Who designed the designer?

Science and religion are miles apart.

Religion claims prophesy, via God, which is always open to wide non specific interpretation and I imagine could never be seen as wrong by a theist ....
whereas science makes testable predictions and failure of any prediction causes the scientific model (scientific theory) to be rejected and it will then be acknowledged by the entire scientific community to be a failure.
Imagine that...just one mistake causes the model to be rejected..only one mistake and the thing is thrown out...mmm maybe not entirely in the case of Newtonian Gravity but that turns on the thing still works well for almost all applications ...religion is nothing like that......it is a crazy thing to even suggest and totally indicative that anyone saying such has no idea about either religion or science.

Religion is a pretend game where any discovery of a mistake or demonstration that what was written was wrong sees no change in dogma.

Consider the slavery issue...rather than some simply saying "sure slavery is wrong and it is wrong that its approval is in the bible" we get " oh it wasnt really slavery it was like indentured service".... but no acceptance that its a mistake to include that crap in the good book.

That attitude of trying to explain slavery as actually being ok is just wrong..wrong wrong and yet I have never heard one christian say so...not one...and such is the blind subserviance christians pay to made up stories from the bronze age.


There is in effect one body of science (which we call mainstream) whereas you can find religion in any flavour you fancy.

Given the lack of support to all God claims it is not unexpected there are multiple approaches...

That does not happen in science.

Those interested in science can enjoy speculation without deciding their speculation is reality whereas the God stories are unfounded speculations that once in the system become theists facts.

I can not see how theists dont understand their beliefs can never be science.

Their wishful thinking blinds their critical thinking.

Religion for many groups is an excuse to play dress up and practise meaningless rituals...how sickening the idea behind the bread (waffer) and the wine thing...

Science is not religion but more importanly religion is not science in any way shape or form and it is just silly to say such a thing.

Alex
 
Seattle said:
No one knows anything about the Universe before the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
From the atheist perspective, that is a fact.

"Science" isn't anything that comes before that at this point. People have ideas or guesses but that isn't "science" at this point.
Click to expand...
Then you are on a slippery slope since the notion of even posing a question, post BB, in many cases, is simply working with a theory that lacks demonstration. It is an interpretation of data that in no way bears anything reproducible in a contemporary context. IOW even if you hold science guesswork into the realms of our far flung history (but within the purview of the BB) accountable to the authority of nothing other than a present and future scientific analysis of data, you will be left with something malleable (unless you feel comfortable vouching for what ideas about the Big Bang will still be valid in two or five hundred years time).
IOW the further science goes in to offering an opinion on something that is not demonstratable, the greater the chance of it being nothing more than mark making in the sand.

One only has to look at our science deals with things that are demonstratable to see the problems that arise. For instance, for a long time gravity was thought to be a pulling force, which worked fine enough for many demonstratable needs, however further analysis showed a demonstratable error within such thinking. So now gravity is not thought of as a pulling force. Of course in all instances, there is the demonstratable phenomena of a falling apple, but as for the "How is it so?", that is a question that was and is an issue subject to refinement, even to the point of abolishment. Sure, gravity is an aspect of reality, but its explanation will remain a theory.

Pick something that "science" does apply to such as evolution and then attack that with religion and you'll get my point (which I'm sure you already do get).
Click to expand...
So even to grant you the generousity of saying that ideas of evolution approach some sort of "law-like" status, in what ways does the ideas inherent to evolution challenge or discredit the ideas inherent to religion (or vice-versa)?
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
And yes my atheism borders on fanatical.
Click to expand...

I would have thought you cannot be fanatical about not believing UNLESS god turned up, gave you a ride in his chariot, and you said "Nope I don't believe you exist"

:)

Xelasnave.1947 said:
Religion is a pretend game where any discovery of a mistake or demonstration that what was written was wrong sees no change in dogma.
Click to expand...

Don't you know we live on a world where the sun goes around the Earth?

Are you getting a good look at Mars?

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Are you getting a good look at Mars?
Click to expand...

No... nor did I have a go at the Lunar eclipse cause I have been very busy.

I am not into planets either observation or photography and although Mars is real close☺ it is covered in a dust storm. I did a lot with it about 12 years ago.

