Some things are random, some things are not. Useful has nothing to do with randomness.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
Again, nothing can be useful if we are merely the product of random events. There is no "useful" in that situation, there is only random physical events.
"God is control." I hear that phrase a lot.
29,677 Views |
402 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Waco1947
No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
TexasScientist said:Some things are random, some things are not. Useful has nothing to do with randomness.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
Again, nothing can be useful if we are merely the product of random events. There is no "useful" in that situation, there is only random physical events.
Purpose does not arise out of the purposeless.
You can either have your usefulness or you can have your randomness, you cannot have them both.
TexasScientist said:No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
You subscribe to the myth that life has meaning and purpose.
Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
TexasScientist said:Some things are random, some things are not. Useful has nothing to do with randomness.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
Again, nothing can be useful if we are merely the product of random events. There is no "useful" in that situation, there is only random physical events.
Agreed
< chuckle >TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
Not how it works, TS.
If someone loves you, that cannot be proven through math or empirical evidence. You cannot determine in advance who will be your best friend or worst enemy.
God created the universe, and therefore is not bound by its conditions or rules, any more than the scientist who tests rats for behavior and trains them, can be discerned by the place of levers or food pellets.
The creator is not bound the way the creation is bound..
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
True you worship God. But the moment you say "God is all powerful" you yield proof the science and you no scientific proof.Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
A simple "Yes you are right." would help your faith.
God is spirit. That is your rock of salvation.
Poor Waco, still you do not understand.Waco1947 said:True you worship God. But the moment you say "God is all powerful" you yield proof the science and you no scientific proof.Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
A simple "Yes you are right." would help your faith.
God is spirit. That is your rock of salvation.
You put Science above God.
That is pride and self at work in your spirit, and it blocks you from seeing the truth.
I am not surprised to see this arrogance in TexasScientist, for he worships Science and so is true to his idol, despite the error. But you cannot claim to follow Christ yet hold Him beneath the works of men.
God has power, without limit, to do as He promises. I trust in His promise, and so I stand on firm ground which does not depend on human limits.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Life only has meaning an purpose to the extent and in the context that there are cognizant beings to find, recognize, interpret and appreciate their state of existence. The value of life to sentient beings is not at myth. Outside of that, there is no evidence of purpose to, or meaning to the universe.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
You subscribe to the myth that life has meaning and purpose.
No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
TexasScientist said:Life only has meaning an purpose to the extent and in the context that there are cognizant beings to find, recognize, interpret and appreciate their state of existence. The value of life to sentient beings is not at myth. Outside of that, there is no evidence of purpose to, or meaning to the universe.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
You subscribe to the myth that life has meaning and purpose.
In your cosmology, thinking that life has value is a narrative made up to give value to purposelessness, a myth.
Isn't your belief that life has value no different, than mine, except mine doesn't require a mythical being supposedly telling me it has value?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Life only has meaning an purpose to the extent and in the context that there are cognizant beings to find, recognize, interpret and appreciate their state of existence. The value of life to sentient beings is not at myth. Outside of that, there is no evidence of purpose to, or meaning to the universe.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
You subscribe to the myth that life has meaning and purpose.
In your cosmology, thinking that life has value is a narrative made up to give value to purposelessness, a myth.
TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Nor can you attack it as science, because it isn't. It's theology.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
TexasScientist said:Isn't your belief that life has value no different, than mine, except mine doesn't require a mythical being supposedly telling me it has value?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Life only has meaning an purpose to the extent and in the context that there are cognizant beings to find, recognize, interpret and appreciate their state of existence. The value of life to sentient beings is not at myth. Outside of that, there is no evidence of purpose to, or meaning to the universe.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, I don't subscribe to myths. You're not making sense.Oldbear83 said:But not to refute imagination.TexasScientist said:No, I reject the combination of imagination and myth. Imagination itself can be useful.Oldbear83 said:No, since you use your imagination to reject imagination.TexasScientist said:I can reject myths, and can have an opinion on myths. Goodness and evil have nothing to do with heaven or hell. Human and cultural morals and my thoughts regarding those are irrelevant to whether I reject the myths of heaven and hell.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "I reject all universes that are the product of imagination and myth."
Were that statement correct, you would decline to offer opinion on heaven, hell, goodness and evil, since by your own words those proceed from human imagination, including your own.
Your logic contradicts your conclusion.
As for myth, all humans subscribe to myths. You as much as anyone.
You subscribe to the myth that life has meaning and purpose.
In your cosmology, thinking that life has value is a narrative made up to give value to purposelessness, a myth.
No.
Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
There are entire fields of study that assign value to life and do not deal with gaining knowledge of the physical and material world.
