The Day The Earth Stood Still

[BeHereNow]

The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god.

Upon this, everything in Science will follow. This is the indispensible bedrock of Science.
If at any point the thought “. . . and then maybe god did this. . . “, the process known as Science, has stopped.
Science cannot operate with a premise such as “. . . maybe god did it. . .”.
It must be known at the very start, that god will never be an acceptable explanation.
Invisible aliens will be accepted, before god, if there is an unknown cause or effect. Of course even invisible aliens rate low on the list of probabilities, but still above god.
Certainly some Scientists will have a belief in god, but this will not be a tool for the Process of Science, simply a characteristic of the scientist.

Science concedes that nothing is guaranteed. The possibility of untruth might be so low as to be truly inconsequential, and yet there will be a certain factor of the unknown, of the possible untruth.

This premise (there is no god) is, of course, assumed, but not provable.
Time and again I have been told in Science nothing is provable, just highly probable or highly improbable, or somewhere in between. The concept of god is highly improbable.

The first premise of Theism, is that there is a god.
The level of involvement in actual miracles, or supernatural events will vary greatly among theists, and yet all will agree, that god may have had a hand in the cause or outcome of any event. That tiny little doubt that the Process of Science always contains, can always be attributed to god, by a theist.

Following the rules of the Process of Science, certain events have such a low possibility of occurrence, it is truly said they are virtually impossible.

I always liked that word virtually. It one of those words that means the opposite of the connotation. It seems to say “truly”, yet it really says “not really, not truthfully”.
It is of course related to virtual, as in virtual reality, which everyone knows means not reality.
Something that is virtually impossible, is actually possible. That is what virtually means. It means almost, but not quite.

The Process of Science cannot say “The earth could not have stand still for a day.”
It can only say “Given all of the known laws and theories of the Process of Science, it is not logical to think the earth ever stood still for a day.”

A Biblical Belief System can trump a scientific belief system any time, no sweat or strain.
God makes the virtually impossible, just barely possible.

Because of this, no evidence is belief system neutral, ("must invariably succumb to the demands of.. humans, not atheists or scientists - just humans") as some of our posters claim.


Evidence which is based on the premise there is no acceptable god explanation, is not belief system neutral, and is not admissible to counter a belief held by a Biblical Belief System.

Both results from the Process known as Science, and the Biblical Belief System, agree that it is possible for the earth to have stood still.
One side says it is virtually impossible, and the other side says it is truly possible.

I see this as agreement.

 

[Blindman]

Ranting over semantics.

The concept that it is virtually impossible does not imply how the Earth could stand still. There are many mechanisms that could stop the Earth, there are many reference points from which the Earth can appear to stand still.

The real term your looking for is "practical impossible". If it did stop it would be disastrous to us and all life on earth.


BTW a day is the time it takes for the earth to spin around on its axis so that it faces the sun again. Thus if the earth stopped for a day that would not happen. So it would be impossible for the earth to stop for a day. A paradox :shrug: That’s the trouble with language, its full of paradoxes.

 

[BeHereNow]

Blindman Ranting over semantics.

The concept that it is virtually impossible does not imply how the Earth could stand still.

Not only implies, but is a sort of proof. It is a logical proof that it could stand still. Clearly, if by a certain belief system it is impossible to show it could not stand still, it is possible that it could (according to that same belief system).
As to the how, I believe I made that clear. God did it.
Of course science will have it's own explanations.


If A is not true, then ~A is true. Where I come from that is called logic. Apparently where you come from that is called semantics.
The use of words is curious.

There are many mechanisms that could stop the Earth, there are many reference points from which the Earth can appear to stand still.

I wish I could help you with this confusion of yours.
If there are many mechanisms that could stop the earth, then certainly it is possible.
It seems to be this simple logic that stumps you.

The real term your looking for is "practical impossible". If it did stop it would be disastrous to us and all life on earth.

Believe me, if I wanted to say “practical”, I would always use the correct form “practically”. If I wanted to use either term, I would have. I did not, so I did not.
If you think I should have, I will galdly offer a rebuttal, if you will only offer an arguemnt.

BTW a day is the time it takes for the earth to spin around on its axis so that it faces the sun again.