And I have just purchased a narrow band imaging unit (cooled camera and motorised filter wheel which will take 7 groups of photos in various bands whereas up to now its been one shot colour) and setting it up is taking a great deal of time...the whole deal will now be computer controlled, the mount locating and tracking an object, camera and cooling unit, guide camera, electric focuser, ...just like the big boys play with☺....and pulling it all together (heaps of cables and power leads and learning a variety of new programs) has me inside not outside.

The only time I am not working on it or something related I come here for a little entertainment. I dont get out you know.☺
Alex
 
Dywyddyr said:
Still wrong. Theists assume (without evidence) that there's an entity that knows. But other than their imaginary friend...
Click to expand...
If you are trying to vouch for something other than the atheist perspective, you are not succeeding.
 
Musika said:
IOW the further science goes in to offering an opinion on something that is not demonstratable, the greater the chance of it being nothing more than mark making in the sand.
Click to expand...
No.
Science provides models which make testable predictions not marks in the sand.
Science does not offer opinion you simply are very wrong here.
Musika said:
Sure, gravity is an aspect of reality, but its explanation will remain a theory.
Click to expand...
You clearly have absolutely no idea what the expression "theory" means in science.
Please for your sake study what theory means in science... put it this way you will read what you have written and feel slightly embarrassed...

Your observation on science moving to a better model of gravity is valid...but the Newtonian model works very well and is used to send all our space craft on very complex missions.

Religion would do well to demand such correctness.

I would have though you would be familar with Karl Popper and his philosophy of science.
I would say without his thoughts under your belt you will have little idea on what science does and does not do.
Alex
 
Musika said:
If you are trying to vouch for something other than the atheist perspective, you are not succeeding.
Click to expand...
I'm simply pointing out that the claim that there is "someone who knows anything about the Universe before the Big Bang" is a belief (an unsubstantiated one at that), not a fact.
 
Dywyddyr said:
I'm simply pointing out that the claim that there is "someone who knows anything about the Universe before the Big Bang" is a belief (an unsubstantiated one at that), not a fact.
Click to expand...
And the fact that this is the atheist perspective to a T is just a ... coincidence?
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
No.
Science provides models which make testable predictions not marks in the sand.
Science does not offer opinion you simply are very wrong here.
Click to expand...
So what do you propose to model something like the BB on without bringing a truckload of opinions?
(Especially since the BB can only best be described, by current standards, as a dominant popular opinion).
Or what happened to the idea that gravity is a pulling force?
Unless you have some means to a vantage point outside the universe, how are you going to observe the universe outside of self referential models that are liable to change to the point of oblivion (ie, making marks in the sand)?


You clearly have absolutely no idea what the expression "theory" means in science.
Please for your sake study what theory means in science... put it this way you will read what you have written and feel slightly embarrassed...
Click to expand...
I already understand what is meant by "scientific theory". If you feel I made some mistake, you will have to be more specific.

Your observation on science moving to a better model of gravity is valid...but the Newtonian model works very well and is used to send all our space craft on very complex missions.
Click to expand...
Why the "but"?
I already said as much about newtonian ideas in my post.

Religion would do well to demand such correctness.
Click to expand...
Religion does not work by empirical standards so it wouldn't make sense to make such demands.
In fact there are a whole range of epistemological problems that don't work by empirical standards. Unfortunately this lack doesn't stop people attempting to bring empiricism to such problems.

I would have though you would be familar with Karl Popper and his philosophy of science.
I would say without his thoughts under your belt you will have little idea on what science does and does not do.
Alex
Click to expand...
I am already somewhat familiar with Popper. I'm not sure how you could utilize any of his ideas to act as a leverage point for science discrediting God. You could say that God is not falsifiable, but that would be just as meaningful as saying the universe is not falsifiable (IOW noone in their right mind would demand as much in the first place).
 
Last edited:
Dywyddyr said:
Sure it is: given that you have no evidence whatsoever to support any other view.
Click to expand...
So what would such evidence look like, IYHO?
(Extra brownie points if you can answer without reinforcing the atheist perspective .... if it is indeed your intention not to reinforce the atheist perspective)
Btw there is a whole thread on this subject .
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
The equivalence is not coming from me. You have people saying that mysteries of the universe are filled with the stop gap medium of God. I am pointing that, regardless of their ideas about God, they are doing the exact same thing in the name of science. I say "in the name of" because there is a legitimate field for science, but one will certainly struggle if they bring such an epistemologically poor tool to the grander problems of cosmology.