Science is great for understanding the nature of the physical world, but it is does not provide principles for assigning value to life or making moral decisions. There is no morality in science.
If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
TexasScientist said:If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
Your statement that there would have to be empirical evidence on which to make a description of God is only partly right. If God exists, there may be ways other than the scientific method to get a description. In addition, there is no rational reason for us to think we would be able to describe God, a Being outside of time and space, with tools suited to describe the physical universe.
One would have to begin with an assumption that God did not exist to reach your conclusion, and having started with that assumption, the argument is pretty weak. In any event, there is evidence on which to make that description. We live in such evidence and we are ourselves are such evidence.
We use science to evaluate what we can comprehend, not what we cannot comprehend.
"If something exists, it can be evaluated"TexasScientist said:If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
Not necessarily true. For example, we could not evaluate quantum mechanics until we had a means to observe them. Prior to the 20th Century, such phenomena existed but could not evaluated for that reason. Ergo, anything beyond our perception and observation must be beyond our evaluation.
"We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend"
Not accurate. When we perceive phenomena we don't understand, we speculate about that phenomena and adjust our guesses as we get more comprehension. The two go together, it's silly to imagine valid evaluation without comprehension.
" In order to accurately describe a god, we would have to have empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description"
That, if you pay attention, is just what the religions of men try to do. Supernatural events happen, and people try to describe the phenomena, using reason and the available facts.
" in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality"
And here is where you fail. Anything beyond the scope of man is something which we cannot fully understand, and therefore cannot be organized and neatly categorized by the rules by which we are bound.
We cannot comprehend eternity, for example. We not only live finite lives with dates of our birth and death, we also experience time subjectively, and so perceive it only in one aspect. If an entity existed which was able to control time, it could - at least in theory - exist without temporal limits.
You keep trying to define God by human limits. That's a circular argument,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.TexasScientist said:You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.
If something exists, it can be evaluated"Oldbear83 said:"If something exists, it can be evaluated"TexasScientist said:If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
Not necessarily true. For example, we could not evaluate quantum mechanics until we had a means to observe them. Prior to the 20th Century, such phenomena existed but could not evaluated for that reason. Ergo, anything beyond our perception and observation must be beyond our evaluation.
"We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend"
Not accurate. When we perceive phenomena we don't understand, we speculate about that phenomena and adjust our guesses as we get more comprehension. The two go together, it's silly to imagine valid evaluation without comprehension.
" In order to accurately describe a god, we would have to have empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description"
That, if you pay attention, is just what the religions of men try to do. Supernatural events happen, and people try to describe the phenomena, using reason and the available facts.
" in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality"
And here is where you fail. Anything beyond the scope of man is something which we cannot fully understand, and therefore cannot be organized and neatly categorized by the rules by which we are bound.
We cannot comprehend eternity, for example. We not only live finite lives with dates of our birth and death, we also experience time subjectively, and so perceive it only in one aspect. If an entity existed which was able to control time, it could - at least in theory - exist without temporal limits.
You keep trying to define God by human limits. That's a circular argument,
Not necessarily true. For example, we could not evaluate quantum mechanics until we had a means to observe them. Prior to the 20th Century, such phenomena existed but could not evaluated for that reason. Ergo, anything beyond our perception and observation must be beyond our evaluation.
If something exists within our universe, or if something exists outside of our universe that can have influence within our universe, it can be evaluated. We can evaluate quantum phenomena, we just may not have the technology, and mathematical understanding to fully evaluate it yet. But, that ability is within our grasp, and therefore within our grasp of understanding.
"We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend"
Not accurate. When we perceive phenomena we don't understand, we speculate about that phenomena and adjust our guesses as we get more comprehension. The two go together, it's silly to imagine valid evaluation without comprehension.
I think you are splitting hairs here. We have to evaluate what we don't understand, in order to reach an understanding or comprehension. Speculation is a first step, followed by testable hypotheses. Science is trial and error, until there is a reasonable, testable understanding with consistent predictability.
" In order to accurately describe a god, we would have to have empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description"
That, if you pay attention, is just what the religions of men try to do. Supernatural events happen, and people try to describe the phenomena, using reason and the available facts.
There is no empirical evidence, or objective evidence of any supernatural event ever having occurred. Religion asserts claims of the supernatural without empirical evidence. There are only stories derived from the imaginations of men.
" in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality"
And here is where you fail. Anything beyond the scope of man is something which we cannot fully understand, and therefore cannot be organized and neatly categorized by the rules by which we are bound.
We cannot comprehend eternity, for example. We not only live finite lives with dates of our birth and death, we also experience time subjectively, and so perceive it only in one aspect. If an entity existed which was able to control time, it could - at least in theory - exist without temporal limits.
