Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 101
The value of science to atheismPage 5 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

The LCE irrefutably proves god not to exist.


Are you just a Troll? If not.

Personal attacks such as "full of yourself" are not logical arguments, they are disappointing arguments
.

The statement "you are full of yourself" would have to be the only logical conclusion that anyone could ever come up with to to describe your ridiculous claim.

argumentum ad nauseum is boring and you are simply making a fool of yourself.

Which God have you disproven? You have never even defined the God you have claimed to proven does not exist.

Don't you realise that what you are claiming would mean you believe in miracles or the supernatural if you like?

Lets put your claim to the test shall we:

Who is prepared to accept this claim as fact? The Law of Conservation of Energy Irrefutably proves that God does not exist
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 102
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/22/2012 7:48:40 AM

I fail to see where you have addressed the thread topic.

That's only one of very many things you "fail to see", and probably the least consequential.

For instance, you don't yet seem to have grasped the idea, despite that it too is obvious, that atheism is just a basic expression of 'the scientific method' - specifically the parts that relate to observation and testing. This, apparently complete, incomprehension is presumably what allows you to keep repeating, entirely nonsensically, "The thread topic is "The value of science to atheism" .... The answer is ZERO.".

You "fail to see" that your dogmatic mantra is contradicted by some, if not many, of the atheists contributing to this thread - who, for obvious reasons, surely know better than you do their own thought processes.
You "fail to see" that your erroneous conclusion is contradicted by research - specifically that 'religious belief' is inversely correlated, not only with higher levels of education in general, but that decline in religious belief is more pronounced amongst scientists and spikes in particular (one might say relevant), fields.
You "fail to see" that 'religious belief' on a global scale, by country, is inversely related to support for science in general, and support for the theory of evolution in particular.

Most basically, what you are "fail(ing) to see" is that science and religion are polar opposites - for religion, 'faith' is a virtue. In science it is anathema.
Science observes and tests, it deals with evidence and verifiable facts.
Religion makes claims and assertions that can not be falsified and expects/demands 'belief' based on 'faith'.

So, what you "fail to see", with your tiresomely frequent repetitions of your nonsensical dogma - "The value of science to atheism... is ZERO." is that atheism is a simple expression of the scientific method. Which itself is an expression of basic rationality and logic - which is the other route by which many people arrive at an atheist position.


You also "fail to see", despite that it too has been explained to you numerous times, that your other favourite nonsensical saying - "Science has not ruled out that a Creator is not necessary" - is (likewise) completely meaningless.

Science has not ruled out that a lot of things are not necessary. But that has no implications as to whether they, whatever 'they' are, should be ruled in, whether they have any validity, or whether they even exist.

In a way though, it's fitting that you should rely on, and repeat so often, these two phrases - one wrong and the other meaningless, because they neatly summarise and centextualise the vacuous emptiness of your posts, and position.


argumentum ad nauseum is boring and you are simply making a fool of yourself.

Considering the above, this applies to you more than anyone else in this thread.
For instance, to argue a position in a thread titled 'The value of science to atheism' one should have at least some understanding of the terms, yet all you have done is provide a continuous demonstration that you really really don't understand the concept of rational argument, haven't got a clue how science works, and have somehow avoided grasping what 'atheism' means as well.


Which God have you disproven? You have never even defined the God you have claimed to proven does not exist.

You haven't defined the god you appear to be implying he hasn't disproven, or for that matter defined any 'god' that hasn't been disproven,
Are you claiming there is one, or more, god things that haven't been disproven?
Go ahead and define them then.


Who is prepared to accept this claim as fact? The Law of Conservation of Energy Irrefutably proves that God does not exist

Which 'god' are you talking about? Zeus? Shiva? Jehovah of 'Genesis' fame? You'll have to be more specific.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 103
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/22/2012 3:41:47 PM
For instance, you don't yet seem to have grasped the idea, despite that it too is obvious, that atheism is just a basic expression of 'the scientific method' - specifically the parts that relate to observation and testing. This, apparently complete, incomprehension is presumably what allows you to keep repeating, entirely nonsensically, "The thread topic is "The value of science to atheism" .... The answer is ZERO."


