My apologies. I thought we were discussing a similar topic in the other thread, but maybe I misunderstand your questions. I will answer them here.
marg wrote:
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?
I think I have mentioned this to you before, but science should not (and cannot) discuss any fundamental religious topics. This is the topic of our discussion here. It is people (not science) who attempt to extrapolate beyond what science addresses to go into the realm of religion.
Religion may or may not address it own fundamental topics successfully, it depends on your definition of successful. It is impossible to check their fundamental claims scientifically, so the only test we can really do is if the fundamental claims are self consistent. It is not too difficult to make claims self consistent.
marg stated: 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?
PhysicsGuy stated: I think I have mentioned this to you before, but science should not (and cannot) discuss any fundamental religious topics. This is the topic of our discussion here. It is people (not science) who attempt to extrapolate beyond what science addresses to go into the realm of religion.
Non sequitur to marg’s questions. You don’t address them. You evade them.
Second, science does “discuss” indirectly religious claims.
Religious doctrine claims the earth is at the center of the universe and the “great light” (singular) is the sun. Science documents that the (earth’s) sun is only one of billions and billions of suns. Hence, science contradicts religious doctrine. That is but one of hundreds of religious doctrines which is refuted by evidence which science presents.
Science addresses the causes for disease and documents its findings with evidence. That is a refutation of religious doctrine regarding the “cause” of disease.
Your pontificating about what “science should not (and cannot) discuss...” is so flawed as to be laughable.
PhysicsGuy stated: Religion may or may not address it own fundamental topics successfully, it depends on your definition of successful. It is impossible to check their fundamental claims scientifically, so the only test we can really do is if the fundamental claims are self consistent. It is not too difficult to make claims self consistent.
An understatement. It’s “impossible to check their fundamental claims” by any open, transparent, honest method.
“Claims” are subject to skeptical review. Under that skeptical review are questions about the claims. Incorrect that “it is not too difficult to make claims self consistent.”
If you will make some claims, I’ll demonstrate. I’ll ask you questions which will expose that you are not “self consistent” or that you evade honest response to the questions.
You have not been straight forward in response to marg’s questions. You evade them. Why?
She asked: “...what fundamental religious topics are you referring to that science attempts to address?”