You keep trying to define God by human limits. That's a circular argument,
There is no evidence of any rules other than those that govern our universe or possibly a multiverse by which we are bound. Man has the ability, given the time and technology, to understand anything. We can comprehend eternity or non-eternity. If there was any entity that could control time, or a being with any supernatural ability to act upon and influence the laws our universe, they would be discoverable. All we have are stories from differing religions - myths. Your definition of god is a collective of human imaginations. There is really no way to define that which does not exist.
If there is a being outside of time and space, it would be incapable of interacting with us without empirical evidence of that interaction. The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, and so far there is no empirical evidence of any supernatural being, much less one that is superior to the imaginations of all other religions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
Your statement that there would have to be empirical evidence on which to make a description of God is only partly right. If God exists, there may be ways other than the scientific method to get a description. In addition, there is no rational reason for us to think we would be able to describe God, a Being outside of time and space, with tools suited to describe the physical universe.
One would have to begin with an assumption that God did not exist to reach your conclusion, and having started with that assumption, the argument is pretty weak. In any event, there is evidence on which to make that description. We live in such evidence and we are ourselves are such evidence.
We use science to evaluate what we can comprehend, not what we cannot comprehend.
Why would you assume that any god exists without conclusive evidence? It would seem to me that is the weaker argument. We, along with other organisms, are only evidence of the ability for life forms to evolve under favorable conditions. Nothing more. Our universe is only evidence that our universe exists. There is no basis to read any purpose into that existence, other than a human desire to believe in an outside purpose. We can comprehend anything, given the opportunity of time, science and technology.
I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.Sam Lowry said:There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.TexasScientist said:You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.
TexasScientist said:If there is a being outside of time and space, it would be incapable of interacting with us without empirical evidence of that interaction. The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, and so far there is no empirical evidence of any supernatural being, much less one that is superior to the imaginations of all other religions.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:If something exists, it can be evaluated. We use science to evaluate what we cannot comprehend. That's how we have come to understand what we do know about the universe.Oldbear83 said:
TS: "Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist."
More precisely, humans cannot use Science to evaluate what they cannot comprehend.
Ergo, any entity that could be accurately be described as God, would necessarily be beyond human comprehension and therefore also beyond the scope of Science.
In order to accurately describe a god, there would have to be empirical physical evidence upon which to make that description, in order to take that god out of the imagination of men and into objective reality.
Your statement that there would have to be empirical evidence on which to make a description of God is only partly right. If God exists, there may be ways other than the scientific method to get a description. In addition, there is no rational reason for us to think we would be able to describe God, a Being outside of time and space, with tools suited to describe the physical universe.
One would have to begin with an assumption that God did not exist to reach your conclusion, and having started with that assumption, the argument is pretty weak. In any event, there is evidence on which to make that description. We live in such evidence and we are ourselves are such evidence.
We use science to evaluate what we can comprehend, not what we cannot comprehend.
Why would you assume that any god exists without conclusive evidence? It would seem to me that is the weaker argument. We, along with other organisms, are only evidence of the ability for life forms to evolve under favorable conditions. Nothing more. Our universe is only evidence that our universe exists. There is no basis to read any purpose into that existence, other than a human desire to believe in an outside purpose. We can comprehend anything, given the opportunity of time, science and technology.
You have no evidence for that assertion. There is no reason to believe, other than blind faith, that everything can be perceived by the human mind, much less comprehended by it.
Why would you assume that you are sentient?
BTW, there is evidence of a being outside of time and space interacting with us.
TexasScientist said:I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.Sam Lowry said:There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.TexasScientist said:You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.
Science has nothing to say about the well being of others being good or not. You are borrowing from the "primitive traditions" you claim to disdain when you talk about "conducive to the well being of others."
Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.TexasScientist said:I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.Sam Lowry said:There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.TexasScientist said:You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.
Or it can be what some religious leader says he received through divine revelation, such as a chosen master race ordered to slaughter men women and children and animals for the benefit of gaining their land. It can be anything a cleric or imam or religious institution determines. That's why it's better for morality to be evaluated scientifically in secular terms of human wellbeing, what is harmful, and equitable. Science is an impartial tool that can be used for the wellbeing of everyone. Western culture has in part followed this path, and to that end we have the most equitable society in the world. There is still a lot to be desired and improved upon.Sam Lowry said:Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.TexasScientist said:I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.Sam Lowry said:There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.TexasScientist said:You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.Sam Lowry said:You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.TexasScientist said:You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.D. C. Bear said:TexasScientist said:Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?Oldbear83 said:We worship God, not Science.Waco1947 said:then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.Sam Lowry said:I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.Waco1947 said:
JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.
But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.
Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.
You have just made the case for why science is limited.
If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.
Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.
Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.
Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.
The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.