Atheism=Non-Belief in the existence of a deity.How is that an expression of the ‘Scientific method’?Which is:

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.
2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.
3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

The ‘scientific method’ is not even relevant to atheism.Unless of course you are claiming that atheism has applied the ‘scientific method’ to disprove the non-existence of a Creator.How can that be?When it is an empirically untestable hypothesis.That is illogical. .An atheist in this thread has claimed that science has proven the non-existence of a Creator.Care to comment?


Considering the above, this applies to you more than anyone else in this thread.
For instance, to argue a position in a thread titled 'The value of science to atheism' one should have at least some understanding of the terms, yet all you have done is provide a continuous demonstration that you really really don't understand the concept of rational argument, haven't got a clue how science works, and have somehow avoided grasping what 'atheism' means as well.


Who hasn’t grasped how science works and what atheism means? You have after all claimed that atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method’.Which would be nonsense.Whose arguments are irrational?

Nice try though


On this point, I will agree with you, Robertaus. However, I still don't believe in God



For once you will get some people to agree with you (it's a miracle!... don't thank god, thank me for that) :-)... that must be quite a new and enjoyable experience for you... :-) On the other hand


I can only thank a fellow atheist of yours.


Some understand why and how, others don't. It's just the way it is, either way the validity of the statement remains unaffected


The only one who claims that your statement is valid would be you.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/22/2012 4:41:09 PM

Atheism=Non-Belief in the existence of a deity.How is that an expression of the ‘Scientific method’?Which is:

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.
2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.
3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

The ‘scientific method’ is not even relevant to atheism.Unless of course you are claiming that atheism has applied the ‘scientific method’ to disprove the non-existence of a Creator.How can that be?When it is an empirically untestable hypothesis.That is illogical. .

It's only 'illogical' if one applies, as you do, flawed logic to a misinterpretation of 'science'.


An atheist in this thread has claimed that science has proven the non-existence of a Creator.Care to comment?

I did. Now I'm waiting for you to define the 'creator' you think has withstood the refutation to see if your claim has merit.
Care to define 'the creator'?


Who hasn’t grasped how science works and what atheism means? You have after all claimed that atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method’.Which would be nonsense.Whose arguments are irrational?
(my emphasis)
Yours. Since all you offer are unreasoned contradictions. and conclusions based on your shallow opinions.
 sporty16
Joined: 9/17/2012
Msg: 105
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 12:38:43 AM
Hey everyone. Gallileo was right that the earth is not necessarily the centre of the universe , it is a relative question and does not really matter to the Church. What really matters is that God did create it all. What does matter is that the earth is the centre of God's attention. God knows each and every single human that ever lived and has come and offered eternal life to all who come to Him through Jesus Christ , the Son of God. Science is the study of things God created ....and we study His creation , His Science. He made all the laws for creation to obey...Go ahead and break any of God's laws and see what happens... Science does not go against God but rather proves He exists.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 106
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 12:49:13 AM
^^^ So why have you listed yourself as 'Non-religious' if that is what you think?

Why should we believe anything you say if you lie about simple things like that?
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 107
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 2:03:05 AM

It's only 'illogical' if one applies, as you do, flawed logic to a misinterpretation of 'science'.


Is the 'scientific method' flawed?


I did. Now I'm waiting for you to define the 'creator' you think has withstood the refutation to see if your claim has merit.
Care to define 'the creator'?


Easy: Creator=Creator of the Physical Universe and Originator of Biological Life.


I did. Since all you offer are unreasoned contradictions. and conclusions based on your shallow opinions.


Unreasoned contradictions? “atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method'There is no definition of atheism that even states that.Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?.Shallow opinions?That is only your opinion which you are entitled to.Doesn’t mean it is true.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 108
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 9:57:32 AM
Here is the comment you requested... The consequence of a god that can create is to violate the LCE. Therefore god is not possible, unless YOU prove the LCE is false. A tall order considering the LCE is upheld billions of times per second on earth and countless trillions of times per second in the universe.


If ENERGY cannot be created, how did it originate?
Where did the entire physical Universe come from?Must have taken a lot of energy to CREATE the Universe.The Universe is not eternal.

It is impossible to CREATE energy through natural methods. But it exists.The only answers to how energy originated can only be:

(A) ENERGY CREATED itself from nothing.
(B)ENERGY was somehow CREATED by unnatural means.

Care to explain?Because i don't know. Bearing in mind that both answers violate THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

Can you also provide a link to the evidence that atheism has proven the non-existence of God using the 'scientific method'.

