4 things needed to destroy myth of creator deity

[fangjian]

... Sorry, let me restate.

How do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept? Naturally I mean proving and not disproving via some notional reductio ad absurdum.

You cannot disprove the existence of a deity to me (a believer) using your own scientific methodology. You can certainly not do it using my metric of belief.

So I mean how do you define science as the best methodology for proving a concept? Especially when the concept is the existence of something (a belief) you cannot disprove using that methodology.

BTW, I am not looking to argue the point over the existence or non-existence of a deity. That would be an utterly pointless exercise. I am simply challenging your self-righteous belief in science as the be all and end all (pardon the pun).

Thank you, Jenna

The value of this method can be measured by what it produces. Also, claims can be verified by others.
You can not 'disprove' a lot of things. The claims of gods and goddesses is usually a claim in Cosmogony ( amongst some others of course depending on the claim). Cosmogony is science, so how is it 'out of the realm of science' ?

The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.

Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'

 

[Jenna]

The value of this method can be measured by what it produces. Also, claims can be verified by others.
You can not 'disprove' a lot of things. The claims of gods and goddesses is usually a claim in Cosmogony ( amongst some others of course depending on the claim). Cosmogony is science, so how is it 'out of the realm of science' ?


Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'

Again, I am certainly not disputing the value of science as *a* method for proving concepts. I am simply trying to establish your grounds for the statement you made earlier that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not.

How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not? What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially without being self-referential towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.

 

[fangjian]

Again, I am certainly not disputing the value of science as *a* method for proving concepts. I am simply trying to establish your grounds for the statement you made earlier that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not.

How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not? What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially without being self-referential towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.

It is the best imo, because in using the scientific method, you are able to make 'predictions'. I do not know of another method that can do this. You seem to imply that you know of other methods that can do this. If there is a method that can do this better than the generally known 'scientific method', I most certainly want to know it. Sorry if I am still not understanding your question. My answer is: 'the ability to make accurate predictions'

 

[Xue Sheng]

Had a professor in college once that on the topic of evolution and creationism would not tell us what he believed but he got into the whole thing about a creator and lack of scientific proof and yadda yadda yadda…it has been discussed Ad nauseam so I will not go into that part further.

But he then said that if you look at science and evolution and starting with chemical compounds combining to get all the way to Humans that makes about as much since as a tornado going through a junkyard and when it left you find it had built a 747

 

[fangjian]

Your professor's analogy is very flawed. The tornado analogy is operating completely on random chance. The junk in the yard doesn't reproduce. It's a HUGE jump to a finished product that is already specified ahead of time. Evolution by NS is completely different.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Relax.. don't take any of this stuff to seriously...life's to short.... I doubt he was completely serious.. it was a rather heavy subject and he was likely trying to lighten thngs up a bit... and I forgot the tornado stayed in the junk yard for thousands of years bit which was also part of his statement....and it was many many years ago

But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?

 

[fangjian]

But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?

Very good question. I have no friggin idea.
However after life got started, evolution is driven by the environment and selecting for random mutations. The mutations are 'random', but the selection is not. Regarding abiogenesis, which I have read most of the hypotheses regarding it, I will not pretend to know the answer. But if you understand 'Natural Selection', you can definitely get a sense for how organic molecules could have formed into some Prokaryotic cells, I guess.

 

[Empty Hands]

I accept your world view and that of many others. Whilst I may not agree with your view, personally I am not someone to preach to the converted as I regard your view as holding as much personal importance to you as mine does to me. I respect your right to hold your view and would only ask that you respect mine.

I appreciate what you are trying to say.

However, I think two different categories of claims are being talked about, or at least I can't distinguish your views on them. One category seems to be what you are talking about, a sort of "I believe this unprovable thing, you believe that unprovable thing, let's be respectful of each other." However, the type of claim I thought I was responding to is more concrete - "evolution is untrue", "the world was created 6000 years ago", that sort of thing.

If someone says "evolution is untrue", there can be no mutual understanding, no unprovable opinions of equal weight, no "respecting of views." Saying "evolution is wrong" is a factual claim, and a wrong claim. There is no other way of understanding it. No more than I must "respect your opinion" if you claim that the moon is made of green cheese or that 2+2=7. I have no duty to "respect the views" of someone making wrong factual claims. They should be educated if ignorant or countered if liars.

 

[Sukerkin]

What tends to get trampled underfoot when discourse swerves away from science to mythology, is that what we have now in terms of life is what is left after all the other things failed. It is not a case of life being too complicated to occur by chance because of some 'wonderment factor' which means therefore there must be a Divine Potter. It is a case of the living forms left being the ones, based upon the chemical reactions that happened to be self-replicating, that survived the process of natural selection. Nothing mystical, just trillions of failures with a few successes.

