Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Disbelief of a higher power, faith?

ooii00iioo
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 11:11:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

To not believe in God indeed requires faith. Atheism is a religion and its god is scientific theory.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 3:15:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Science working with limited knowledge, does not know the origin of the universe, and admits ignorance on this point, however the religious do not, because of ego and emotion it is easy to say "god did it" and is hard to say "I don't know" even when no one knows.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 3:40:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

It might require faith if indeed the question was framed with a higher power being the default position. In other words, disbelief would be the rejection of that entity as it assumed the entity already exists. But, since no such higher power has ever been shown to exist in any way, it can't be the default position and remains only a claim, an assertion or perhaps even a hypothesis. The burden of proof is now on the shoulders of whoever makes the positive claim for the existence of that higher power, with a simple dismissal of the claim if no conclusive evidence is presented. No faith is required for the dismissal.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.

Other than Big Bang theory, which does indeed have conclusive evidence.

Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

Only the belief in the existence of a higher power, not the disbelief.

And, regardless of whether or not scientists reach a plateau, it would disingenuous to believe in a higher power notwithstanding.

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe.

If the two explanations are not compatible, what does one do then?

From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Because, science does provide answers based on conclusive evidence, that is the difference.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:26:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Yes any claim about the material world ultimately rests on faith. In science however the term isn't used, instead the term "axiom" is used but it amounts to the same thing - an assumption (however reasonable it might seem) - that itself cannot be deduced from more primitive observations.

For example it's axiomatic in cosmology to assume the laws of physics we discover here in our solar system are identical to the laws millions of light years away. It's also axiomatic that the laws of physics don't vary over time so the laws we see today are the same laws that operated billions of years ago.

Science also focuses upon repeat-ability, viewing with suspicion claims based on one-off unrepeatable observations (which technically implies cosmology isn't really science), this too is axiomatic - if an experiment cannot produce repeatable results - then it carries little value in science.

Finally the position taken by many (not all) scientists is that reality consists wholly of philosophical materialism, the belief (unprovable) that everything we observe is the result if material forces and fields interacting with matter and energy.

Too many supposedly scientifically literate people today are unaware that science rests upon assumptions and unprovable belief and I put that down to our education system being deficient.

Harry.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:32:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 3:15:34 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Science working with limited knowledge, does not know the origin of the universe, and admits ignorance on this point, however the religious do not, because of ego and emotion it is easy to say "god did it" and is hard to say "I don't know" even when no one knows.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.

It's really not as superficial as that, not if you really study the history of philosophy in this area.

For example as I mention above science basically assume philosophical materialism, this is a literal assumption because science has to start somewhere. However there are no observations that are inconsistent with dualism the assumption that a non-material rational conscious intelligence somehow is the source of the material universe.

Whether one is a materialist or dualist is a matter of choice, neither position can be demonstrated as true.

If anyone thinks for a second that science is built on a more solid foundation than dualism they'd be very much mistaken.

Harry.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:35:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 3:15:34 PM, missmedic wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Science working with limited knowledge, does not know the origin of the universe, and admits ignorance on this point, however the religious do not, because of ego and emotion it is easy to say "god did it" and is hard to say "I don't know" even when no one knows.
Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.

I completely agree. I have no problem with factual science. Much about nature can be explained by science
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:36:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

Dan, this claim can be refuted easily with simple research into the history of biology.

However, I'd like to defer that, since I think the most interesting aspect of your bare and evidently unresearched assertion isn't why it's wrong, but why you believe it.

So: why do you believe it? What is it you've been using for evidence to support your belief?

And if you were wrong, how would you know it?
ooii00iioo
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:44:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Like I said in my earlier post, I'm not religious but if a higher being did exist, and people attribute the creation of the universe then wouldn't the fact that the universe exist be the evidence that a higher power exists? I've also never said that science is wrong. I do understand that science is the explaining of things based on knowledge but like I said, if we keep advancing like we do, one day we will reach the question of how the universe is created and how it is in existence. At that point I don't think science will be able to answer it. They can offer theories but theories are not absolute facts. There will be two main consensus : one for a higher power, and one based on science theories. Some will say that theories have more evidence but higher power believer will say that the evidence for a higher power is the fact that the universe even exist. They can also argue that the science laws are created by this "higher power" and science is just explaining the laws that he/she created. At this plateau can we really say that one or the other is wrong? Where I'm going on here is at the point where science can no longer explain the existence of the universe which side you choose is based on faith. Either your faith in a higher power or your faith that a higher power doesn't exist.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:47:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 3:40:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