Can't wait for that!
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 10:25:45 AM

It's only 'illogical' if one applies, as you do, flawed logic to a misinterpretation of 'science'.


Is the 'scientific method' flawed?

err... No. But as I said, when you apply flawed logic to a misinterpretation of science you (as you yourself noted), reach 'illogical' conclusions.
Are you claiming there's something wrong with the 'scientific method' because whenever you 'use it' you get nonsensical results? [/laughs]


Creator=Creator of the Physical Universe and Originator of Biological Life.

Prove it. [/laughs even louder]


Unreasoned contradictions? “atheism is just a basic expression of the ‘scientific method'There is no definition of atheism that even states that.Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

I already did. That you don't get it is probably due to your, apparently general, incomprehension. Of which flawed logic and misinterpretation of science is only a part.

Note that in post #190 I referred to this set of circumstances -

You "fail to see" that your dogmatic mantra is contradicted by some, if not many, of the atheists contributing to this thread - who, for obvious reasons, surely know better than you do their own thought processes.
You "fail to see" that your erroneous conclusion is contradicted by research - specifically that 'religious belief' is inversely correlated, not only with higher levels of education in general, but that decline in religious belief is more pronounced amongst scientists and spikes in particular (one might say relevant), fields.
You "fail to see" that 'religious belief' on a global scale, by country, is inversely related to support for science in general, and support for the theory of evolution in particular.

Most basically, what you are "fail(ing) to see" is that science and religion are polar opposites - for religion, 'faith' is a virtue. In science it is anathema.
Science observes and tests, it deals with evidence and verifiable facts.
Religion makes claims and assertions that can not be falsified and expects/demands 'belief' based on 'faith'.

Following from the above (concentrate now) can god things be 'observed'? (No) Tested for? (No) Is there any evidence that any exist? (No) Can the existence of any god things be verified? (No)
This ^^^ is a basic application of the scientific method, and the outcome from no test, no observation, no evidence, and no verification is the unavoidable conclusion that 'belief' can not be justified.
OK, concentrate really hard now -
Q) What is a lack of belief in deities called?
A) Atheism

I await your proof that 'atheism is not an expression of the scientific method' [/falls over laughing]
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 110
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 11:09:02 AM

(1000 years after the discovery of rubber)

Well he had to use something
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 6:01:28 PM

If ENERGY cannot be created, how did it originate?
Where did the entire physical Universe come from?Must have taken a lot of energy to CREATE the Universe.The Universe is not eternal.

It is impossible to CREATE energy through natural methods. But it exists.The only answers to how energy originated can only be:

(A) ENERGY CREATED itself from nothing.
(B)ENERGY was somehow CREATED by unnatural means.

If energy cannot be created, then it has no origins. Both your options assumes that energy needed to have been created (presumably from nothing). This is an invalid assumption, and completely opposite the reality that we observe, in which something always exists. Remember that the Big Bang says the universe came from a singularity, not nothing (and there's no reason to think that the singularity came from nothing either). In other words, existence should be seen as the default state of things, not nothingness. The only question is how energy/matter is transformed (e.g., what was it like in the singularity, before it became the universe?).
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 112
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/23/2012 7:16:16 PM
Here is another article I came across regarding the LCE:
Here is the writer:
Sean M. Carroll
Sean Michael Carroll, PhD is a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. He is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity.



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

I like to think that, if I were not a professional cosmologist, I would still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the theory would be a lot less popular.
But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920's: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, there was a reason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.
It’s not that all hell has broken loose; it’s just that we’re considering a more general context than was necessary under Newtonian rules. There is still a single important equation, which is indeed often called “energy-momentum conservation.” It looks like this:

The details aren’t important, but the meaning of this equation is straightforward enough: energy and momentum evolve in a precisely specified way in response to the behavior of spacetime around them. If that spacetime is standing completely still, the total energy is constant; if it’s evolving, the energy changes in a completely unambiguous way.
In the case of dark energy, that evolution is pretty simple: the density of vacuum energy in empty space is absolute constant, even as the volume of a region of space (comoving along with galaxies and other particles) grows as the universe expands. So the total energy, density times volume, goes up.
This bothers some people, but it’s nothing newfangled that has been pushed in our face by the idea of dark energy. It’s just as true for “radiation” — particles like photons that move at or near the speed of light. The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases. A decrease in energy is just as much a “violation of energy conservation” as an increase in energy, but it doesn’t seem to bother people as much. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how bothersome it is, of course — it’s a crystal-clear prediction of general relativity.