Well aren’t you the clever young fellow. Is that what it means. The next thing you’ll be telling me you passed sixth grade science.

Thus if the earth stopped for a day that would not happen. So it would be impossible for the earth to stop for a day. A paradox That’s the trouble with language, its full of paradoxes.

Well, you may convince me you passed sixth grade science, but you sure never passed a class in logic.
Here is what you believe: ‘If something happened, that would show it is impossible’.

Using the Scientific-atheistic belief system I have show that it could have happened, and using the Biblical belief system I can show how.
There is no paradox of language here.
With God all things are possible, with science nothing can be proven impossible.

That is not a paradox, but it might be called ironic.

 

[Lori_7]

nothing is "magic", and nothing occurs outside of law. the god question is, why are the laws what they are? in my opinion, shallow-minded people don't explain things they can not understand by saying "god did it". it's the same thing as saying "it's magic". and it's the same thing as saying "it's done outside the law". just because we don't understand the law, or haven't documented it, or observed it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. if that were true, science would come to a screaching halt. there is always an explanation, it's just a matter of what you're trying to explain, the why? or the how? it seems to me as if atheists think that the how is the why, and that religious folk think it's all magic! poof!

 

[SnakeLord]

The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god.

It's not generally a very good sign when a post starts off with something completely false, and it has certainly put me off reading the rest of it.

"There is no god" is no more of a scientific premise than "there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop", the question is merely one of where such things fit into the realm of science.

- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena

* Empirical, falsifiable, testable, predictive, parsimonious, general, tentative. (gods and invisible aliens do not satisfy any of these).

The rest of your post was just more pointless garbage so I've left it.

 

[BeHereNow]

Snakelord It's not generally a very good sign when a post starts off with something completely false, and it has certainly put me off reading the rest of it.

"There is no god" is no more of a scientific premise than "there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop", the question is merely one of where such things fit into the realm of science.

You know, a few of you fellows would do well to notice that this is the philosophy section.
I never said it was a scientific premise.

One would naturally assume that that a philosophical truth comes before a scientific truth, in the philosophical section.

Philosophically, Science operates under a system that never considers god as an explanation. Never.

This premise I propose is certainly not taught in any textbook. Surely you do not take me for an imbecile.
Only an imbecile might think that budding young scientists are first taught there is no god. I never suggested such a thing and your straw man reply is transparent.

You know as well as I do that huge numbers of persons attribute certain results to divine intervention.
The majority of the persons in the world attribute the existence of planet earth to god. Not only those living today, but for eons past as well.

One would think a belief with so much support is worth a study. Any individuals participating in the process of science actually doing tests for the feasibility of god creation?

On the other hand, aliens on the planet Warglebop, have no supporters. No group of individual make any claims about any such existence. The thought of doing a scientific study based on something NOONE believes is ludicrous.

The process of science, on some occasions, competes against the god effect as an explanation.

Creation is an excellent example. Would you say there are individuals involved in the process of science testing the god hypothesis as an explanation?

Some of my Christian friends would point out that many scientists accept the Biblical belief system, and also practice science, but we agree that when they are doing the process of science, they do not see god as a causal agent, except possibly in the case of ill results from immoral acts that occur during the process of science. Certainly not in the scientific process itself.

- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena

* Empirical, falsifiable, testable, predictive, parsimonious, general, tentative. (gods and invisible aliens do not satisfy any of these).

How can this possible an argument against my claims?

This is my point. As far as the process of science is concerned, no god contact explains anything.

Ask any Southern Baptist if they have been touched by God and you will get an entirely different answer. And they do not mean it figuratively. They will tell you those who are slain in the Spirit, are touched by God as surely as you have touched any person.

The Biblical belief system does not start with the premise God is not discernable. That is what all of those words you used add up to (Empirical, falsifiable, testable, predictive, parsimonious, general, tentative) actually mean.
You say, in effect, the Process of Science starts with the premise god is not discernable.

This is contrary to most other belief systems. It may not be unique, but it is a rare starting point among all of the belief systems out there.
Your comments have supported my position, not countered it.

The rest of your post was just more pointless garbage so I've left it.

