Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 4. (Read 7917 times)

Science can't even falsify some of its own assumptions, though these assumptions may be (and are) falsifiable through other means (e.g. Logic falsifies the assumption of a Positivistic Universe because the assumption requires invoking at least one logical fallacy, I.e. the sameness-in-difference principle that states any two relands 'x' and 'y' must occupy a common medium).

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

What is your purpose? Not a self labeled purpose but what is the purpose of your existence?

Life does not need to be self aware to exist, according to science. So crabs and worms are using pure instinct to reproduce and to fight for food or to avoid being eaten by other non self aware creatures. Life does not need a purpose to be if I understand it, while I am myself defined by a Cartesian mind and have a purpose to define others and their purpose... I think.

Just because there is no way to identify if something is out there does not mean it is there. If we reverse this logic then we can say that anything is truth. A prophet claims: "A pink dinosaur in a blackhole is god. I need no proof because I can't be proven wrong..you can't reject my claim because you can not test it scientifically"...that is madness. Where did you get this knowledge then? ..the problem with all man made gods is that they have an earthly doctrine which can be proven false. Omnipotent and omniscient as gods are supposed to be, If the doctrine can be proven false then obviously the deity of the doctrine is more than likely false as well.

I said science = knowledge. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process/method.

No everything is falsifiable.

Blasphemy!!!


is that a self-aware crab or worm?

So for a Cartesian mind his consciousness "I think" is proof he exists; it would also mean that "I think" is born before the concept of "I am". The "stuff " needs to be created first, then the consciousness is created for "it " to be aware of its own existence.

Can this be true for a crab or a worm?

In _Meditations on First Philosophy_ de Carte considers what he knows about himself, whether he can trust his own senses, etc.  He decides that although he cannot trust his own senses (he cannot know that his senses aren't subject to the trickery of an evil but more powerful being), he annot trust his thoughts (likewise, someone may be fooling him or playing with his thoughts) he *can* know that he exists because even if everything he thinks is wrong or foolish, he is still thinking, and that entails his existence.  Thus his famous line *cogito ergo sum* or "I think therefore I am".  Later he starts trying to rebuild his trust in his various senses but for me, the argumentation becomes weaker after that.

Science has its own inertia; when will all the evidence be evaluated in an honest manner?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--590503

Skeptics use a double standard to reject parapsychological research.

Since there is no objective scientific way to identify an extraordinary claim,
To say that parapsychology makes "extraordinary claims" is based on personal belief rather than scientific facts.

Ultimately, it is hypocritical for a skeptic who claims to require scientific evidence before accepting a belief to use this double standard to reject parapsychological research in order to maintain his belief that ESP does not exist.

The top 20 spirit-contact cases and the top 20 reincarnation cases.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

"You might accept the Cartesian proof of your own existence"

Can you point me to what it is?

You're right to divide between potentially falsifiable (but currently impossible due to limitations of technology, et cetera) and things which are in principle falsifiable (no technology will help).  However, you're gone a bit overboard when you say that "everythign we know literally is science".  That really depends on a concrete definition of "know", which will get you into metaphysics, and you'll be as vague as the god-talkers next thing you know.

It's important, I think, to recognize the limitations of observation as well as the philosophical connundrum of conciousness and knowledge.  If you are true skeptic, you will not find any proof of your own existence---such proof doesn't exists.  The best you can do is sollipsistic arguments from heuristic but without first principles you have no basis for your heuristics.  You might accept the cartesian proof of your own existance, but that doesn't extend to your senses, your knowledge, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I'm essentially a skeptic, I'm just trying to talk about strict skepticism.

If you think you know what it means to "know" or to "exists" then I think you're a bit ahead of me.  Anyway, I find the claim that all knowledge is science to be ludicrous, and to be clear, I'm a godless atheist scientist.

1)  It doesn't matter to science whether the debate about a Positovistic Universe is ongoing; it must be assumed to be true to utilize it.  It's really not any different than assuming God to be true in the sense that neither God nor a Positivistic Universe is falsifiable via the scientific method.

2)  You mistakenly quoted someone else's comments as my own.  I didn't say anything about light's mass.  However, this makes me think you're not reading anything I'm saying since you aren't even aware of who is saying what

3)  There's absolutely nothing fallacious about my experience of warmth if I feel it -- it's directly known.  Direct experience of phenomena is an infallible means of acquiring knowledge, I.e. it is better than science.  I know infinitely more about warmth by having experienced it than can be learned about warmth through the scientific method.  And, by the way, you do realize objective in science is still rooted in relativism, right?  For example, the kelvin temperature is set on a ratio scale where the anchor point of 0 degrees is a theoretical limit that can never be falsified (since falsifying it would require continuing observation in a 'dead' Universe)?

In short, science uses an isolated piece(s) of reality to describe other isolated piece(s) of reality without taking into account the system in which they both inhabit.

4)  To suggest nobody knew anything prior to the development of the scientific method is one of dumbest statements I've ever heard.  It's literally retarded and/or insane.  I mean, come on...you don't actually believe this do you?

So everything science says is true, until proven not to be one day...

The only lies are found in religion. Bible = book of lies. YES everything can be proven false otherwise it would not be science. Only religion claim everything to be absolute truth even though so much of it can be already proven false. Science is falsifiable....if it were not then it would be another religion.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation. Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

Warmth? What?....Anyway science simply put is knowledge..the word science comes from the Latin word for knowledge. The idea of God is faith and based in faith. As soon as Science can explain that which is attributed in ignorance to god it leaves the realm of god (ignorance) and becomes knowledge aka science. Faith is not knowledge.

The quote:

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
- Robert Ingersoll.

Is what I was referencing, this is quite true. There is nothing "nonsensical" about it. All the blessing of the modern world are thanks to science. I can acquire "information" here but not necessarily knowledge two people can talk all day and learn nothing worthwhile.

"Any attempt at gaining knowledge outside the scientific method can only lead to ignorance." this can explain religion quite well.

Does that mean everything we believe now to be the truth can be disproved tomorrow (using scientific methodologies) as we live in a constant state of flux, a superposition of approximations and/or lies?

"Zero" again. My favorite number.

You keep on spouting about Positivistic Universe being the be all and end all of science, as if there is agreement on it, there is not. It is an ongoing discussion, which currently seems to have equal argument for both Positivism and Realism.

Yeah, but you know what? Hypothesising and reasoning, challenging existing understanding, are all welcome in the scientific method. As he said, it's ok to be wrong, in fact being demonstrably wrong actually adds to the knowledge of science.

Warmth is subjective because the instrument we use to measure it, us, is fecking unreliable and inconsistent. Temperature in degrees can be established objectively by way of removing our crappy subjective selves from the equation and developing a multitude of technologies to accurately establish the facts of temperature.

Correct. Nobody *knew* anything, They posited, they suspected, they 'believed' but they did not *know* until that knowledge could be removed from the subjective individual and observed, measured, tested and, importantly, replicated, by the objective process known as scientific methodology.