No. Science does not make statements of fact. All of science is contingent on the discovery of new information. Science builds models. Scientific facts are not 100% certain.
HINT: There is no ultimate fact that would not be subject to change given new information.
Once again you have attempted to change the subject. Why is it so difficult for you to cite your methodology of exploration that is better than the scientific method. We are still waiting.
[quote=âSid, post:599, topic:3719â]I guess you missed the bit where I wrote -
Why get rid of Science , itâs not an all or nothing proposition. Yes , science works , thatâs not in question . The question is whether Science and Science alone can answer the questions that humankind has asked from its very beginnings .
So the method you used is to refer to what someone else wrote?
And we are still waiting for that methodology that can produce something better than what scientific inquiry can produce. It does not matter if science ever finds an answer. It is the best we got until you reveal this better method of yours. Science alone is what you have. Now what are you planning on adding to it that is going to make it better. And if you did add something to science that science accepted it would just be more science. You would need science to demonstrate its usefulness. Youâre talking out your ass.
Next: I can ask all sorts of non-falsifiable questions that science can not answer. What in the hell does that have to do with anything? Just because a question is asked, does not mean there is an answer. Sometimes âI donât knowâ is the correct response. Then again some questions donât make any sense at all. What do you imagine these unanswerable questions to be? My guess is, based on your track record, you are asking silly questions. And you are still avoiding telling us this methodology that will trump the scientific method.
Yeah thanksâŚI squirted a little pee out laughing at that oneâŚ
Although that was not the question you were asked and you have done a marvelous job of avoiding answering it, the answer to your ludicrous declaration of what the real question isâŚis that science has provided the most efficient, accurate, self-correcting, independently verifiable, relevant approach to many of the âquestions humankind has asked from its very beginningsâ of any methodology shown to exist. Indeed, the only consistent method for establishing facts about the natural world is the scientific method, as far as we have determined to date.
Probably comes as some surprise to you, given the level of fatuousness contained in your comments, but many of those questions have indeed long ago been answered byâŚguess who?
Soooo, back to you and your refusal to answer
.
.
Edit (please have a seat in the waiting area, someone will be along soon)
*** Barney the dinosaurâs theme song playing in the background****
Damn, dude⌠Thatâs just plain mean and abusive. 
It will NOT predict how everything works; unless you consider probability distributions predictions, personally I do accept that but in my experience most people do not.
Wrong again, for an atheist there is only really one question, which ironically, has a clue in the sodding name⌠do you believe there is a god and/or gods?
To which the answer has been given to you over and over⌠there is no empirical and/or objective evidence to support the claim.
Science hasnât shown there is no need for a god, again science is a methodology and all it can do is say that 99.99% of the claims made by religion are most likely bollocks.
And that they either have no contemporary evidence to support them, no physical evidence, or they just to arenât in accordance to reality.
Another blatant lie, If I hadnât debated Christians before, Iâd be wondering if someone this dishonest was in fact a Christian.
Well itâs a straw man youâve created, so physician heal thyself. All Cog did was ask you what you were using to validate your belief in unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, when you whine endlessly whenever anyone asks you for anything at all to evidence it.
It has been blindingly obvious for some time, that like all the other religious apologists who come here, youâre holding an empty bag, though most of them donât seem to understand this, unlike you which must be why you wonât even try.
The only question that remains is why are you in a debate forum, and trolling is the only answer that still makes sense.
and yet when Cog asked you for one you not only failed to offer anything, yet again, you misrepresented his request with a straw man fallacy you made up about his view of science.
Not true, I have never contemplated such a ridiculous question, I am dubious there is such a thing. What the hell is an âultimate factâ, it sounds like risible hyperbole?
Nope not true either, since a) I have never asked that question, in fact it makes no sense to me, and b) Iâm not sure the universe is an answer, and an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic certainly is not an answer to anything, since it has no explanatory powers whatsoever?
