It doesn’t. But religion does.
1 Like
Hmmmmm…do you see anything wrong with your preface?
How about being honest, and saying…Scientific method, has shown itself as the best process to measure things againts what we know.
How can you rail against a process, as if it were a sentient being? its an inert tool, to search for knowledge using what we know…do we actually know anything about your version of a god…which has zero objective evidence of existence in reality? No we don’t. Hence why claiming him is irrational.
In all Ernest, what is tripping you up on understanding this?
2 Likes
Can you think of a method of inquiry outside of science that can get the same results?
1 Like
If Matter in all its manifestations is the only vehicle that you would study to gain Knowledge then there is nothing other than the Scientific method that I know of to do this .
Is Matter the only source of what constitutes Reality ,and if it is , then has Science empirical proof that this is the case ?
What can the Scientific method quantify besides Matter in all its various manifestations?
The Scientific method identifies scientic truths and that is all . Or are you claiming that there only is scientific truths and nothing else ?
Are you suggesting there are different types of truth? LOL.
Lets remind you of what we are talking about here…if a god exists, and its a yes or no question…If you answer NO, you need objective evidence to back up your answer. If you answer YES, you also need objective evidence to back up your answer. Remember that unfalsifiable claim now? LOL. Unfortunately for you, you have answered yes, there is a god…which is a complete failure in the basic human trait of reason. Believing in something without demonstrable objective evidence, is by definition, delusional.
Well no…Science has done nothing. But the people that use the scientific method to discern present knowledge, have. Over the last 150 years or so, many, many, many physicists have contributed to what is known as “The standard Model of Particle Physics”. In it is a quantified statement that defines our universe and everything in it…it says “for something to exist in reality, it has to have, or interact with, matter”. Hence why demonstrable objective evidence is needed, and why the scientific method is employed to look for that evidence. Do you have any demonstrable objective evidence of your version of a god?
3 Likes
Strictly speaking there are no such things as scientific truths…
Science does not claim absolutes. We have scientific knowledge ,which is always relative. Every scientific theory (explanation of observed facts) has the implicit caveat; “as far as we know/ based on all the information currently available to us”
Scientific theories change or move on. Today, I’m unaware that the phlogiston theory is still taught. Science now recognises that Einsteinian physics proves fuller answers from Newtonian physics. No absolute is claimed.
Yes, of course there are other kinds of knowledge.That has been outlined in early posts in this thread.
It is religious believers who make claims of absolute truths and knowledge. Such claims are based on faith (belief without proof) rather than reason or facts.
Of the Abrahamic faiths, Christianity seems to me the most anti reason, anti science and and anti intellectual.
Have I missed the point, or is the OP trying to argue god into existence? If so,simply won’t work for me. I demand science based evidence and will accept nothing less.This not from simple bloody mindedness, but because logic and are unreliable tools for arriving at a truth.
Finally, I am unaware of any absolute truth or knowledge. In fact I’m not convinced such things exist for human beings.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory that postulated that a fire-like element called phlogiston (/flɒˈdʒɪstən, floʊ-, -ɒn/)[1][2] is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The name comes from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón ( burning up ), from φλόξ phlóx ( flame ). It was first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher and then put together more formally by Georg Ernst Stahl. The theory attempted to explain processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.
2 Likes
What in the fuck is a “Scientific Truth?” Science is about proving falsehood, not truth. When a theory is falsified it is amended or discarded. I tend to consider that which is justified true belief as truth, at least to the degree I know it. What are you talking about when you assert “Scientific method identifies truth?” What “truth” are you talking about?
I have not seen any indication that theflyingpig actually reads any of the replies. He is welcome to prove me wrong.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that there is anything more?
What evidence are you asking be examined by science? That sounds suspiciously like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me.
Again what did you have in mind? If you have something for science to study demonstrate it. Remember science has provided overwhelming evidence that all living things have evolved, and humans just 200k years ago, do you accept this fact? Science has been used to study the efficacy of intercessory prayer, and found it had no discernable effect, do you accept that fact?
It’s all very well pointing at nothing and demanding science examine it, this is of course fallacious and irrational, but if you deny scientific facts when they contradict your beliefs then that kind of selection bias infers something about your reasoning.
Science is a method the best we have. If the best method we have doesn’t detect something, and you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for it, then why do you believe it is real? Especially when core claims touted as immutable and infallible have already been falsified by science.
1 Like
Another god of the gaps polemic. Science examines reality, and gathers evidence to either support or falsify ideas.
What truths are you claiming exist outside of reality, and what evidence can you demonstrate for them?
1 Like
…sailingswine can’t hold up his black book 
Yup, I read yours and you are wrong
Truth is an elusive subject I would agree and probably the wrong term to use except when it comes to science and the non physical . It is a scientific truth that it is logically impossible for science to validate the existence of something referred to as First Cause -Creator - God . Science simply has no use or need for god in explaining the physical world that can be quantified .
So , is the physical world all of reality ?
Maybe what we really have is a science of the gaps . The fact is that Science is used an intellectual bludgeon by atheists with their Falsifiability demands which are impossible demands .
God doesn’t need to be argued into existence , it’s impossible to do that and it’s impossible to argue God out of existence . We all live by faith in what we believe , nothing more and nothing less
An atheist simply …oh for fucks sakes - you KNOW what it means…
“Science” (as you use the term) is not out to disprove god - if Theories (not the idea type) and scientific facts conflict with your “god belief” that’s your problem.
AND I LIVE BY:
“levels of confidence based on standards for evidence”
YOU should try it sometime…raise the “standard”…
1 Like
It is a scientific truth that it is logically impossible for science to validate the existence of all non existent things.
Can you demonstrate any compelling evidence to support your god claim?
Nothing in that claim is true. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief, for myself I can only repeat I disbelieve all claims for which no evidence can be demonstrated. Science has nothing to do with that. Nor does falsifiability. The fact your god claim in its broadest sense is unfalsifiable negates the possibility of knowledge regarding the claim, I also don’t believe claims for which nothing can be known, that’s axiomatic, as this negates the possibility of evidence.
Yet apologists, including you keep trying, why is that?
it’s impossible to argue God out of existence
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, not having a contrary argument evidence or claim doesn’t validate your god claim. As you have been told multiple times. It is an irrational argument by definition.
Rubbish, but even were that true, it still would not remotely validate your purely faith based belief in your god claim.
You seem to be determined to dishonestly rehash and repeat ad nauseam, irrational and false claims, despite these errors in reasoning being painstakingly explained to you multiple times. Why is that do you suppose?
1 Like
Group of theists (early man???) sitting around a fallen down tree.
“How old is tree?” Grunts one… pokes at tree
“It was up counts fingers this many sun-times ago…”
NOTE: good for them, figuring out the idea of time, past/present and measuring days that passed!
“Must be 6 days” all grunt in agreement*
Time passes. Lots of time. Tree rings are observed to be a record of about a year. Person observing nature (early scientist) counts the rings. Talks to another person who double checks the count. They agree tree is much older than 6 days.
Nowadays…
All accepted scientific facts are falsifiable, they have to be. How the fuck is that impossible when science does it all the time, and how the fuck do you not understand this yet? I could have explained this to a chair by now.
3 Likes
All that science does is offer the best tentative explanation, based on known data, on a phenomena. Science does not make any claims. Additionally, as more data is revealed, the explanation may change. A good example is Hubble who discovered that this known universe is expanding.