It might require faith if indeed the question was framed with a higher power being the default position. In other words, disbelief would be the rejection of that entity as it assumed the entity already exists. But, since no such higher power has ever been shown to exist in any way,

I must interrupt you there - on what grounds do you make this claim? Your subjective belief on whether a "higher power" has been demonstrated can't be put forward as an objective truth here.

Huge numbers of people myself included consider that the existence of a "higher power" can be demonstrated with as much confidence as any claim in materialism.

it can't be the default position and remains only a claim, an assertion or perhaps even a hypothesis. The burden of proof is now on the shoulders of whoever makes the positive claim for the existence of that higher power, with a simple dismissal of the claim if no conclusive evidence is presented. No faith is required for the dismissal.

You speak of proof as if it's objective but it isn't, no proof in science is objective in fact. All arguments in science rest upon axioms, assumptions so why do you pretend objectivity in your simplistic reasoning?


As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.

Other than Big Bang theory, which does indeed have conclusive evidence.


The Big-Bang is not and never has been an explanation for the creation of the universe Dummel, it is a theoretical model about the transformation of the universe from a dense, primordial state to the huge expansive thing we observe today. The Big-Bang begins with an already existing super dense singularity it does not explain how that singularity came to exist.

Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

Only the belief in the existence of a higher power, not the disbelief.

And, regardless of whether or not scientists reach a plateau, it would disingenuous to believe in a higher power notwithstanding.

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe.

If the two explanations are not compatible, what does one do then?

From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Because, science does provide answers based on conclusive evidence, that is the difference.

Really? so what conclusive evidence do you offer that the laws of physics operating in the Andromeda galaxy are the same laws we observe here on earth? That belief Dummel is no more demonstrable than the belief God created the universe, if you knew anything about the history of science, philosophy or epistemology you'd not make such absurd statements in public, all you do (whenever you comment on these matters) is show how little you actually know about the subject you profess so understand so well.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:48:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 4:26:11 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is ""Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence. Keeping that in mind, wouldn't the belief that no higher power exists be reliant on faith? I think that even if science and technology get advanced enough there is eventually going to be a plateau where science won't be able to explain. That plateau will be the question of how the universe is even in existence. Of course scientist will come up of theories to prove this, but theories can be changed or disprove anytime. At this point wouldn't the belief or disbelief of a higher power eventually be left to faith?

A higher power will be used to explain the existence of the universe from the religious side, and theories will be used to explain the existence of the universe. From a religious point of view their faith of a higher power will explain the existence of the universe and from the science view, their faith that no higher power exist and theories will explain the existence of the universe. I've always thought of this, which is why I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?

Yes any claim about the material world ultimately rests on faith. In science however the term isn't used, instead the term "axiom" is used but it amounts to the same thing - an assumption (however reasonable it might seem) - that itself cannot be deduced from more primitive observations.

For example it's axiomatic in cosmology to assume the laws of physics we discover here in our solar system are identical to the laws millions of light years away. It's also axiomatic that the laws of physics don't vary over time so the laws we see today are the same laws that operated billions of years ago.

Science also focuses upon repeat-ability, viewing with suspicion claims based on one-off unrepeatable observations (which technically implies cosmology isn't really science), this too is axiomatic - if an experiment cannot produce repeatable results - then it carries little value in science.

Finally the position taken by many (not all) scientists is that reality consists wholly of philosophical materialism, the belief (unprovable) that everything we observe is the result if material forces and fields interacting with matter and energy.

Too many supposedly scientifically literate people today are unaware that science rests upon assumptions and unprovable belief and I put that down to our education system being deficient.

Harry.

Yes, but it is the scientifically illiterate people who are compelled to constantly make us aware of their illiteracy and lack of education. Well done, yet again, Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:08:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 4:36:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

Dan, this claim can be refuted easily with simple research into the history of biology.

However, I'd like to defer that, since I think the most interesting aspect of your bare and evidently unresearched assertion isn't why it's wrong, but why you believe it.