Nothing science has so far enabled us to understand requires any deity or evidences one. No great shock since the concept of deity provides no data to add, and has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it is the ultimate appeal to mystery, donât know x, goddiditâŚ
Deities are not an hypothesis, they are unevidenced superstition. So no it isnât, scientific facts donât involve nor do they need or evidence woo woo superstition about the supernatural, since it offers no data to examine.
Oh look weâve come full circle and are back to asking you what if anything, you can demonstrate to evidence any deity exists outside of the human imagination?
We pause though to enjoy the hilarity of your lie that implies science evidence your magic man, after pages of denigrating science as a benchmark for belief in one, good one, kudos.
FYI beyond a lack or absence of belief in a deity, there is no such thing as âthe atheistâ. Hope this tip helps you avoid such howlers in the future.
My money is on a loud exclamation of abra cadabra before he plucked it out of thin air, and then decided for all theists and atheists everywhere that we have pondered it since Moses was in short pants. To be clear, itâs a blatant porky pie.
What has he got at all in fact, as after several weeks he has remained tellingly reticent on what exactly he is basing his superstitious beliefs? The effort to avoid offering any answer whatsoever is impossible to miss, as is the pretty obvious inference.
COUGH he has nothing COUGH!
Hilarious, a unifying theory would not be an âultimate factâ and it would be unlikely to predict how everything works, you could simply have Googled it ffs:
âunified field theory, in particle physics, an attempt to describe all fundamental forces and the relationships between elementary particles in terms of a single theoretical framework . In physics, forces can be described by fields that mediate interactions between separate objects.â
No the question for the gazzillionth time is what else do you have, to base your superstitious beliefs on?
And an atheist using the scientific method at that. You have to see the irony.
Well I guess you never read this did you -
To answer that question needs only one word -
LOVE . Love and Love alone is all I need to convince me that there is a creator . Atheism does not provide an adequate base to explain Love.
You can argue until the cows come home about the subjectivity of what we call Love but its reality is without question .
Blimey!!!
Finally, now how do you think the existence of love evidence a deity exactly? Only even were I to accept your notion that nothing else can explain the existence of love, and I donât, to claim this lack of a contrary explanation evidence anything would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
FYI: Human Emotions: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective
âThere are 7 basic emotion families (disgust, fear, anger, surprise, sadness, happiness, contempt). Evolved emotions are larger in number, including emotions such as love, guilt, jealousy, and gratitude. Each is defined according to its evolved function.â
Science explains the existence of love without any evidence or need for any deity or anything supernatural.
Exactly, even if science or the scientific method could not explain love, it sure as hell wouldnât therefore infer the existence of a celestial wizard.
âOh, I canât explain hate and neither can the scientific method, therefore everything must have been created by all knowing, all caring, all loving, infinitely great neon cosmic bunny, that much like Russleâs teapot, maintains a position behind Uranus where it cannot be seenâŚâ
It took a tortuously long time to get here, considering all we got was a woolly unevidenced and erroneous platitude about human emotions, and a conclusion based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The tortured double negatives were pretty funny mind. Not believing in any deity canât explain love was my favourite, one is almost obliged to point out that not believing mermaids or unicorns canât explain love either, this doesnât evidence mermaids or unicorns of course, odd that the penny never drops.
Sentence 1. - What about hate? Bigotry? Lust for babies? (Iâm sure youâll grant that I could go on and on.)
Sentence 2. - Well, youâre right about that. Atheism doesnât provide a base for the explanation of a fucking thing! And the only thing atheISTS are guaranteed to have in common about what and how they think is that they do not believe in god(s).
Well, not to be a dick or anything, but there was a series planned in the late seventies called âThe Atheistâ, where the protagonist protects innocents from religious bigotry, but Billy Graham organization put a quietus to itâŚ
Edit ( watch for âThe Pragmatistâ on HBO)
Thanks I did not know that, but I was referring to the generic sense in which @Sid used the term.
I may look for that on my Kodi app.