There is no shame in running.
If I had no rebuttal, that is what I would do.

 

[Cris]

Beherenow,

The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god.

Upon this, everything in Science will follow. This is the indispensible bedrock of Science.

Totally false, as has already been stated. And hence the remainder of your post becomes nonsense.

Science makes no such statements. Science remains silent with respect to god concepts as it does for anything that cannot be detected, observed, or tested.

 

[Myles]

You know, a few of you fellows would do well to notice that this is the philosophy section.
I never said it was a scientific premise.

One would naturally assume that that a philosophical truth comes before a scientific truth, in the philosophical section.

Philosophically, Science operates under a system that never considers god as an explanation. Never.

This premise I propose is certainly not taught in any textbook. Surely you do not take me for an imbecile.
Only an imbecile might think that budding young scientists are first taught there is no god. I never suggested such a thing and your straw man reply is transparent.

You know as well as I do that huge numbers of persons attribute certain results to divine intervention.
The majority of the persons in the world attribute the existence of planet earth to god. Not only those living today, but for eons past as well.

One would think a belief with so much support is worth a study. Any individuals participating in the process of science actually doing tests for the feasibility of god creation?

On the other hand, aliens on the planet Warglebop, have no supporters. No group of individual make any claims about any such existence. The thought of doing a scientific study based on something NOONE believes is ludicrous.

The process of science, on some occasions, competes against the god effect as an explanation.

Creation is an excellent example. Would you say there are individuals involved in the process of science testing the god hypothesis as an explanation?

Some of my Christian friends would point out that many scientists accept the Biblical belief system, and also practice science, but we agree that when they are doing the process of science, they do not see god as a causal agent, except possibly in the case of ill results from immoral acts that occur during the process of science. Certainly not in the scientific process itself.

How can this possible an argument against my claims?

This is my point. As far as the process of science is concerned, no god contact explains anything.

Ask any Southern Baptist if they have been touched by God and you will get an entirely different answer. And they do not mean it figuratively. They will tell you those who are slain in the Spirit, are touched by God as surely as you have touched any person.

The Biblical belief system does not start with the premise God is not discernable. That is what all of those words you used add up to (Empirical, falsifiable, testable, predictive, parsimonious, general, tentative) actually mean.
You say, in effect, the Process of Science starts with the premise god is not discernable.

This is contrary to most other belief systems. It may not be unique, but it is a rare starting point among all of the belief systems out there.
Your comments have supported my position, not countered it.

There is no shame in running.
If I had no rebuttal, that is what I would do.

What is a "philosophical truth" ? How does it differ from a truth such as gravity? What kind of evidence is required to support a "philisophical truth" .

Your example of the Baptists proves nothing. It's not that long ago that everyone would have agreed that the earth was flat.WE have moved on. How about the Baptists ?

 

[glaucon]

The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god.
...

Incorrect.

The first premiss of science is that events are predictable.

 

[BeHereNow]

Cris Totally false, as has already been stated. And hence the remainder of your post becomes nonsense.

Science makes no such statements. Science remains silent with respect to god concepts as it does for anything that cannot be detected, observed, or tested.

That’s the point, isn’t. A few people believe god is not perceivable. The majority of individuals disagree.

I explained my usage of the unstated philosophical scientific premise that there is no god, and the only answer is that I am using the word premise in the wrong way.
I use the word, I make my meaning clear.
If you want to use a different word, the meaning will be the same.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Myles[/b] What is a "philosophical truth" ? How does it differ from a truth such as gravity? What kind of evidence is required to support a "philosophical truth" .

Where do I use term philosophical truth in this thread?

Your example of the Baptists proves nothing. It's not that long ago that everyone would have agreed that the earth was flat.WE have moved on. How about the Baptists ?

It proves that some individuals believe god can be discerned or perceived.
I thought that was quite clear.

If you choose to claim they are mistake, use their belief system to show they are not correct. If you are the challenger, you have the burden of proof. Feel free to use their belief system to show they are wrong.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

glaucon Incorrect.

The first premiss of science is that events are predictable.

Duh!
Have you no understanding of logic?

If there is a god who influences worldly events, there is no predictability.