So: why do you believe it? What is it you've been using for evidence to support your belief?

And if you were wrong, how would you know it?

That Darwin and Lemarcks research was to disprove Gods involvement with the origins of life. Go ahead and refute it.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 4:44:47 PM, ooii00iioo wrote:
Like I said in my earlier post, I'm not religious but if a higher being did exist, and people attribute the creation of the universe then wouldn't the fact that the universe exist be the evidence that a higher power exists? I've also never said that science is wrong. I do understand that science is the explaining of things based on knowledge but like I said, if we keep advancing like we do, one day we will reach the question of how the universe is created and how it is in existence. At that point I don't think science will be able to answer it.

I agree and someone else around (http://www.debate.org...) here recently pointed out this question falls victim to Godel's incompleteness theorem which rocked the world of mathematics to its core in the early 20th century, listen here for an academic discussion on the BBC about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Essentially this important theorem amounts to the fact that there are statements one can make about a system of knowledge whose truth cannot be demonstrated without increasing the scope of that system of knowledge.

Or to put it another way, within a system of knowledge - no matter how comprehensive it might appear - there are statements one can make that are unprovable within that system.

The claim "the universe came to exist" as a result of the laws of physics is one such statement, because every material explanation one puts forward raises additional material questions and so on ad infinitum.

They can offer theories but theories are not absolute facts. There will be two main consensus : one for a higher power, and one based on science theories. Some will say that theories have more evidence but higher power believer will say that the evidence for a higher power is the fact that the universe even exist.

Exactly, the very existence of the universe is inexplicable scientifically, how ironic that after centuries of investigation and study we find that ultimately the universe is not itself the result of scientific processes!

They can also argue that the science laws are created by this "higher power" and science is just explaining the laws that he/she created. At this plateau can we really say that one or the other is wrong? Where I'm going on here is at the point where science can no longer explain the existence of the universe which side you choose is based on faith. Either your faith in a higher power or your faith that a higher power doesn't exist.

I agree, anyone who thinks science is somehow built on a firmer foundation than the the theists is sorely mistaken and in need of a deeper education.

Listen to Prof. Atkins fumble when confronted by a better educated opponent:

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some. Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:13:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:08:25 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:36:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

Dan, this claim can be refuted easily with simple research into the history of biology.

However, I'd like to defer that, since I think the most interesting aspect of your bare and evidently unresearched assertion isn't why it's wrong, but why you believe it.

So: why do you believe it? What is it you've been using for evidence to support your belief?

And if you were wrong, how would you know it?

That Darwin and Lemarcks research was to disprove Gods involvement with the origins of life. Go ahead and refute it.

I'll be happy to refute it as the discussion develops, Dan, as long as you remain honest, transparent and accountable.

But to be clear on why you believe this: you have no independent evidence? You'd like to believe that 19th century biologists 'rebelled' against Christianity and therefore presuppose it? Or you read it somewhere, and believe the source?

If the latter, where did you read it?

And again -- because you didn't answer my earlier question -- how would you know if you were wrong?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:06:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.

Except you never critique Dummel, you simply reject and ridicule and name call like the vacuous blowhard you are.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:08:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:06:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.

Except you never critique Dummel, you simply reject and ridicule and name call like the vacuous blowhard you are.

Perhaps, some day, you might offer something worthy of critique, Harry, but so far your endless stream of denials, ignorance and incredulity are simply dismissed as such.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:15:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:08:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:06:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.

Except you never critique Dummel, you simply reject and ridicule and name call like the vacuous blowhard you are.

Perhaps, some day, you might offer something worthy of critique, Harry, but so far your endless stream of denials, ignorance and incredulity are simply dismissed as such.

Harry.

Have you not noticed Dummel that YOU are the only person so far who directs these kinds of criticisms at me? Many people in this forum disagree from time to time with what I say and I disagree with others too, I'm not always right and neither is anyone else.

Yet you alone hold this view of my scientific education and competence and you alone fire off these yawningly predicatble vacuous accusations.

That should tell you something - after all science is about objectivity and in this area you ain't looking too objective buddy!

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:53:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:15:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:08:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:06:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.

Except you never critique Dummel, you simply reject and ridicule and name call like the vacuous blowhard you are.

