The God of Science

[786]

Welcome everyone,

Clarification: This is a question regarding the philosophies that arise from the understanding of Science. The question and criticism is directed towards that "understanding of Science" and not Science itself.

As a student of science myself there is one thing which always seems to go unnoticed, nobody questions it, but seems to be that it is a basic assumption that supports the whole theory of Evolution and in general all of science. The interesting part is that this assumption is used from the beginning to the end but nobody seems to have spent the time to actually address the assumption. After some deliberation on the matter, I came to the conclusion that the assumption is UNTESTABLE. Since this assumption supports all of science and this assumption is untestable then that would yield the foundation of science "unscientific" (ironic..).

For those who do not know an assumption, apart from being what the obvious meaning is, is basically an untested hypothesis that is used to support a hypothesis which is being tested. But in order for there to be a full understanding of the matter then the assumption must also be tested to support the claim that the tested hypothesis makes.

Now, what does this have to do with God? In this thread (i.e Title) I am using the word "God" in reference to the fact (as most agree) that you can not prove God does exist or does not exist- In other words its untestable.

So on a conceptual basis:

God = untestable

Now the assumption that science makes is ALSO untestable so on a conceptual basis that is a "god of science".

NOTE:This thread is NOT meant to discuss the existence of God, please stick to the argument about the assumption science makes, otherwise I will report it to the moderator. I'm using the word "god" only with regards to it being untestable. This thread has nothing to do with God as understood in the religious context.

What is that assumption? (suspense... )
Random

So it is now your task to show that you can prove something occurred randomly.

There is a difference between Mathematical "random" and the "random" used as a language. The mathematical "random" doesn't show or prove the method through which an outcome occurred but only that the outcome is simply without a pattern that can be modeled using an equation or that it follows expected probability.

But the "random" of the language is the same as saying that it "just happened", some take it to mean it occurred "automatically". When reading and understanding scientific literature we make:

Mathematical random = random (just happened, automatic)

Even though this is NOT true. But the point is we as people who try to understand science take it to mean this.

Take for example (Q) response:

"nature only demonstrates itself as self-creating"

This conclusion and understanding can only be true if one were to accept that "random" is "just happened" or "automatic" and understand science in this manner. And almost everyone does this! This can most certainly be seen regarding people who use Evolution as a basis to refute the concept that God created these species. Even though Evolution's major processes are ALL RANDOM! Such as random mutations, genetic drift is random, natural selection acts on these random sources of variation. In order to derive the understanding expressed in the comments of (Q) and others you must understand all these "random"'s to mean "by chance" or "automatic".

So as people who try to understand scientific discoveries the word "random" actually means "just happened" and "automatic" and not the mathematical random which it is supposed to mean. But since this is the way we understand it, I pose a question to this understanding.

Important: The question is regarding this type of understanding of science, and not science itself. Such understanding of science can be found in many philosophies which base themselves off of science and thus it would also question them as well.

But first, here is my conclusion:

By saying that something is random, as in the outcome happened automatically or for lack of better words "chance" (just happened), you make an assumption that there is nothing that is controlling the outcome (not-random).

In other words by saying that something is random you are making an assumption that something doesn't exist that is controlling the outcome.

So the topic of discussion, and my question:

Can you justify and prove that there is nothing else that is controlling the outcome?
(Again I'm not talking about God, for all I care it could be pink bunnies, I'm asking the question in a general sense).

All I want is a justification for thinking this way, and regardless if you admit it or not all of us when looking at science and when it says "random" take it to mean automatic/chance, that is why people like (Q) and Richard Dawkins can say things like that.

My own thinking says you can't disprove something is random (automatic) but you can't prove something is random either. But since this is an assumption throughout science.... Science has a god!

That is, Science is based on a assumption which can't be tested, which itself is unscientific.

As a result Science (at least this understanding) is also a faith which also has a god even if the concept of god may differ from religions.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Welcome everyone,

As a student of science myself...

Your posts would belay that claim.

I am using the word "God" in reference to the fact (as most agree) that you can not prove God does exist or does not exist- In other words its untestable.

It is as testable as any claim made by theists of their gods and their so-called experiences with god.

please stick to the argument about the assumption science makes, otherwise I will report it to the moderator.

Hilarious.

I'm using the word "god" only with regards to it being untestable. This thread has nothing to do with God as understood in the religious context.

There is no other god assumed to exist, hence your point is moot.

Take for example (Q) response:


This conclusion and understanding can only be true if one were to accept that "random" is "just happened" or "automatic" and understand science in this manner. And almost everyone does this! This can most certainly be seen regarding people who use Evolution as a basis to refute the concept that God created these species.

Evolution does not refute the concept of god, where did you get that notion?

In order to derive the understanding expressed in the comments of (Q) and others you must understand all these "random"'s to mean "by chance" or "automatic".

Or, more precisely, it is you who needs to understand the concept of evolution.

All I want is a justification for thinking this way, and regardless if you admit it or not all of us when looking at science and when it says "random" take it to mean automatic/chance, that is why people like (Q) and Richard Dawkins can say things like that.

Sorry, but you'll not get the justification you need. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

My own thinking says...

AHA! You discovered your flaw.

That is, Science is based on a assumption which can't be tested, which itself is unscientific.

As a result Science (at least this understanding) is also a faith which also has a god even if the concept of god may differ from religions.

It looks like "this understanding" of science is a misunderstanding.

 

[786]

Your posts would belay that claim.

Irrelevant assumption

It is as testable as any claim made by theists of their gods and their so-called experiences with god.

I agree. But I was only questioning the testability of the claim made by those who base their understanding of the world on science. So its good to hear that your understanding is no better than a theist... a rare admittance

Hilarious.

I know... its just too tempting to turn to the question of God exist or not because atheists like to do that. So I needed to add that as a precaution. This time its about their own understanding, they would be more eager to flip the question once they realize they can't prove anything about their own understanding, as you rightly have admitted above.

There is no other god assumed to exist, hence your point is moot.

I never said or claimed there was an assumed god, I think the fact I said I'm using it as a conceptual basis totally skipped you- and you again prove to me that you can't follow a thread, or even a post.

Evolution does not refute the concept of god, where did you get that notion?

Neither did I make that claim. I said "people use" Evolution- now where did I make that claim which you are saying.

Or, more precisely, it is you who needs to understand the concept of evolution.

Or, more precisely you need to learn how to read.

Sorry, but you'll not get the justification you need. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Well you didn't understand any of the post as seen above. Secondly you can't provide a justification because there is none.

AHA! You discovered your flaw.

Aha! I discovered you can't understand anything

It looks like "this understanding" of science is a misunderstanding.

Yes and this "understanding" is what you understand, which is flawed as shown. You haven't shown anything, perhaps this was your futile attempt to try to make the thread into a joke, as your post is basically a joke that shows no understanding of what was written.

Peace be unto you

 

[kurros]

Well it seems to me that what you really want to be arguing about is quantum randomness. The randomness present in evolutionary processes stems from quantum mechanics anyway.

And in this case, you are somewhat right, it is a fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics that measurements collapse the wavefunction of a quantum object randomly into one of many possible classical states, and I think most people would agree with you that this isn't at all a satisfactory explanation for what is really going on.

I must say though that a lot of people philosophise about this process and there have been many papers written about the fundamentals of quantum theory, so I don't think you can claim that science doesn't address this issue. The analogy with God is a pretty bad one too because quantum mechanics makes a huge number of predictions about nature with agree very precisely with experiments, and while we may not be able to test whether anything deeper lies behind quantum randomness at the moment we can definitely say that the theory itself does a damn fine job. God on the other hand does nothing of the sort.

Besides, it's called an assumption precisely because it's not something you can directly test. All theories have to make assumptions, and the ultimate justification for those assumptions depends on whether or not the theory describes nature accurately.

I suppose you can say the assumption of God describes nature accurately, but only because he can do whatever he likes. Scientific theories on the other hand do not fit all possible observations so it has somewhat more meaning when one of these theories does actually match nature to a good accuracy. When this happens it means that one should give serious weight to the assumptions the theory makes.

In short, the evidence so far strongly supports the assumption that nature is fundamentally random.

(btw, if a system displaying random behavior is classical enough to seperate from quantum mechanics then it isn't 'really' random, it is just that we can't possibly take into account all the degrees of freedom that the system has, so we have to simplify our description to an idealised random model. This kind of approximation is often excellent, after all you try modelling the dynamics of the balls in a lotto draw and see if you can predict the numbers. They aren't actually random because in principle it is possible to predict, but it is just too hard a problem to deal with and it is too hard to gather all the information needed to make predictions even if you work out the model correctly. So really you should specify what kind of randomness in science it is that you are referring to.)

 

[786]

Well it seems to me that what you really want to be arguing about is quantum randomness. The randomness present in evolutionary processes stems from quantum mechanics anyway.

And in this case, you are somewhat right, it is a fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics that measurements collapse the wavefunction of a quantum object randomly into one of many possible classical states, and I think most people would agree with you that this isn't at all a satisfactory explanation for what is really going on.

I am not too familiar with Quantum mechanics, and for the most part its a pretty confusing subject to begin with

But I think my question is more fundamental than quantum. The fact that something may be controlling the outcome of randomness, I guess in the quantum world I would have to say that something may be controlling the quantum states, to say it is random means that the quantum state is automatically determined. In other words my question remains regardless of how "small" you go with regards to atoms or quantum or anything smaller. I am questioning the randomness of all of them.

I must say though that a lot of people philosophise about this process and there have been many papers written about the fundamentals of quantum theory, so I don't think you can claim that science doesn't address this issue. The analogy with God is a pretty bad one too because quantum mechanics makes a huge number of predictions about nature with agree very precisely with experiments, and while we may not be able to test whether anything deeper lies behind quantum randomness at the moment we can definitely say that the theory itself does a damn fine job. God on the other hand does nothing of the sort.

I am not arguing if the theory is correct or not. It may be that everything about the theory is correct. But the underlying assumption still can not be tested, that is, are the quantum states controlled or random, you simply can't test that, to which you agree.

Secondly, I already said I'm not trying to discuss God here, but only the assumption of randomness. My comparison is only conceptual and limited to the fact that God is untestable and randomness is untestable- so my comparison in this regards is relevant. I have not tried to explain anything in terms of God. One thing I guess I will say is that all the results observed by quantum experimentation still can be a result because everything is controlled- Say a pink bunny controlled everything about quantums- so everything would make sense and support the theory but that still doesn't mean the whole process was random to begin with. Example of the pink bunny may be laughable but its just to make a point [Also to make it clear that this discussion has nothing to do with God (as understood religiously)]

Besides, it's called an assumption precisely because it's not something you can directly test. All theories have to make assumptions, and the ultimate justification for those assumptions depends on whether or not the theory describes nature accurately.

I suppose you can say the assumption of God describes nature accurately, but only because he can do whatever he likes. Scientific theories on the other hand do not fit all possible observations so it has somewhat more meaning when one of these theories does actually match nature to a good accuracy. When this happens it means that one should give serious weight to the assumptions the theory makes.

Again, my argument has nothing to do with God. But like I said in response above, something can control the outcome so that everything makes sense, but that doesn't mean your assumption of "randomness" is correct or deserves any more weight than another possibility that gives you the same result. Many assumptions CAN be tested, which are tested later as technology allows. But the assumptions we are talking about in this thread, as you say, CANNOT be directly tested- which only supports my original argument.

In short, the evidence so far strongly supports the assumption that nature is fundamentally random.

No, you only showed that using the assumption that nature is fundamentally random, then many theories match up to the observations, but assuming that everything was controlled and only appeared to be random (as we have no way of knowing) would still match up with the experimental data. In essence both assumptions are untestable and have the potential to yield the same results. So one doesn't deserve more weight over the other as you asserted above. And again this doesn't prove anything contrary to my original argument.

In short, you proved nothing new and offered no real justification. But your attempt is good (at least better than (Q) ). Everything you said supports my claim. I'm not saying there is no randomness, I'm just saying you can't prove it and you agreed. And that is what I think it is, nobody can prove randomness, their best attempt would be like yours but then again that doesn't disprove my argument, and so it still stands.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

The false assumption is yours.

By saying that something is random, as in the outcome happened automatically or for lack of better words "chance" (just happened), you make an assumption that there is nothing that is controlling the outcome (not-random).
In other words by saying that something is random you are making an assumption that something doesn't exist that is controlling the outcome.

That's not what "random" means.
Any evidence to support your view?
Random means there's no discernible pattern or cause.
Quite different.

 

[786]

The false assumption is yours.


That's not what "random" means.
Any evidence to support your view?
Random means there's no discernible pattern or cause.
Quite different.

I think that is what I said was the mathematical random, which IS how it should be understood. But people when understanding science and making claims do NOT use this way when looking at "random", I gave an example of this in my original post. I was only questioning this "understanding" of science, which I think I stated clearly. Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

But people when understanding science and making claims do NOT use this way when looking at "random"

Wrong.
If someone is using it any other way then they're misunderstanding, not understanding, science.
In other words you're complaining about a general (claimed by you) misunderstanding.
Good luck with that.

And since it's NOT the scientific definition then your premise that it's "The God of Science" is equally flawed, since (at best) it would be The God of Science as Misunderstood by "Whoever".

 

[786]

Wrong.
If someone is using it any other way then they're misunderstanding, not understanding, science.
In other words you're complaining about a general (claimed by you) misunderstanding.
Good luck with that.

And since it's NOT the scientific definition then your premise that it's "The God of Science" is equally flawed, since (at best) it would be The God of Science as Misunderstood by "Whoever".

Science itself without understanding is meaningless in a forum of "philosophy" I would think. I didn't post it in the Science section did I?

As for the title.... its good publicity And secondly it is calling on to question the understanding "of Science" and that is to point out the the problem "of Science" as science is understood. Most folks here would have actually agreed with what (Q) said, hopefully now they will not understand it the same way.

And you can replace the "whoever" with "almost everyone"... Right now you are defining random for me, but when you take science as a whole and try to use it as an understanding of the world you automatically revert to the other meaning of random- this is what I was trying to point out.

I think science should be understood according to the data it provides us with, and nothing more, especially not changing the meaning of words. To which we both would agree

Peace be unto

 

[Michael]

There's an equal amount of good evidence for Gods as there is for Xenu(s) - I've included the (s) incase there's an evolution of thought away from the monoalienistic religion into polyalienism. But, there I go again, using words like evolution incorrectly as well as not defining "good evidence". Which is where this OP may have went wrong.

 

[kurros]

But I think my question is more fundamental than quantum. The fact that something may be controlling the outcome of randomness, I guess in the quantum world I would have to say that something may be controlling the quantum states, to say it is random means that the quantum state is automatically determined. In other words my question remains regardless of how "small" you go with regards to atoms or quantum or anything smaller. I am questioning the randomness of all of them.

Yes this is what I thought you probably meant, and what I was trying to convey is that if you want to be precise about your interrogation of the fundamental assumptions of science then what you are really questioning are the fundamental assumptions of quantum mechanics, because each of the 'higher level' sciences can all say that their own most basic assumptions are based ultimately on what we have learned from the physics. Physics on the other hand has to make those initial assumptions about nature, and these are always subject to review when new data becomes available.

So basically your question cannot be more fundamental than a question about quantum mechanics, if it is actually a question about science.

I am not arguing if the theory is correct or not. It may be that everything about the theory is correct. But the underlying assumption still can not be tested, that is, are the quantum states controlled or random, you simply can't test that, to which you agree.

If you make up a theory based on some assumptions and then test it and find that it matches with nature, then this certainly counts as evidence in favour of those assumptions. That doesn't mean nature can't be explained by something else, sure, but it does mean you have culled down the other possibilities a lot.

Secondly, I already said I'm not trying to discuss God here, but only the assumption of randomness. My comparison is on conceptual and limited to the fact that God is untestable and randomness is untestable- so my comparison in this regards is relevant. I have not tried to explain anything in terms of God. One thing I guess I will say is that all the results observed by quantum experimentation still can be a result because everything is controlled- Say a pink bunny controlled everything about quantums- so everything would make sense and support the theory but that still doesn't mean the whole process was random to begin with. Example of the pink bunny may be laughable but its just to make a point [Also to make it clear that this discussion has nothing to do with God (as understood religiously)]

Yes, of course this could be the case, but if the theory that the pink bunny did it doesn't offer a specific explanation of HOW the pink bunny did it then we might as well stick with the simplest assumptions. In other words, if you want to derive quantum mechanics and you want to say a pink bunny is responsible you better be able to figure out exactly how this assumption drives your theory into a unique form that predicts all the experiments accurately. Because that is what the assumption of randomness does; it allows the formulation of the theory precisely. If all you have is the possibility that there MIGHT be something deeper underlying current theory then all you are saying is what every scientist already knows, and it doesn't help anyone figure out what that something deeper is.
Oh, and just because we don't have any experiments to test this particular assumption right now doesn't mean that somebody in the future won't come along and show us an experiment in which the assumption of quantum randomness is violated.

Again, my argument has nothing to do with God. But like I said in response above, something can control the outcome so that everything makes sense, but that doesn't mean your assumption of "randomness" is correct or deserves any more weight than another possibility that gives you the same result. Many assumptions CAN be tested, which are tested later as technology allows. But the assumptions we are talking about in this thread, as you say, CANNOT be directly tested- which only supports my original argument.

Fortunately in science it is not the fundamental assumptions which really matter, it is the predictive power of the resulting theories. If you have two theories, precisely formulated (in the sense I described above) and they both predict the results of experiments as accurately as each other, then sure I would agree that there is nothing to distinguish one from the other. If instead you have a precisely formulated theory on one hand and the notion that something else is possible on the other hand, well then there isn't actually a second option.

In short, you proved nothing new and offered no real justification. But your attempt is good (at least better than (Q) ). Everything you said supports my claim. I'm not saying there is no randomness, I'm just saying you can't prove it and you agreed. And that is what I think it is, nobody can prove randomness, their best attempt would be like yours but then again that doesn't disprove my argument, and so it still stands.

I wouldn't really call what you have made an argument, you have just pointed out that we can never be sure that there aren't deeper explanations for whatever scientific theories may be popular at the moment, which every scientist already knows. Many are trying to uncover those deeper theories in the hopes they will win a Nobel prize and be famous.

However currently the inherent randomness of nature is a fundamental assumption of science, and since this assumption yields all kinds of nice results then this is what people are going to believe until some clever experimentalist comes along and shows them some evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and as for the mathematical definition of 'random', this is an idealised concept deeply related to the concept of probability, and people still argue about what it means. For instance some consider probability to be some kind of ratio of successes to failures in an infinite number of repeated identical trial events (which is not something that can exist in the real world), while others are more lenient and call it the 'degree of belief' one has in the outcome of a single trial, based on their experiences with past similar trials (which is a less formally precise definition). It is not such an easy thing to define. Perhaps you should be arguing with the mathematicians about this, after all the rest of science is just doing it's best to make use of the crazy things those guys come up with.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science itself without understanding is meaningless in a forum of "philosophy" I would think. I didn't post it in the Science section did I?

Yet it's a thread complaining about (what you claim is) a scientific assumption...

And you can replace the "whoever" with "almost everyone"

In which case (since that person doesn't actually understand science [or the terminology]) it's a question of education, or lack of.
And therefore being able to dismiss the "assumption" as uninformed.

but when you take science as a whole and try to use it as an understanding of the world you automatically revert to the other meaning of random

No you don't.
There is a scientific meaning of random and it has nothing at all to do with (perceived) claims of "something doesn't exist that is controlling the outcome."

I think science should be understood according to the data it provides us with, and nothing more, especially not changing the meaning of words. To which we both would agree

It's a question then of WHO has changed the meaning of the word: science or the public's misunderstanding?
The way "theory" is misused?
The way "quantum leap" is misused?

Language evolves: you can't stop it.
Science retains its definitions, whatever the public get up to is NOT the fault (or under the control of) science.

 

[786]

Yet it's a thread complaining about (what you claim is) a scientific assumption...

If those who understand the claim as scientific and then use that as an understanding, then for them it is a scientific assumption. You're taking things out of context, we're in a philosophy forum and not a science one. I'm not blaming science, as the title would have you believe, but the understanding of science. The title and the content of my post are towards the audience who "have it wrong" in mind.

In which case (since that person doesn't actually understand science [or the terminology]) it's a question of education, or lack of.
And therefore being able to dismiss the "assumption" as uninformed.

True, that is why I created this thread to inform them of their misunderstanding of science

No you don't.
There is a scientific meaning of random and it has nothing at all to do with (perceived) claims of "something doesn't exist that is controlling the outcome."

There is a difference between what people shouldn't do and what people do do, this was an attempt to show that. I do agree with you though

It's a question then of WHO has changed the meaning of the word: science or the public's misunderstanding?
The way "theory" is misused?
The way "quantum leap" is misused?

Language evolves: you can't stop it.
Science retains its definitions, whatever the public get up to is NOT the fault (or under the control of) science.

Why are we arguing when we agree? Please understand this is a response not to scientists (who have the definitions right) in the context of science. But about people who have an understanding which they attribute to science as if their understanding is in the context of science.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

If those who understand the claim as scientific and then use that as an understanding, then for them it is a scientific assumption. You're taking things out of context, we're in a philosophy forum and not a science one. I'm not blaming science, as the title would have you believe, but the understanding of science. The title and the content of my post are towards the audience who "have it wrong" in mind.

Then your whole argument is based on someone's MISUNDERSTANDING of something.
In other words hardly to be credited as any sort of valid argument.

True, that is why I created this thread to inform them of their misunderstanding of science

In which case the following:

Science has a god!
That is, Science is based on a assumption which can't be tested, which itself is unscientific.
As a result Science (at least this understanding) is also a faith which also has a god even if the concept of god may differ from religions.

shouldn't have been written.
What you're complaining about is the misunderstanding of science (most likely by people who have no interest or need of of it in the first place).

Why are we arguing when we agree? Please understand this is a response not to scientists (who have the definitions right) in the context of science. But about people who have an understanding which they attribute to science as if their understanding is in the context of science.

See comments above then: science doesn't have a god, simply the "layman" has a flawed understanding of science.

 

[786]

So basically your question cannot be more fundamental than a question about quantum mechanics, if it is actually a question about science.

Well the question is actually about the understanding of science in terms of "random". You could say I am questioning the randomness of quantum mechanics (if understood in the way I said people usually understand it), but this is not testable. So its kind of like I'm repeating myself. The fact doesn't change that its untestable.

If you make up a theory based on some assumptions and then test it and find that it matches with nature, then this certainly counts as evidence in favour of those assumptions. That doesn't mean nature can't be explained by something else, sure, but it does mean you have culled down the other possibilities a lot.

True. If you take the same theory and use the assumption that something controlled it then it would also satisfy the results, in which case you also have "evidence" for this assumption. I'm just saying both assumptions are equivalent in terms of "evidence". And both assumptions are untestable as well.

Yes, of course this could be the case, but if the theory that the pink bunny did it doesn't offer a specific explanation of HOW the pink bunny did it then we might as well stick with the simplest assumptions. In other words, if you want to derive quantum mechanics and you want to say a pink bunny is responsible you better be able to figure out exactly how this assumption drives your theory into a unique form that predicts all the experiments accurately. Because that is what the assumption of randomness does; it allows the formulation of the theory precisely. If all you have is the possibility that there MIGHT be something deeper underlying current theory then all you are saying is what every scientist already knows, and it doesn't help anyone figure out what that something deeper is.

Actually randomness doesn't explain "how" either if you really think about it, as it simply says "this happens" without explaining "how this happened"- Again you would keep on going to deeper levels to understand this "how", which is no different then saying a pink bunny did it, to find which you will need to go deeper as well. Also I agree that every scientist knows this, but this was not meant to be a thread for scientists but for those who misunderstand what science actually says and how they change it to make it an understanding of the world which actually isn't there in science.

The rest of your post is purely science which I agree to in general but the question is related to the understanding of that science, and not science itself. So the philosophies that arise from science is the issue here.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Then your whole argument is based on someone's MISUNDERSTANDING of something.
In other words hardly to be credited as any sort of valid argument.

Hmmm... Philosophy is someone's understanding of some aspect and to question their understanding by using their understanding is a valid argument in philosophy. As this is not an argument against science but their misunderstanding of science.

In which case the following:

shouldn't have been written.
What you're complaining about is the misunderstanding of science (most likely by people who have no interest or need of of it in the first place).

See comments above then: science doesn't have a god, simply the "layman" has a flawed understanding of science.

Actually under this context it makes sense. If you have this misunderstanding of science then there is a god in science, that was the whole point.. This should make them realize that their understanding is wrong because science does not have a god. When I say "science" it means the science of their understanding, perhaps you're furious responses are due to the fact I'm using the word "science". So please understand the word "science" in this "context", not the actual "science".

Oh, by the way I've added a "clarification" to the OP so that people realize this is only about the misunderstanding of science which is basically found in almost all philosophies that claim to base their understanding on science.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

There's an equal amount of good evidence for Gods as there is for Xenu(s)

Thanks for agreeing that your understanding is on par with theists. I must say I have now 2 rare admittances on the matter

As for the Evolution part, it seems you didn't understand what I wrote just like (Q), quote me my mistake and we'll see.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually under this context it makes sense. If you have this misunderstanding of science then there is a god in science, that was the whole point.

Again, no.
An argument based on what you KNOW is an incomplete understanding is flawed from the start.
Any statement made that you know to be based on someone's incomplete understanding can be dismissed immediately.
There is NO god in science, simply an incomplete or very poor understanding of concepts.

This should make them realize that their understanding is wrong because science does not have a god.

Most people don't think about god OR science that much.

When I say "science" it means the science of their understanding, perhaps you're furious responses are due to the fact I'm using the word "science". So please understand the word "science" in this "context", not the actual "science".

So you're redefining "science" to actually mean "the layman's badly-remembered or half-understood concept of science that hasn't been thought through"?
And exactly how many people USE the word "random" for anything other than a short-hand form of expression anyway?

Your ENTIRE argument is flawed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Alternative: your argument is flawed (re: testability etc) since the "faith" placed in the misunderstanding is about as deep and well-considered as that placed in the bus/ train time-table.
It seems to work but if it doesn't so what, there'll be another along soon.

It's not "faith", it's not "science". It's a laissez-faire "don't really know, don't particularly care" attitude of no more more consequence (or maybe less) than who should be playing in the team now the "star player" has pulled a hamstring.

 

[786]

Again, no.
An argument based on what you KNOW is an incomplete understanding is flawed from the start.
Any statement made that you know to be based on someone's incomplete understanding can be dismissed immediately.
There is NO god in science, simply an incomplete or very poor understanding of concepts.

Such an argument can only be dismissed if the argument was against science, which mine is not. Also "science" is a source of many philosophies and is not the "science" which you are talking about. The argument is against their science, as they still claim it to be science- if they call it that (because they understand it that way) then the argument has to be against "their science", I can't change the word "science" to something else because it is the person making the claim who uses that word.

Most people don't think about god OR science that much.

Most people in the forum called "Religion" do

So you're redefining "science" to actually mean "the layman's badly-remembered or half-understood concept of science that hasn't been thought through"?

If the user insists that they are supported by science then yes. And again I have clarified it in my OP that my argument is NOT against science but against their understanding of science which they themselves call "science", so its not me who is re-defining the term.

And exactly how many people USE the word "random" for anything other than a short-hand form of expression anyway?

This is irrelevant

Your ENTIRE argument is flawed.

Only if my argument was against science, which you are talking about, and not "science" which is understood by philosophies that are derived from it.

Peace be unto you