If god can change water to wine, one cannot predict what liquid might be in a vessel that contained water one millisecond ago.

Before you can assume predictability, you have to presume no discernable god.
If I am incorrect, present your argument.

 

[Cris]

Lori,

the god question is, why are the laws what they are?

The latter part is fine “why are the laws what they are?”, but the first part is a theists attempt to answer the question assuming there is no other natural answer, i.e. a god made the laws. But that doesn’t help very much since then, if we assume, as you state, that everything has an explanation, then how do we explain a god and how did such a thing originate, etc.

With the invention of a god concept to answer the how of natural laws we simply haven’t progressed. Questions are raised as to how did he do it and why didn’t he do it differently.

The question of “why” is perhaps a red herring. The assumption is that everything has a purpose and that there is intent behind why the universe exists and the way it is. But why make that assumption? Why does there have to be a “why”?

If we look closer at the history of science we note that its findings take us to smaller and smaller component objects until we have the latest concept of string theory; that everything that exists is composed of combinations of these fundamental components. One could then ask the question of why these fundamentals exist and why they behave the way they do, but then that is the same question we would ask of a why a god would exist and why it behaves the way it is claimed.

The two alternatives of “how”, (1) fundamental particles or (2) a god, imply one of two extremes, ultimate simplicity or ultimate complexity. Ultimate simplicity suggests that everything can be explained through using basic building blocks to build any degree of complexity, and the issue of “why” is redundant. I.e. this is the way the universe operates and no further explanation is needed. If we choose ultimate complexity (a god) as the origin of “how” then we are left with how would something so vastly complex ever come into existence etc, and why would it create the universe the way it is? I.e. to offer a god as an explanation of how and why answers neither question.

it seems to me as if atheists think that the how is the why, and that religious folk think it's all magic! poof!

I think it more that atheists would say that the “why” doesn’t exist and isn’t needed, and that theists simply claim it is all magic and label that magic god. Which is what you have done, correct?

 

[SnakeLord]

Philosophically, Science operates under a system that never considers god as an explanation. Never.

Nor does it consider invisible bananas either, but stating "the first premise of science is 'there is no god'" is still totally wrong.

You can also whine all you like about what the rest of us need to apparently know regarding this forum section if you must but even that does not change the fact that your statement is false.

I never suggested such a thing and your straw man reply is transparent.

Straw man? I don't think so pal, perhaps you'd do better off if you spent more time working out what it is you're actually trying to say. "The first premise of science is that there is no god" is going to lead to these problems for you, and no.. you can't blame everyone else for that. Be a man about it and recognise where you are in error.

"There is no god" is not the first premise of science, nor the second, tenth, hundredth, it isn't a premise of science at all.

You know as well as I do that huge numbers of persons attribute certain results to divine intervention.
The majority of the persons in the world attribute the existence of planet earth to god. Not only those living today, but for eons past as well.

One would think a belief with so much support is worth a study. Any individuals participating in the process of science actually doing tests for the feasibility of god creation?

You will find that anything that can be tested by science will be. Yes, that includes claimed 'miracles', religious artifacts such as the shroud, the effect of prayer and so on. Many of these things are testable, and so they're tested. What tests do you propose one conducts to find the feasibility of "god creation"? (Please, you forgot to mention what god it is you think did it - you'd hate for 'science' to accept but then visit Zeus' creation factory instead of your gods).

Try and be honest for a change, is there anything in "god did it" that is empirical, testable, etc etc etc?

The thought of doing a scientific study based on something NOONE believes is ludicrous.

It needs to be stated clearly for you: science is not determined by popular opinion.

The process of science, on some occasions, competes against the god effect as an explanation.

That is not the fault of science. Science determines for instance that the world is a few billion years old. That some idiot stands up and says "but this ancient book says it's only 7,000 years old" is not adequate justification to blame science for it.

Creation is an excellent example. Would you say there are individuals involved in the process of science testing the god hypothesis as an explanation?

Clearly you don't even know the 'process of science' given the statements on your last post and this very question, so why even pretend? But do tell, how does one go about testing? Can they book tickets to the creation factory?