Perhaps, some day, you might offer something worthy of critique, Harry, but so far your endless stream of denials, ignorance and incredulity are simply dismissed as such.

Harry.

Have you not noticed Dummel that YOU are the only person so far who directs these kinds of criticisms at me? Many people in this forum disagree from time to time with what I say and I disagree with others too, I'm not always right and neither is anyone else.

Denial of facts is your forte here, Harriet. It's what you do. Disagreement has nothing to do with this.

Yet you alone hold this view of my scientific education and competence and you alone fire off these yawningly predicatble vacuous accusations.

And yet, they hit the proverbial nail on the head.

That should tell you something - after all science is about objectivity and in this area you ain't looking too objective buddy!

It tells me you're scientifically illiterate like many other religionists who pollute this forum with denials, irrational beliefs and ignorance. You are certainly not alone here on that, Harry.


Harry.

Contrary.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 8:05:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:53:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:15:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:08:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:06:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:50:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:10:32 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:50:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:32:01 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:08:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/24/2016 3:00:20 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:35:56 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 8:24:41 AM, ooii00iioo wrote:
First, I'm not a highly religious person or someone deeply into science. I'm more of an agnostic; I'm in between the scale of believer and atheist. Actually, I sometimes think atheist and believers are very similar. But that's another topic. My real question is "Does the disbelief of a higher power require faith?".

Atheism isn't disbelief in metaphysical beings, oiOio but the rejection of gods. The difference is nuanced, but significant.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require faith, but the way some people argue atheism is a leap of faith.

As we know, there is no concrete law or theory to explain how the universe was created or even in existence.
For reasons I mentioned above, the origin of the universe (if that question is meaningful) has no bearing on belief in gods.

And if you reject the meaning of the question (which is legitimate, for ontological and epistemological reasons), conjectures purporting to answer the question aren't even evidence of anything.

I don't understand why super religious people and devoted science people always argue over this. Why can't they just be in between and admit they don't know the answer?
Religion sometimes claims answers about nature, but few religions seek answers by accountable and transparent methods, and unsurprisingly, their answers are often ignorant or in error. Worse, some answers are so incoherent they may not even deserve to be called false.

Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

For some scientists, such as Dawkins, I think there is a lot of truth to this. As for science as a whole, though, you are wrong. Science is literally defined as being a body of knowledge about the physical world, or as being the action of organizing that knowledge of the physical world into a set of testable explanations.

It is of no concern to the rest of us if these testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable explanations of this universe we live in contradict the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text. The fact that you often cannot reconcile these explanations that science settles upon with your religion is your problem.

Dawkins is as bad as Hovind and neither to me are worth listening to. But what explanations has science settled concerning origins of life? What observable, testable, repeatable explanations? They have made theory's with the intent of selling their product for sure but I believe these are far from settled.

I personally have zero issue with factual science. Science is what made me stop believing in a young earth age once I studied the science. But origins of life science requires as much faith as my belief in creation does.

Clearly, you do have an issue with factual science, and you make that distinction without any reason or logic, you simply have decided one factual science is true while another is false. Did you actually study the science or is there some other reason why you contradict yourself?

Study it in what ..a lab? no, I read the processes and conclusions. In what did I contradict myself

I just told you that, you dismiss one science but accept another.

I don't think im being unreasonable is denying some science and believing some.

Yeah, you are being unreasonable.

Do you accept all scientific theories? Theres a few silly ones out there. Or even better did you accept all scientific theory's 20 years ago? Because some aren't true anymore.

It might help if you actually knew what a theory was. You are free to list and "silly ones", please do so we may critique your list.

Except you never critique Dummel, you simply reject and ridicule and name call like the vacuous blowhard you are.

Perhaps, some day, you might offer something worthy of critique, Harry, but so far your endless stream of denials, ignorance and incredulity are simply dismissed as such.

Harry.

Have you not noticed Dummel that YOU are the only person so far who directs these kinds of criticisms at me? Many people in this forum disagree from time to time with what I say and I disagree with others too, I'm not always right and neither is anyone else.

Denial of facts is your forte here, Harriet. It's what you do. Disagreement has nothing to do with this.

Yet you alone hold this view of my scientific education and competence and you alone fire off these yawningly predicatble vacuous accusations.