Mechanical analogies are not really satisfactory as explanations to disprove evolution as a functioning theory. Smash a watch with a hammer and is stays smashed (altho' I won't be the one to bet against it never fixing itself in one of the infinite time-lines). Hit a life-form with a hammer and, assuming you don't kill it, it will work on repairing itself - that's a significant part of what separates living things from inanimate ones i.e. self-replication and self-repair. Just wait for the nano-plague to scotch that particular distinction :lol: ...

 

[Empty Hands]

How do you know belief (for example) is not the best way to find out if something is true or not? What is your proof that science is the best way to find out if something is true or not especially without being self-referential towards science, I mean, you cannot say science is the best way to find out if something is true because it is scientifically proven to be the case.

Falsifiability. If you can't determine if something is false, then you have no way of determining whether or not it is true. Scientific ideas are falsifiable. Belief, at least in the sense that theists intend, is non-falsifiable. Therefore the scientific method is superior to belief.

 

[Empty Hands]

Relax.. don't take any of this stuff to seriously...life's to short.... I doubt he was completely serious.. it was a rather heavy subject and he was likely trying to lighten thngs up a bit... and I forgot the tornado stayed in the junk yard for thousands of years bit which was also part of his statement....and it was many many years ago

I'm pretty sure he was serious, because that "argument" is an extremely common one made by creationists, based on the work of Fred Hoyle. Here is a description of the work and what is wrong with it.

But how is evolution, starting from basic chemicals to humans at least at the beginning, prior to life...more than reandom chance? Adn for that matter how is early evolution more than random chance?

Because surviving and replicating forms are selected for.

 

[Archangel M]

Am I the only person who sees the "tornado in the junkyard" as a metaphor??? IMO people who argue about the invalidity of a metaphor based on its face are trying to bypass the deeper meaning. Is it really possible to mix a bunch of chemical compounds and expect life to spring out?

Perhaps a "blender in a pond" would make people happy?

 

[Empty Hands]

The subject is "God." Please demonstrate.

Why? The believer makes the claim, not the atheist. The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence. The onus is always on the one making the claim. It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.

Martial arts is a good comparison. If I claim that my new art is based on ancient ninja secrets and will allow the user to throw fire balls and cure cancer, is everyone obligated to believe me until someone can disprove it? Or should I provide some evidence for my extraordinary claims before I am believed?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Why? The believer makes the claim, not the atheist. The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence. The onus is always on the one making the claim. It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.

Martial arts is a good comparison. If I claim that my new art is based on ancient ninja secrets and will allow the user to throw fire balls and cure cancer, is everyone obligated to believe me until someone can disprove it? Or should I provide some evidence for my extraordinary claims before I am believed?

True, but this is only if the person making the claim cares what they other person thinks or doubts their own belief/feeling/thoughts.

I am not arguing or disagreeing here but I have used this statement many times with people in the real world and occasionally in WWWland

Your request for proof/explanation/justification (choose based in the situation) does not produce in me a desire to provide it...have a nice day.

And for the record I am making no claims on this from either side of the argument/discussion

 

[DragonWC]

The atheist is the same as the theist. To not believe is the same as believing since both implys that one does not know. Beliefs and disbeliefs doesn't alter the truth, except for ones individual preception.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[fangjian]

The atheist is the same as the theist. To not believe is the same as believing since both implys that one does not know. Beliefs and disbeliefs doesn't alter the truth, except for ones individual preception.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

We do not know with 100% certainty if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.' We don't know for sure, so it's valid?

 

[Xue Sheng]

We do not know with 100% certainty if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.' We don't know for sure, so it's valid?

What do you MEAN we are ot certain...of course we are...its a cube

 

[fangjian]

Hhahahahahahaahaha. I almost fell out of my chair!!

 

[elder999]

You will have to define the word god and the claim, I guess. That can mean many things.

The "being" outside of this "space/time" that brought it into being: the Creator.

Why? The believer makes the claim, not the atheist. The atheist simply does not believe in that for which there is no evidence. The onus is always on the one making the claim. It is not the duty of the atheist to "disprove" God, but rather the duty of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence and demonstration of their claim.
?

My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms, for the time being and forseeable future, at any rate.

Like what has been said earlier. The subject can also be 'dragons that breath fire' or 'no touch knockouts'. It can not be 'disproven', but it doesn't mean that the claim is valid or 'out of the realm of science'

Many things are out of the realm of science, for the time being and forseeable future.

 

[fangjian]

The "being" outside of this "spce/time" that brought it into being: the Creator.

How come you think there is a 'being' that is outside of space-time?

My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms,for the time being and forseeable future, at any rate.

Sorry. I think you added this part after.

Are the existence of unicorns or souls, also outside the realm of science?