Ask any Southern Baptist if they have been touched by God and you will get an entirely different answer. And they do not mean it figuratively. They will tell you those who are slain in the Spirit, are touched by God as surely as you have touched any person.

Ask any of those same people what this god looked like, what accent he had, what clothes he was wearing, what colour his skin was, what colour eyes? etc etc and you'll find they ultimately have nothing to work with. "I wasn't 'physically' touched, it was a feeling I had".

However, as you are obviously quite serious about this issue, how about we set up a 'scientific' experiment using you, these other religious people, and the bible?

Ok, so we can see in Mark that if you have enough faith you can drink deadly poison and survive. So let's put it to the test. Round up your christian friends and let's do this thing. How about you put your money where your mouth is?

The thing is, I have only ever heard one response from you theists and that is "you can't test god". If that is your response I would ask you to stop wasting my time and work out then why such a god cannot be a consideration of science - a word you use often but don't seem to understand the meaning of.

You say, in effect, the Process of Science starts with the premise god is not discernable.

Not testable and, given my statement above, it seems the majority of theists also agree, (something you deem important).

There is no shame in running.
If I had no rebuttal, that is what I would do.

I'm very pleased for you but perhaps you need to sit back and get a little perspective. Is it that someone else is "running" or that your post really is just a load of nonsensical bollocks? Wanna get a majority vote?

 

[Myles]

That’s the point, isn’t. A few people believe god is not perceivable. The majority of individuals disagree.

I explained my usage of the unstated philosophical scientific premise that there is no god, and the only answer is that I am using the word premise in the wrong way.
I use the word, I make my meaning clear.
If you want to use a different word, the meaning will be the same.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Where do I use term philosophical truth in this thread?
It proves that some individuals believe god can be discerned or perceived.
I thought that was quite clear.

If you choose to claim they are mistake, use their belief system to show they are not correct. If you are the challenger, you have the burden of proof. Feel free to use their belief system to show they are wrong.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Duh!
Have you no understanding of logic?

If there is a god who influences worldly events, there is no predictability.

If god can change water to wine, one cannot predict what liquid might be in a vessel that contained water one millisecond ago.

Before you can assume predictability, you have to presume no discernable god.
If I am incorrect, present your argument.

Try your post no. 6 ! " .....a philosophical truth would come before a scientiofic truth ...."Now answer my questions.

 

[Cris]

BeHereNow,

A few people believe god is not perceivable. The majority of individuals disagree.

Fortunetaly truth is not determind by a majority vote. The fact that 2/3rds of the planet population hold religious beliefs gives zero indication of whether what they believe is true or not.

 

[scorpius]

A Biblical Belief System can trump a scientific belief system any time, no sweat or strain.
God makes the virtually impossible, just barely possible.

fascinating,
no doubt you can SHOW us how,... right?

btw which god are you talking about

www.godchecker.com

fyi
science is NOT belief system

 

[glaucon]

Duh!
Have you no understanding of logic?

Apparently a much better one than yours...



Before you can assume predictability, you have to presume no discernable god.
If I am incorrect, present your argument.

Events predate a deity, ergo, the assumption thereof may obtain.

Furthermore, there is no assumption of predictability; merely the possibility that we may characterize events as predictable. Admittedly, the difference is subtle; I can understand if you find it difficult.

The point is that you are incorrect: your presentation of the 'first' premiss of science is simply incorrect. Whether or not that premiss is legitimate or not is an entirely different question.

 

[andbna]

Clearly, BeHereNow, you have mistaken premise for conclusion. There is a difference.

If there is a god who influences worldly events, there is no predictability.

If god can change water to wine, one cannot predict what liquid might be in a vessel that contained water one millisecond ago.

Before you can assume predictability, you have to presume no discernable god.
If I am incorrect, present your argument.

Science itself (the application of the scientific method) has no premesis (not in this sense). It is a procedure. Granted, premises of every scientific law that I know of is that the universe is deterministic, however, that is not part of the scientific method, but rather a conclusion formed by it. It has simply been observed by inductive reasoning. Non-deterministic nature has not been observed. Given mountains of inductive evidence that the universe is deterministic, and none that it isn't, what does that tell you about the nature of the universe?

