Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[the joint]

4)  To suggest nobody knew anything prior to the development of the scientific method is one of dumbest statements I've ever heard.  It's literally retarded and/or insane.  I mean, come on...you don't actually believe this do you?

I said science = knowledge. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process/method.

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

[the joint]

Does that mean everything we believe now to be the truth can be disproved tomorrow (using scientific methodologies) as we live in a constant state of flux, a superposition of approximations and/or lies?

The only lies are found in religion. Bible = book of lies. YES everything can be proven false otherwise it would not be science. Only religion claim everything to be absolute truth even though so much of it can be already proven false. Science is falsifiable....if it were not then it would be another religion.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation. Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

So everything science says is true, until proven not to be one day...

No everything is falsifiable.

Science can't even falsify some of its own assumptions, though these assumptions may be (and are) falsifiable through other means (e.g. Logic falsifies the assumption of a Positivistic Universe because the assumption requires invoking at least one logical fallacy, I.e. the sameness-in-difference principle that states any two relands 'x' and 'y' must occupy a common medium).

[SZZT]

Life does not need to be self aware to exist, according to science. So crabs and worms are using pure instinct to reproduce and to fight for food or to avoid being eaten by other non self aware creatures. Life does not need a purpose to be if I understand it, while I am myself defined by a Cartesian mind and have a purpose to define others and their purpose... I think.

Seems you've answered your question here, this is the socratic process at work

i am not a scientist myself, but i would agree with the point that life does not need to be self aware in order to exist.
Various life forms reproduce themselves in an "instictive" way, but i believe that this is not to be confused with
the human ability of philosophical and scientific exploration.

I mean, we do have a mind that allows us to think about our actions and their implications for a second,
but a crab can only resort to instinct as you put it and the rest of the factors that take place in the evolutionary process.

    

[Sam-Os]

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

Please quote where I said "nobody knew anything prior to the scientific method"

[Sam-Os]

Does that mean everything we believe now to be the truth can be disproved tomorrow (using scientific methodologies) as we live in a constant state of flux, a superposition of approximations and/or lies?

The only lies are found in religion. Bible = book of lies. YES everything can be proven false otherwise it would not be science. Only religion claim everything to be absolute truth even though so much of it can be already proven false. Science is falsifiable....if it were not then it would be another religion.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation. Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

So everything science says is true, until proven not to be one day...

No everything is falsifiable.

Science can't even falsify some of its own assumptions, though these assumptions may be (and are) falsifiable through other means (e.g. Logic falsifies the assumption of a Positivistic Universe because the assumption requires invoking at least one logical fallacy, I.e. the sameness-in-difference principle that states any two relands 'x' and 'y' must occupy a common medium).

Please tell me what can religion prove that is true?..The topic of this thread is that "Science does not disprove god" which is vague. We are getting way off here..My original point was and still is that religion is not based on facts and therefore can not be proven false by facts. It is totally based on faith. Which has 0 credibility. I'm not sure where you're trying to carry this but any attempt to discredit science because of a "Positivistic Universe" really serves no purpose other that to create a circular argument.

[bl4kjaguar]

Just because there is no way to identify if something is out there does not mean it is there.

There are ways to test the survival hypothesis, and they are discussed extensively in the relevant journals (such as Journal of Scientific Exploration).

If you have disproven the survival hypothesis, please link me to the paper where you make such claim.

Science has its own inertia; when will all the evidence be evaluated in an honest manner?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=590503.msg6555910#msg6555910

[bl4kjaguar]

Science has its own inertia; when will all the evidence be evaluated in an honest manner?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=590503.msg6555910#msg6555910

Scientific evidence for one of the central concepts in spirituality and this board is silent.

[Wilikon]

Life does not need to be self aware to exist, according to science. So crabs and worms are using pure instinct to reproduce and to fight for food or to avoid being eaten by other non self aware creatures. Life does not need a purpose to be if I understand it, while I am myself defined by a Cartesian mind and have a purpose to define others and their purpose... I think.

What is your purpose? Not a self labeled purpose but what is the purpose of your existence?

To react to the existence and awareness of others who do the same with me. 

[the joint]

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

Please quote where I said "nobody knew anything prior to the scientific method"

Okay...

Quote from: the joint on Today at 09:25:47 AM
I'd also like to point out that, if what you are saying is true, then nobody knew anything at all prior to the development of the scientific method.