There was a bit more, but too much to put in a post at one time. An interesting read for those who are concerned that the LCE isn't the answer to everything. I think if you intend to use science as a means to prove something, it's best to be fully informed. Mostly because it changes.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 113
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 8:06:13 AM
keenano msg 188:


Science has nothing to do with my atheism. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence supporting any god claim.


Sounds pretty scientific to me. Isn't that part of how to describe science? That's a pretty weird statement. Very contradictive. Kind of makes no sense to say that.
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 114
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 2:57:25 PM
The law of conservation of energy may be true as far as we know, given our current understanding of physics but we know so little that anything is possible.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 115
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 4:05:50 PM
Theist Claim: The people/books of MY religion know the properties/mind of god things.
Science: None of the 'evidence' provided in the past to attempt to support your specific claims has been remotely credible. In the absence of credible new evidence your claims remain thoroughly refuted.

Deist Claim: Universe exists, therefore god things.
Science: There is no evidence to support god things because the existence of the universe that is claimed as support has alternative explanatory hypotheses that do not require the assertion of god things. The god thing assertion is an unsupported, unnecessary speculation. Even if there was found to be some reason to give it some credence - which there currently isn't - it is also an incomplete answer because it doesn't explain where the god things come from.

Atheist Claim: Those other claims are BS.
Science: Your hypothesis is supported by reason and evidence.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 116
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 4:51:36 PM

The law of conservation of energy may be true as far as we know, given our current understanding of physics but we know so little that anything is possible.

Yes, anything is possible, but I think it's best to stick to the facts we have discovered thus far, as well as the models that work the best right now. As time goes on and we discover new things we will have to incorporate new facts and/or improve those models (or replace them). The important thing is that science moves on (unhindered by anyone's preconceived notions).

Just as a side comment, the atheist philosopher Colin McGinn said that he would like religion to be true. He said there is no ultimate justice in this world, and it would be nice if there was some authority distributing justice the way it should be. I too can understand the desire to believe in an all-loving god, and I actually see God as representing mankind's desire for a better world (as my sister said, she doesn't believe in God, but she believes in the idea of God). In that view, to believe in God as an intelligent being, somewhere out there in the universe or beyond is, quite frankly, missing the point. We have the desire for a better world, but it is we who have to build it (if we want justice then we have to seek it out and make it happen). No one else is going to do it for us.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 117
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 5:33:12 PM

Following from the above (concentrate now) can god things be 'observed'? (No) Tested for? (No) Is there any evidence that any exist? (No) Can the existence of any god things be verified? (No)
This ^^^ is a basic application of the scientific method, and the outcome from no test, no observation, no evidence, and no verification is the unavoidable conclusion that 'belief' can not be justified.
OK, concentrate really hard now -
Q) What is a lack of belief in deities called?
A) Atheism

I await your proof that 'atheism is not an expression of the scientific method' [/falls over laughing]


Now that^^^^^^ is a delusion.Since when does the scientific method apply to any supernatural entity?Science can neither prove or refute the existence of ANY supernatural entity.[cries with laughter!]Science is the study of natural things.How did science test for something that would be outside the laws of nature?Who doesn’t know how science works? Your claim is as dumb as this:

1) Careful observation of a phenomenon(The Universe and Life exists=God’s creation)=Yes

2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.(God might exist)

3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.(check to see if your Cat is still breathing.If so=evidence of life.)

4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.(God does exist)As the Universe and Life exists.

A believer could use the ‘scientific method’ to justify his/her belief.Your claim that atheism is a basic expression of the scientific method is erroneous.Nice try though.



his BB argument sounds to me like you're trying to prove the LCE false at some point in time, in that case, it would contradict your statement "No one is saying the LCE is false," or is it you're just trying to say it was false at some point in time which you could then use to squeak god through the time crack ? No proof that the LCE has ever been violated exists as of today.


Is there proof that energy always existed?.If energy didn’t always exist THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY would not have existed.Are you are claiming that energy is eternal?.Then that would mean that energy existed before the Universe existed.Can you explain that?Funny how you can dismiss one theory to validate your theory.The LCE can be violated.Someone in an earlier post pointed it out you but you chose to ignore it.