All you need to do, is falsify this position, and it only takes 1 non-deterministic event to do so. Thats it. Will science crumble? Hardly, curently accepted theories might (though in all likelyhood, they will remain as good approximations, just like Newtonian physics), but the method will be applied as strongly as ever. New laws will be develloped which better suit the nature of the known universe, and new technologies will be produced because of it. And the bible? It does shit even if it's right, since it cannot make any predictions based on it being right. Sure the church would probably gloat about it being right all along, but it was the scientific method which prooved it, and the scientific method which would do something usefull wit hthe knowlege.

So your claims that science does not allow god are false. You merely demonstrate how much evidence is in its disfavour of a non-deterministic god.

-Andrew

 

[BeHereNow]

SnakLordNor does it consider invisible bananas either, but stating "the first premise of science is 'there is no god'" is still totally wrong.

You can also whine all you like about what the rest of us need to apparently know regarding this forum section if you must but even that does not change the fact that your statement is false.

Get a new argument. I already explained to why “"there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop” is not considered. Invisible bananas are a repeat.

You will find that anything that can be tested by science will be. Yes, that includes claimed 'miracles', religious artifacts such as the shroud, the effect of prayer and so on. Many of these things are testable, and so they're tested. What tests do you propose one conducts to find the feasibility of "god creation"? (Please, you forgot to mention what god it is you think did it - you'd hate for 'science' to accept but then visit Zeus' creation factory instead of your gods).

Try and be honest for a change, is there anything in "god did it" that is empirical, testable, etc etc etc?

How many times do I have to point out the obvious?
There are belief system other than your own.
Most of the world has a god belief, and their belief system has given them the ability to believe this, not based on imagination, but on convincing evidence they accept. You do not accept it, science does not accept it, but there it is.

It needs to be stated clearly for you: science is not determined by popular opinion.

I never said it was.

Clearly you don't even know the 'process of science' given the statements on your last post and this very question, so why even pretend? But do tell, how does one go about testing? Can they book tickets to the creation factory?

Science has no way, because the process of science has no belief in god. If one want to determine if there is a god, one has to use a different belief system.
More than one belief system in the world. Get it.

Ask any of those same people what this god looked like, what accent he had, what clothes he was wearing, what colour his skin was, what colour eyes? etc etc and you'll find they ultimately have nothing to work with. "I wasn't 'physically' touched, it was a feeling I had".

They were touched spiritually. I have no doubt you do not understand what that means.

However, as you are obviously quite serious about this issue, how about we set up a 'scientific' experiment using you, these other religious people, and the bible?

Other belief systems. Hello. . . . . .
Guess you’ve never been to church.
The individuals who have a god belief system do not do so based on science.
That has been my point repeatedly.

Ok, so we can see in Mark that if you have enough faith you can drink deadly poison and survive. So let's put it to the test. Round up your christian friends and let's do this thing. How about you put your money where your mouth is?

Surely you know some churches do this. What am I thinking, of course not.
I have not attended such churches, but others have.

The thing is, I have only ever heard one response from you theists and that is "you can't test god". If that is your response I would ask you to stop wasting my time and work out then why such a god cannot be a consideration of science - a word you use often but don't seem to understand the meaning of.Your lack of understanding of other belief systems certainly blinds you.

You can’t test god with science. That does not mean you can not have convincing evidence for the existence of god. You just can’t do it with science.
There are other belief systems.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Myles

Try your post no. 6 ! " .....a philosophical truth would come before a scientiofic truth ...."Now answer my questions.[/quote]There are truths that and not scientific. There are truths taught at the beauty academy, for example. Every discipline has it’s truths, and not all of them are scientific. There is another world out there that some of you fail to recognize.
It is a philosophical truth that there are more than one belief systems in the world.

It is a philosophical truth that the word premise has several meanings, and not all of them are formal clearly stated.
Surely some of you realize the vocabulary of various disciplines varies.
Why someone would think words have the same meaning in a philosophy section as they would in a science section is beyond me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cris Fortunetaly truth is not determind by a majority vote. The fact that 2/3rds of the planet population hold religious beliefs gives zero indication of whether what they believe is true or not.

