yourself argued as if what you had to say was rational and meaningful, that is had some connection to the reality we experience.
(I might go through the thread and quote and comment on some of your other statements, but for now, I'll just address this one quote)
I believe I have addressed burden of proof in this thread. I am under no obligation to offer evidence for the existence of God because I have not been arguing that God exists. I am under obligation to offer evidence that science cannot meaningfully address fundamental religious topics. I have done this.
I think I will start a thread in the Terrestrial Forum about this topic to address it again.
-
_marg
PhysicsGuy wrote: I believe I have addressed burden of proof in this thread. I am under no obligation to offer evidence for the existence of God because I have not been arguing that God exists. I am under obligation to offer evidence that science cannot meaningfully address fundamental religious topics. I have done this.
Ok PhysicsGuy, what fundamental religious topics are you referring to that science attempts to address? Of those fundamental topics which religion addresses, does religion address them successfully? In what way does religion do this?
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
marg wrote:I'm still waiting Physics Guy, or have you decided to drop this discussion?
marg,
It would appear that PhysicsGuy is as unprepared to address your points as he was to address mine. I don’t know how much of my exchange with PhysicsGuy you read, but suffice it to say my general structure with him was use of direct quote from him and a response from me to his words.
I found him evasive and prone to shift the issue. In one post, he stated that he had made his last.
It appeared in numerous posts that PhysicsGuy tries to discredit science, yet he denied he was doing so.
Example PhysicsGuy speaking:
I should make it clear again that I'm not trying to argue that God exists, or that religions are right, I'm merely trying to say that scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters.
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am
Also:
I discount science when discussing the existence of God because (as I said before) it is necessary to "extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God". We cannot tell if science is any more right here than anything else.
Also:
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.
Also:
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.
Also:
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).
And this:
I don't think it is discrediting science by saying that it is just a bunch of educated guesses. That is all it is.
Particularly in these comments (as well as others), PhysicsGuy attempts to diminish the importance/contribution of science.
In any case, I’m skeptical that he wishes to address either of our pointed, focused issues.
JAK
-
_marg