Take this thread OP as an example : there is the suggestion that the idea of God is problematic since it lacks a cause and stands outside of empirical investigation. Yet in the same measure, peope have no problem with an eternal universe, even though the exact same problems of definition and veracity are present.

So on one hand, you have the presence of a problem that highlights the apparent shortcoming of an approach ("How can God exist if He has no cause?"), yet the same problem, far from being merely glossed over or swept under the carpet, assumes airs of self importance and authority when (inappropriately) coupled with science ("An eternal uncaused universe is fully compatible with a scientific model" ... nevermind that the scientific model has neither any means to verify or need for an eternal, uncaused universe).

Therein lies the synonymity.
Click to expand...
That our own universe is eternal is one of many possible explanations regarding its existence, and scientists will speculate and theorize as to which of those many descriptions is rationally most fitting. Unlike religion, there’s no hard commitment to unfounded propositions, and commitment in science is always open to revision, in fact the encouragement of propositional revision is one of its cornerstones.

When speculating about the nature reality outside of our universe, the possibilities could be endless, but the further you get from our own foundational understandings, the less reliable the proposition would tend to be. Proposing the existence of an eternal version of the reality we rationally interpret, has more value than a version of it we don't. So for a god to get equal billing in regards to eternal existence, a god would first have to be shown to have an existence.
Musika said:
Because our senses are limited. The best hope empiricism can deliver on is but a miniscule, self referential slice of the full gamut of the macro and microcosm.
Click to expand...
We gain the elements of knowledge empirically, process them via empirically based mental strategies, and then attempt to empirically test them in life to assess their respective value. There would be no practical human knowledge without empiricism.
Musika said:
As mentioned already, not a fact. There are many ways to disect or interpret epistemological fields, but as an offering :
Click to expand...
And they all rely on some empirical means for application and validation.
Musika said:
Generally you will find that epistemological applications function according to particular circumstances or problems. IOW successful application is more about bringing the correct epistemology to the correct problem, rather than enthusiastic fist pumping that one particular approach kicks ass for all problems.
Click to expand...
If imagination has no demonstrable relation to our material existence, it has little value. Empiricism is the means to establish that relation.
Musika said:
I mean technically the ins and outs of the universe and more are accepted as being directly perceived by God, yet I'm pretty sure you would not accept that as grounds for establishing religion as empirical.
Click to expand...
I would say the goal of most, if not all religions would be to have their beliefs validated empirically, but unfortunately reality refuses to oblige them. When a god or the religious demonstrate examples of empirical validation, I will label such behavior accordingly.
Musika said:
I think Buddha said it nicely when he said he had come to only teach two things : suffering and relief from suffering. If someone is not interested to learn about part 2 it means they are still trying to make the grade on part 1.
Click to expand...
Most organisms are either natively equipped, or empirically conditioned to recognize these conditions. Acquaint a cockroach or a person's hand with a hot frying pan and note the result.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Sure it is: given that you have no evidence whatsoever to support any other view.
Click to expand...
Funny, how such an intelligent man deals with such unintelligent thoughts.

:EDIT:

You know, just go away.

:EDIT AGAIN:

Oh wait, you had nothing substantial to say in the first place. Scurry off to another forum.
 
Last edited:
Maybe he's not so unintelligent...

I mean, he has me on ignore, hence, I'm just another retard
 
Last edited:
Capracus said:
I would say the goal of most, if not all religions would be to have their beliefs validated empirically, but unfortunately reality refuses to oblige them.
Click to expand...
Taoist beliefs are often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place. So are various foundational beliefs of even the most baroque and extravagantly mythical of theistic religions (the Parables and Fables of the Middle Eastern theistic ones, the foundational narratives of Hinduism, etc).
Musika said:
And the fact that this is the atheist perspective to a T is just a ... coincidence?
Click to expand...
The correlations between facts and the "atheist perspective" are not generally coincidences.

The ways in which human design proves inadequate, the world forever and flagrantly fails to behave as human design would have it, could also be taken as evidence of the ultimate inadequacy of design and designer as explanatory concepts. That would be an obvious alternative to taking them as evidence of a perfect and humanly incomprehensible designer imposing a perfect and humanly incomprehensible design.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top