Of course not.
It does show the existence of a different belief system from the scientific-atheistic belief system.
It does raise the possibility of a different than science is able to provide.


~ ~ ~ ~

scorpius fascinating,
no doubt you can SHOW us how,... right?

btw which god are you talking about

www.godchecker.com

fyi
science is NOT belief system

By “show”, you of course mean demonstrate scientifically.
I can take you to any church and “show” you, but you will not accept what I present as evidence because it is not in agreement with your belief system. When you are the challenger, you have the burden of proof to show what I say is false, and you to convince me you will have to use my belief system.

You say ‘science is not a belief system”, and give no explanation.
No one else has disagreed with me. You state something contrary to every other post and feel no need to explain yourself.
In that case I feel no need to respond except to use your style and say “Yes it is.”

~ ~ ~ ~

glauconThe first premiss of science is that events are predictable.

later: Furthermore, there is no assumption of predictability

Priceless! ! ! !
You have made my point marvelously.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

andbna Science itself (the application of the scientific method) has no premesis (not in this sense). It is a procedure. Granted, premises of every scientific law that I know of is that the universe is deterministic, however, that is not part of the scientific method, but rather a conclusion formed by it. It has simply been observed by inductive reasoning. Non-deterministic nature has not been observed. Given mountains of inductive evidence that the universe is deterministic, and none that it isn't, what does that tell you about the nature of the universe?

All you need to do, is falsify this position, and it only takes 1 non-deterministic event to do so. Thats it. Will science crumble? Hardly, curently accepted theories might (though in all likelyhood, they will remain as good approximations, just like Newtonian physics), but the method will be applied as strongly as ever. New laws will be develloped which better suit the nature of the known universe, and new technologies will be produced because of it. And the bible? It does shit even if it's right, since it cannot make any predictions based on it being right. Sure the church would probably gloat about it being right all along, but it was the scientific method which prooved it, and the scientific method which would do something usefull wit hthe knowlege.

So your claims that science does not allow god are false. You merely demonstrate how much evidence is in its disfavour of a non-deterministic god.

The most thoughtful of the responses. Thank you.
There has never been a disagreement that science is flexible. It presumes certain things until the scientific evidence shows otherwise, the it does not crumble but adapts.
There have been some beliefs which have wide acceptance, and were they were shown to be incorrect, the process of science changed considerably. We both know this is true.
When the time comes that god is discernable to science, they will rewrite the books, but science will not crumble.
That has always been a strength of science, the ability to adapt to new scientific truths


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Let us agree with andbna, and say science has no premises. That should settle our disagreements to this point.
My argument is reduced to this.

The process of science cannot scientifically prove that the earth did not stand still for a day.

The Biblical belief system says the earth did stand still for a day.

Those who claim this belief is incorrect has the burden of proof, and are obligated to use the Biblical belief system to be convincing.

One belief system says an event is virtually impossible, another belief system says it is truly possible.

The scientific-atheistic belief system is not the only system to provide convincing evidence, despite the myopic views of some.

 

[Myles]

Get a new argument. I already explained to why “"there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop” is not considered. Invisible bananas are a repeat.
How many times do I have to point out the obvious?
There are belief system other than your own.
Most of the world has a god belief, and their belief system has given them the ability to believe this, not based on imagination, but on convincing evidence they accept. You do not accept it, science does not accept it, but there it is.
I never said it was.

Science has no way, because the process of science has no belief in god. If one want to determine if there is a god, one has to use a different belief system. More than one belief system in the world. Get it.

They were touched spiritually. I have no doubt you do not understand what that means.

Other belief systems. Hello. . . . . .
Guess you’ve never been to church.
The individuals who have a god belief system do not do so based on science.
That has been my point repeatedly.

Surely you know some churches do this. What am I thinking, of course not.
I have not attended such churches, but others have.

You can’t test god with science. That does not mean you can not have convincing evidence for the existence of god. You just can’t do it with science.
There are other belief systems.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Try your post no. 6 ! " .....a philosophical truth would come before a scientiofic truth ...."Now answer my questions.