And yet, they hit the proverbial nail on the head.

That should tell you something - after all science is about objectivity and in this area you ain't looking too objective buddy!

It tells me you're scientifically illiterate like many other religionists who pollute this forum with denials, irrational beliefs and ignorance. You are certainly not alone here on that, Harry.


Harry.

Contrary.

Yet your all alone in your petty little views, but I'm pretty sure you've always felt this deep down haven't you Dummel?

Harry.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 4:19:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:13:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:08:25 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:36:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

Dan, this claim can be refuted easily with simple research into the history of biology.

However, I'd like to defer that, since I think the most interesting aspect of your bare and evidently unresearched assertion isn't why it's wrong, but why you believe it.

So: why do you believe it? What is it you've been using for evidence to support your belief?

And if you were wrong, how would you know it?

That Darwin and Lemarcks research was to disprove Gods involvement with the origins of life. Go ahead and refute it.

I'll be happy to refute it as the discussion develops, Dan, as long as you remain honest, transparent and accountable.

But to be clear on why you believe this: you have no independent evidence? You'd like to believe that 19th century biologists 'rebelled' against Christianity and therefore presuppose it? Or you read it somewhere, and believe the source?

If the latter, where did you read it?

And again -- because you didn't answer my earlier question -- how would you know if you were wrong?

I will not play Q&A with you. Your a scientist so doubtful we can see through the same lense. It is my opinion that scientist of the 19th century in attempt to refute the normal creation theory invented the evolution theory. Whether sincere or not I cannot tell. It is also my opinion that todays scientist try and mold science to fit the model.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 4:38:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:19:42 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:13:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:08:25 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 4:36:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:18:16 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:10:57 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is obliged to seek answers to valid (falsifiable) questions about nature -- that's its job. But science doesn't seek to contest religion specifically -- it contests all preconceived conjectures. Religion suffers when its preconceived conjectures are built on ignorance or error.

Science when concerning the origins of life absolutely seeks to contest religion. Scientist all the way back to lemarck and even Darwin didn't stumble upon new science that defied Gods creation. They set out to try and disprove God with science and science concerning the origins of life has followed in suite ever since.

Dan, this claim can be refuted easily with simple research into the history of biology.

However, I'd like to defer that, since I think the most interesting aspect of your bare and evidently unresearched assertion isn't why it's wrong, but why you believe it.

So: why do you believe it? What is it you've been using for evidence to support your belief?

And if you were wrong, how would you know it?

That Darwin and Lemarcks research was to disprove Gods involvement with the origins of life. Go ahead and refute it.

I'll be happy to refute it as the discussion develops, Dan, as long as you remain honest, transparent and accountable.

But to be clear on why you believe this: you have no independent evidence? You'd like to believe that 19th century biologists 'rebelled' against Christianity and therefore presuppose it? Or you read it somewhere, and believe the source?

If the latter, where did you read it?

And again -- because you didn't answer my earlier question -- how would you know if you were wrong?

It is my opinion that scientist of the 19th century in attempt to refute the normal creation theory invented the evolution theory.
Yes, you've already said that. What you haven't said is what evidence you've collected, how you've interpreted it, and how you would recognise if you're wrong.

Which puts you in the rather hypocritical position of demanding more accountability from science and from other participants in this forum, than you are willing to offer for your own beliefs.

Which is why I said I'd be happy to provide you with a well-sourced refutation, but only if you were honest and transparent.

You've chosen not to be, which makes the collection of evidence a waste of time, since evidence and accountability don't matter to you.

Your a scientist so doubtful we can see through the same lense.
This isn't an issue of 'lens', Dan, but factual evidence. There's plenty to be had on this matter, including the faiths of scientists who contributed to the origin of species debate, their many contributions, their letters private and public, and their own behaviour in progressing the debate. The history of this particular scientific development is some of the best-documented in the history of science.

However evidence is useless when dealing with lazy and evasive minds. Why should any member put in more effort than you do yourself?

It is also my opinion that todays scientist try and mold science to fit the model.
It is my opinion that you have not researched nor critically examined your own opinions about this matter, nor make your conjectures sufficiently accountable that anyone respecting transparency, truth or integrity, should respect them.

And you could refute my opinion by behaving otherwise.