Correct. Nobody *knew* anything...

[the joint]

Does that mean everything we believe now to be the truth can be disproved tomorrow (using scientific methodologies) as we live in a constant state of flux, a superposition of approximations and/or lies?

The only lies are found in religion. Bible = book of lies. YES everything can be proven false otherwise it would not be science. Only religion claim everything to be absolute truth even though so much of it can be already proven false. Science is falsifiable....if it were not then it would be another religion.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation. Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

So everything science says is true, until proven not to be one day...

No everything is falsifiable.

Science can't even falsify some of its own assumptions, though these assumptions may be (and are) falsifiable through other means (e.g. Logic falsifies the assumption of a Positivistic Universe because the assumption requires invoking at least one logical fallacy, I.e. the sameness-in-difference principle that states any two relands 'x' and 'y' must occupy a common medium).

Please tell me what can religion prove that is true?..The topic of this thread is that "Science does not disprove god" which is vague. We are getting way off here..My original point was and still is that religion is not based on facts and therefore can not be proven false by facts. It is totally based on faith. Which has 0 credibility. I'm not sure where you're trying to carry this but any attempt to discredit science because of a "Positivistic Universe" really serves no purpose other that to create a circular argument.

I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about science as a means of knowledge acquisition, and tangentially talking how it compares with other means of knowledge acquisition.  I'm trying to bring some clarity to the proponents of science (I'm one of them, but I'm also aware of its limitations and how other proponents of science like to ignore these limitations).

And I must remind you again that science has its own "faith-based assumptions" which, aside from being unfalsifiable via its own methods, have been proven wrong from a logical standpoint (in fact, proven wrong thousands of years ago by ancient Greek philosophers, and likely others before them, long before the scientific method was ever developed).

If you believe that faith-based assumptions have zero credibility, then you *must* acknowledge that many of science's assumptions also have zero credibility.  If you don't have a problem with this, then you shouldn't have a problem with religious faith-based claims as you share something in common with those who make them.  This isn't about my take on religion; it's about yours, and I'm showing you where you are inconsistent in your arguments.

[Wilikon]

Life does not need to be self aware to exist, according to science. So crabs and worms are using pure instinct to reproduce and to fight for food or to avoid being eaten by other non self aware creatures. Life does not need a purpose to be if I understand it, while I am myself defined by a Cartesian mind and have a purpose to define others and their purpose... I think.

Seems you've answered your question here, this is the socratic process at work

i am not a scientist myself, but i would agree with the point that life does not need to be self aware in order to exist.
Various life forms reproduce themselves in an "instictive" way, but i believe that this is not to be confused with
the human ability of philosophical and scientific exploration.

I mean, we do have a mind that allows us to think about our actions and their implications for a second,
but a crab can only resort to instinct as you put it and the rest of the factors that take place in the evolutionary process.

    

So science is telling me the branch I am sitting on now gave me the tools for the creation of a mind through Evolution. Yet the same process did not work for 99.9% of anything alive on this planet and collapsed into something called "instinct". So my purpose is to be aware I am an exception as the natural state of Evolution for everything is based on something else.

So Instinct is a succession of reactions to past traumas and failures, arming the next generations to be better suited, while not being self aware, for a better adaptation of a never ending changing environment, environment only humans can perceived and analyzed to be as such.

[bl4kjaguar]

So science gave me the tools for the creation of a mind through Evolution.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation.

Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUpHrILke_Q&list=PL5E1C6F0C32270E31


You are sure that evolution brought about your ability to communicate? That is an interesting claim which is hotly disputed!

[Sam-Os]

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

Please quote where I said "nobody knew anything prior to the scientific method"

Okay...

Quote from: the joint on Today at 09:25:47 AM
I'd also like to point out that, if what you are saying is true, then nobody knew anything at all prior to the development of the scientific method.

Correct. Nobody *knew* anything...

...I never said that...if you look back you can see.

[Sam-Os]

I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about science as a means of knowledge acquisition, and tangentially talking how it compares with other means of knowledge acquisition.  I'm trying to bring some clarity to the proponents of science (I'm one of them, but I'm also aware of its limitations and how other proponents of science like to ignore these limitations).