The Universe was CREATED.We just don't know how.Must have been a whole lot of energy created to create the Universe though.Would that invalidate the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.?


(A) is impossible for the same reason that god is impossible. Violates the LCE.
(B) ... somehow created. Violates the LCE. about the "unnatural" means, nature encompasses all that exists. The only "unnatural" things are those that don't exist, that keeps nature free of fallacies.

The one you forgot. The energy we see is the result of a perfect balance where the sum of all energy is zero thereby making the creation of energy unnecessary. How that happened ? .. that I do not k


Are you sure the sum of all energy is zero?I thought it was an hypothesis.Has nature always existed? Must have had a cause.


Are you trying to prove something ? :-) Get yourself out of the believers camp ? :-) It's a worthy goal, you have my full support :-)


Get yourself out of the intellectually dishonest camp.It is clearly where you are at.


Piece of cake. Atheism did not prove the non-existence of god, Science did. The LCE is the result of applying the scientific method. In turn the LCE refutes god as you and the believers defined it. Don't wait... read about physics and the LCE in the meantime


Still no link to the evidence.Physics and the LCE doesn’t even mention God.Let alone provide a refutation.

Are you really this stupid?It is scientifically impossible to prove or refute a supernatural entity.An intelligent atheist(not you) would not even make such a stupid claim.Why hasn’t your claim been published in any Scientific Journal?Because no scientist would endorse such a stupid claim.That is why.


n other words, scientists avoid pissing people off (particularly when some of them write their paychecks). This thread should certainly shed some light as to why. Not only are the believers in the group of people who refuse to understand the consequences of some scientific laws, even some Atheists refuse to understand them as well


This thread has definitely shed some light on some atheists.In particular the scientifically ignorant ones.


As you can tell, I am not winning a popularity contest here... LOL (I already lost the robertaus election... LOL)


Aren’t you wondering why?Stop telling lies might help.

If anyone believes that everything has naturalistic origins.The facts are there are ZERO scientific explanations (only speculation)

What term is used to describe something you believe to be true but has no evidence?

That would be FAITH

No different to a theist really.

How ironic.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/24/2012 6:36:54 PM

Following from the above (concentrate now) can god things be 'observed'? (No) Tested for? (No) Is there any evidence that any exist? (No) Can the existence of any god things be verified? (No)
This ^^^ is a basic application of the scientific method, and the outcome from no test, no observation, no evidence, and no verification is the unavoidable conclusion that 'belief' can not be justified.
OK, concentrate really hard now -
Q) What is a lack of belief in deities called?
A) Atheism

I await your proof that 'atheism is not an expression of the scientific method' [/falls over laughing]


Now that^^^^^^ is a delusion.Since when does the scientific method apply to any supernatural entity?Science can neither prove or refute the existence of ANY supernatural entity.

As is usual, you misinterpret, fail to comprehend, and then miss the point.

None of the questions I mentioned (can god things be 'observed'? (No) Tested for? (No) Is there any evidence that any exist? (No) Can the existence of any god things be verified? (No)) are applications of 'the scientific method' directed at "supernatural entities".
They are all simple (rational) questions directed at the question of 'evidence'. They are the same questions science asks in relation to any hypothesis.

Claiming that "supernatural entities" are immune from testing, the normal application of evidentiary rules, and escape the need for verification is just special pleading.
Which you pile on top of a completely erroneous assertion - that "Science can neither prove or refute the existence of ANY supernatural entity."

Actually, science can. And has.

Does the god thing who/which 'created the sun and the moon' and set them spinning around the earth exist?
Obviously not, since we know - through observation, testing, and verification through various means - that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
Need I remind you that lots of people 'believed' and had 'faith' in that particular "supernatural entity"?
Where is he/she/it now?

Is Thor still in the clouds hurling down lightning bolts do you think?


If anyone believes that everything has naturalistic origins.The facts are there are ZERO scientific explanations (only speculation)

Oh my... this ^^^ is comedy on a tragic scale.
 sporty16
Joined: 9/17/2012
Msg: 119
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 6:58:00 AM
You are right obertaus. Science destroys all lies and frauds and proves that God is the creator of all things. He is Lord of all. Evolution and atheism and all their cousins are all frauds. Thanks be to God
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 10:59:43 AM

You are right obertaus. Science destroys all lies and frauds and proves that God is the creator of all things.