There are truths that and not scientific. There are truths taught at the beauty academy, for example. Every discipline has it’s truths, and not all of them are scientific. There is another world out there that some of you fail to recognize.It is a philosophical truth that there are more than one belief systems in the world.


It is a philosophical truth that the word premise has several meanings, and not all of them are formal clearly stated.
Surely some of you realize the vocabulary of various disciplines varies.
Why someone would think words have the same meaning in a philosophy section as they would in a science section is beyond me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Of course not.
It does show the existence of a different belief system from the scientific-atheistic belief system.
It does raise the possibility of a different than science is able to provide.


~ ~ ~ ~


By “show”, you of course mean demonstrate scientifically.
I can take you to any church and “show” you, but you will not accept what I present as evidence because it is not in agreement with your belief system. When you are the challenger, you have the burden of proof to show what I say is false, and you to convince me you will have to use my belief system.

You say ‘science is not a belief system”, and give no explanation.
No one else has disagreed with me. You state something contrary to every other post and feel no need to explain yourself.
In that case I feel no need to respond except to use your style and say “Yes it is.”

~ ~ ~ ~

Priceless! ! ! !
You have made my point marvelously.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


The most thoughtful of the responses. Thank you.
There has never been a disagreement that science is flexible. It presumes certain things until the scientific evidence shows otherwise, the it does not crumble but adapts.
There have been some beliefs which have wide acceptance, and were they were shown to be incorrect, the process of science changed considerably. We both know this is true.
When the time comes that god is discernable to science, they will rewrite the books, but science will not crumble.
That has always been a strength of science, the ability to adapt to new scientific truths


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Let us agree with andbna, and say science has no premises. That should settle our disagreements to this point.
My argument is reduced to this.

The process of science cannot scientifically prove that the earth did not stand still for a day.

The Biblical belief system says the earth did stand still for a day.

Those who claim this belief is incorrect has the burden of proof, and are obligated to use the Biblical belief system to be convincing.

One belief system says an event is virtually impossible, another belief system says it is truly possible.

The scientific-atheistic belief system is not the only system to provide convincing evidence, despite the myopic views of some.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't follow that different belief systems mean there are different truths. There are different ways of looking at things; a god-based interpretation of the world is totally without foundation.

You are wrong. The burden of proof is on those who claim the earth stood still because it is they who are making the claim, So let's have some evidence ! What do you think would happen if the earth stood still ?

The different belief system used to prove god's existence is what we call superstition

 

[SnakeLord]

Get a new argument. I already explained to why “"there are no invisible aliens on planet Warglebop” is not considered.

What you 'already explained' was wrong. The amount of believers something has is absolutely inconsequential and besides the point to it being a consideration of science. Whether it has 1 believer or 2 billion changes nothing. Once you understand that this can progress.

There are belief system other than your own.

Nobody ever said there wasn't. How did you arrive here from my statement that science can and does indeed test certain religious based things and my question asking you what exactly is empirical and testable with regards to gods, (a question that you ignored in preference of giving an irrelevant rant)?

Science has no way, because the process of science has no belief in god.

It is not about belief or lack thereof, (as people keep telling you). Get a clue and get back to me.

More than one belief system in the world. Get it.

Once more: Nobody ever said there wasn't, where is the relevance to anything?

They were touched spiritually. I have no doubt you do not understand what that means.

It's merely a replacement word for "emotionally".

The individuals who have a god belief system do not do so based on science.

Duh, you think?

I guess your statement is a refusal to involve yourself in an experiment?

Surely you know some churches do this. What am I thinking, of course not.

I'm well aware that some churches drink a form of highly diluted poison and handle snakes, and indeed of the bunch of people that have died from doing so. I suppose it's quite lucky that snakes are actually calm animals, (I have pet snakes, hence my nick), or the death toll would be considerably higher. I was merely providing the opportunity to do some testing, you've declined and that's fine.

You can’t test god with science.

That's right, but then you can't test god at all apparently. jesus, (who most christians claim is god), said:

"It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (matt 4)

Oh well.

Let us agree with andbna, and say science has no premises

Everyone has been trying to tell you that because you started a thread with the sentence:

"The first premise of that process referred to as Science, is that there is no god"

That you now disagree with yourself is at least one small step in the right direction.