And I must remind you again that science has its own "faith-based assumptions" which, aside from being unfalsifiable via its own methods, have been proven wrong from a logical standpoint (in fact, proven wrong thousands of years ago by ancient Greek philosophers, and likely others before them, long before the scientific method was ever developed).

If you believe that faith-based assumptions have zero credibility, then you *must* acknowledge that many of science's assumptions also have zero credibility.  If you don't have a problem with this, then you shouldn't have a problem with religious faith-based claims as you share something in common with those who make them.  This isn't about my take on religion; it's about yours, and I'm showing you where you are inconsistent in your arguments.

"many of science's assumptions also have zero credibility."  I want to be concise here...Please list for me in straight forward terms.. what in science is based on faith. 1.2.3 and What in science has 0 credibility...

There is imagined phenomenon that can't yet be tested but is allowed for in various theories such as multiverse. Just as Mathematical theory was able to predict black holes. There is at least something behind it other than pure imagination.

[bl4kjaguar]

I am not part of this discussion, but I will answer these questions.  

Please list for me in straight forward terms.. what in science is based on faith.

It cannot be true that "science=knowledge". Knowledge invariably involves a knower.

You must study and understand phenomenology as a prelude to such inquiry; also, the concept of materialism is a faith-based bastardization of science.

The first step of science is a philosophical one. Science makes an assumption and the assumption first provides an answer to this question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion

What in science has 0 credibility...

Science is responsible for a lot of suffering, a concept which carries more weight than credibility
Skeptics are quite poor in exploring the scientific truth of alternative claims; granted, the cases are often compelling so a skeptic is warned well ahead of time! Oftentimes, researchers are confident skeptics... before truly investigating the matter.

There is imagined phenomenon that can't yet be tested but is allowed for in various theories

But there is ALSO real phenomena which CAN be tested but is not allowed in any 'scientific' theory because it offends sentiment about the mind-brain problem.
The difference between a scientist and a parapsychology researcher is that the latter typically understands phenomenology.

[the joint]

Are you a goldfish? You said "nobody *knew* anything" prior to the scientific method.  That's stupid.  It doesn't matter if science can refer to either a method or a body of knowledge.  The point is that science is not the only (or even the best, in many cases) means to knowledge acquisition.

Please quote where I said "nobody knew anything prior to the scientific method"

Okay...

Quote from: the joint on Today at 09:25:47 AM
I'd also like to point out that, if what you are saying is true, then nobody knew anything at all prior to the development of the scientific method.

Correct. Nobody *knew* anything...

...I never said that...if you look back you can see.

Lmao.  Wow.  My bad on that one.  I need to eat my words about the goldfish jab.  Ironically, I also made a post to someone else on page 6 of this thread accusing them of incorrectly referencing me!

[Wilikon]

So science gave me the tools for the creation of a mind through Evolution.

Remember Science changes based on facts, evidence and experimentation.

Religion on the other hand just stays wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUpHrILke_Q&list=PL5E1C6F0C32270E31


You are sure that evolution brought about your ability to communicate? That is an interesting claim which is hotly disputed!

Isn't Evolution science fact? Isn't dietetic science fact?

[u9y42]

I'm sorry to bring the conversation back to this; I know cryptodevil had sorted of answered this before but then led this one slide...

[...]

3)  There's absolutely nothing fallacious about my experience of warmth if I feel it -- it's directly known.  Direct experience of phenomena is an infallible means of acquiring knowledge, I.e. it is better than science.  I know infinitely more about warmth by having experienced it than can be learned about warmth through the scientific method.  And, by the way, you do realize objective in science is still rooted in relativism, right?  For example, the kelvin temperature is set on a ratio scale where the anchor point of 0 degrees is a theoretical limit that can never be falsified (since falsifying it would require continuing observation in a 'dead' Universe)?

[...]

Surely you must be joking? You must have heard of illusions by now, or "brain failures" if you will (optical illusions being the most popular, but by no means unique). Your feeling of warmth isn't "directly known", whatever you think that means; it's interpreted by your brain, as well as everything else you feel, and as such is subject to errors. 

[bl4kjaguar]

Isn't Evolution science fact?

I would rather doubt it until it is proven beyond a doubt!

To strengthen your doubt, I suggest you should once more review the unique problems posed by language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUpHrILke_Q&list=PL5E1C6F0C32270E31

[greatway]

the design of the human being is the ultimate proof of existence of soemthing intellectual.

can chaos theory bring order?