Do you have a citation for that? [/laughs]

He is Lord of all. Evolution and atheism and all their cousins are all frauds. Thanks be to God.

Your posts, by providing a glimpse into the alternative, prove the value of science - not only to atheism, but to civilisation.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 2:42:42 PM
@lyingcheat

Hey man, you should know better than to feed the trolls. ;)
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 122
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 6:41:25 PM

As is usual, you misinterpret, fail to comprehend, and then miss the point.


Really?


The scientific method requires observations of NATURE to formulate and test hypotheses.[1] It consists of these steps:[2][3]

1 Asking a question about a NATURAL phenomenon
2 Making observations of the phenomenon
3 Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4 Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5 Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6 Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment
.................Wikipedia.

Note the word NATURAL.I have highlighted it for you just so you don't miss the point or fail to comprehend.Or misrepresent science again.


Since you decided it does per [1] above. I doubt I am the only one interested in seeing how you apply the scientific method to prove the existence of a god that doesn't exist. In passing you'll be refuting your own statement... quite a feat :-)


Did not I say that that it was a dumb statement.Just as dumb as using the scientific
method to prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity.? Strawman.

When is the revelation that the ‘scientific method’ has been used to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity getting published? That would be comedy on a TRAGIC scale.Perhaps you could get it published in a Comic Book.”Mad” comes to mind.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 123
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 7:42:46 PM

Did not I say that that it was a dumb statement.Just as dumb as using the scientific
method to prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity.? Strawman.

When is the revelation that the ‘scientific method’ has been used to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity getting published? That would be comedy on a TRAGIC scale.Perhaps you could get it published in a Comic Book.”Mad” comes to mind.

You seem to think that because science does not deal with the supernatural that scientific findings have no impact on it. This is not true. The more we can explain the universe through natural means, the less relevance the supernatural has. That is, whatever value the supernatural had is eroded whenever we find a natural explanation for something. We don't invoke gods to explain phenomenon like we used to (like lightning). Science might not disprove a supernatural entity, but it makes it increasingly irrelevant and unnecessary and, applying Occam's Razor, we can increasingly cut out God from our picture of reality.

Once again, if God was such a fundamental part of the universe then his/it's presence would be obvious by now. There is simply no reason why we should resort to a "you haven't discovered everything in the universe" explanation to explain why we cannot detect a god. This is desperate rationalization to try to cover up for a very obvious fact: we have no evidence for the existence of God.

If you created the universe and wanted to establish a loving relationship with your favored creation, would you hide yourself where your creation wouldn't be able to detect you? Would you force your creation to rely on faith to determine your existence?
 newby2012
Joined: 12/16/2011
Msg: 124
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/25/2012 8:33:25 PM


Science has nothing to do with my atheism. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence supporting any god claim.
Sounds pretty scientific to me. Isn't that part of how to describe science? That's a pretty weird statement. Very contradictive. Kind of makes no sense to say that.


Butting in. It's well on its way to being science but not quite. There is no way to test the veracity of the statement that he doesn't believe that there is a god because there is no supporting evidence. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for a god can be tested and, yes, we're all waiting for that from the thousands of religions out there.

The statement is more rationalist than scientific. Whereas all science incorporates rationalism, not all rationalism is science.

Thanks.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 125
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/27/2012 12:24:29 AM

The "revelation" is called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It was published in the 19th century. You're way behind in your reading!. That reminds me, when are you going to provide proof the "supernatural" exists ?


Now here is a revelation for you!.Bit behind in your reading are you?

I’m sure Godel proved that The Law of Conservation of Energy is violated during extreme events such as Tornados and other violent events and conditions.What are you going to do now?Claim Tornados are only a theory?

That would make this statement invalid.


However, No proof that the LCE has ever been violated exists as of today, is still the case



You wanted the LCE published in "Mad" ? ...are you mad !??... that's what you read ??? No wonder your knowledge of basic sciences is such a tragedy. That's explains it.
Another Strawman.Is that the best you can do?


Instead of "Mad", try reading, Discover Physics - by Benjamin Crowell - Lightandmatter.com , 2007. It's available for free. It specifically goes over the conservation laws. An important topic, don't miss those chapters. ;-)


Is that where you read: the Law of Conservation of Energy Irrefutably proves the non-existence of God ? Perhaps you read comic books ALL the time.Your assertion is Science-Fiction.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism