The God of Science
- Thread starter 786
- Start date
Actually Prayer has been studied...so I was wrong in that, but I have yet to find the conclusion of "random" that you touted was made. Can you refer me to a primary literature that made that conclusion? If anything the conclusion is probably 'placebo'- the fundamental of randomness can not be tested by such an experiment to begin with. You need to learn experimental design first.
Peace be unto you
What is needed to be learned has nothing to do with me. But, in the meantime, while you get a clue, let's have a look at something else.
Peace be unto you
That is merely a statement of rote learning, of cult indoctrination. It is the same type of statement one makes right before they stab you in the back. Islam is a militaristic cult and has not shown to be peaceful by any stretch of the imagination. It is an insult to the intelligence and a demonstrates little more than the Islamic propaganda agenda so many of you Muslims bring here. It is a false front put on to create the illusion of sincerity where no sincerity exists.
If I get you correctly, you're saying God's existence is an assumption and therefore untestable?
No... what you said has no logical relevance because it doesn't even follow through. Something being an assumption doesn't automatically (i.e therefore) make it untestable.
What I said was that God is a untestable assumption just as the idea of randomness. Randomness is an explanation utilized in Science and that in essence is the "God of Science".
Both God and Randomness are untestable untested assumptions as such both require faith to believe in, religions admit that they have "faith" while those believing in randomness do not. I think there was a discussion long time ago where people were accusing religions of faith, not realizing their own understanding is equivalently faith based
Peace be unto you
If science could find a God then he/she "it" would become the "God of science". Since scientist furthering the scientific effort has found no evidence of a God your OP subject line is inaccurate. Science does not recoginze any deities dwelling in reality, therefore science has no God.
Last edited:
I never said science has a "god" as in a deity but rather that it has a concept that is just as unprovable as God. Science is based on an untestable assumption- which yields itself unscientific by the very method it employs.
Peace be unto you
I never said science has a "god" as in a deity but rather that it has a concept that is just as unprovable as God. Science is based on an untestable assumption- which yields itself unscientific by the very method it employs.
Peace be unto you
I think you were trying to say Science is a God in itself, correct?
Science doesn't make any such claims, you know. Are you making the claim for science?
The first flaw in your argument is assuming gods existence as valid because that is what you've been indoctrinated to believe without question.
Your second flaw is misuse and misunderstanding of the method. Science is about understanding how nature works. And, where theists have injected their myths and superstitions into nature, we can most certainly attempt to test them, as they seem as real to theists as anything else.
Science is also not about proving things, but more about demonstrating how things work, repeatedly. Theists can't demonstrate anything about their beliefs, their words are meaningless and empty using any method, repeatedly.
You're engineering a long, windy, empty, meaningless train of thought.
I certainly did not make the claim that mutations are random, science did. And no science itself is not God, I was simply using the concept of God to show that the untestable assumption of randomness is found in science.
Not one of you have proven randomness- you are all just ganging up on me and making me repeat the same thing.
If science is based explaining nature, where is the proof for its assertion of randomness.
Peace be unto you
Your first flaw is assuming they don't. I'm only asking for a proof of randomness.
That is true, but in doing so science has wrongfully chose to assert that randomness as an explanation.
Yes and science has not "demonstrated" randomness, that is only an assumption that can't be tested.
The train of thought is meaningless because you're not even willing to accept that the assertion of randomness is unscientific.
Peace be unto you
Yes that is true, but randomness is unobserved, it is only an asserted assumption. This assertion is unscientific. Science should have not chosen to assert something which it can not observe or prove, that should've been left open. But by making an assumption such as this they have purposefully led people to develop philosophies which are not based on what actually can be scientifically proven.
All atheists are naturalists at worst, and the only explanation to understand science in conjunction with naturalists is to accept randomness as an explanation, which is a unscientific claim to begin with.
Peace be unto you
Thank You! I already explained my meaning in the OP. I contend that most people understand random is equivalent to chance, when you take it to mean this then there is an underlying assumption.
By saying something is due to chance you are asserting that it "just happened that way", then you are automatically assuming (even if you don't admit it) that there is nothing there that does actually directed (caused) it to happen. The difference is something happening intentionally vs un-intentionally, controlled vs uncontrolled, purpose vs no purpose.
Choosing either side in this argument is unscientific. I would like randomness to be understood in the mathematical sense but that is simply not how people understand it. You can ask a high school student and see what they say. Sure, they may not have thought about it too much but it just means that scientists are leading people astray by not saying it clear enough to the people that "random means this"!
Richard Dawkins, well known, talks about "chance" in evolution? What chance? Random is chance and by saying chance you assume that it wasn't done on purpose by some pink bunny (for example), either way its unscientific.
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
No, the only observational data you have is the fact that you flipped a coin and that you had a certain result. You do not have the proof that nothing controlled it that way, maybe there was an invisible bunny who specifically made it to be heads and the next time tail. You have no observational data that it was random. To "appear" random doesn't mean it is random.
This is the old question about does a random number generator really give random numbers; mathematicians have argued this and in general they can't prove it to be "yes". Surely a number generated may appear random but there is absolutely no observation data to support the conjecture that we follow and say is "random".
Peace be unto you
Not true. Randomness represents uncertainty. When one flips a coin in the air the resulting heads or tails is uncertain beforehand and not certain. The tossing of dice is another example of randomness where the result is uncertain. The outcome beforehand is uncertain and not predictable. To get a better handle on randomness think uncertainty.
Last edited:
That's another flaw already explained to you. Science isn't about proving. There are many demonstrations of randomness in nature.
Why would science assert that? It is simply a method and does not assert anything.
Nature demonstrates randomness, science is a method.
A mixed up train of thought on your part does not conclude with acceptance.