Really?
No evidence?
Apart from the fact that it works (as claimed).
Don't give me this bs... The fact it works for known things does not automatically require it to work for unknown things...
Peace be unto you
Don't give me this bs... The fact it works for known things does not automatically require it to work for unknown things...
Peace be unto you
There is also no evidence that anything is not "naturalistic".786 said:
And there is a long track record of error among those who have assumed, in the past, that something was not "naturalistic" - error only corrected by others.
Given the lack of evidence, and the inability to self-correct error, should we assume the supernatural?
Well I've always assumed that the discovery of unknown things was everything science was about... are scientists really getting paid to rediscover what is already known? What a waste of money!!
dywy said:
The principles don't belong to science - they were there before science - so I'm presuming you mean "principles of nature/the universe" here?
Religion and science can't be friends because scientists are atheists and humanists (don't forget sceptically aligned), while those who follow religion (and theism) are completely opposite. I blame it on the balance, and then, of course, one could argue that when the angels fell, science came upon earth (the natural sciences as distinguished from the occult sciences) given rise to the detesting of the supernatural and that which be of God and the things above (magical and theurgic studies as well as any structured religion with a Supreme Being as its focus). So what's result is a schism, and, of course, with the Enlightenment, humans were even more humanized and moved to Deism, which would eventually become atheism, and they stopped believing in the idea of any being having power above them; they don't won't any being to have power over them. Finally, I would like to say that so many people thinks religion (or at least the Bible) contradicts science, when it's the other way around.
I see you're someone else that doesn't read properly:
It depends on what 786 meant by unknown...
E.g. if it's a non-naturalistic unknown then it's nothing to do with with science. If it IS naturalistic but unknown then we'll get it.
No, I mean science: science works to a set of principles: the scientific method.
Again, re-read what I actually wrote:
E.g. if there's an unknown scientific principle then it's a fair bet science will find it, if that's not what 786 meant then...
What balance?
What "angels"?
Missed the point completely, haven't you?Which still doesn't make the bible any more valid.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I agree. I've been fortunate enough to see a healthy balance between the two and how both apply in not only my life, but in the lives of others.
Many of the highly religious people are afraid of change. With ever-increasing knowledge, science is continously disproving many claims made in many of the scriptures. However, people don't realize that they can use this new information in support of a new interpretation of these scriptures. People try to adapt themselves to their religion instead of their religion to themselves.
i find that necessary for them to be enemies.
for something to become naturalistic, it must be "not naturalistic" at some point.
look at homosexuality.
and so we discover god's "whims", like his whims about electrons and white blood cells.
wrong, on all accounts, don't know where to start [lol wonder if shouldAnd I repeat: science is about observation, collecting data and working out how things happened. Creation is saying goddidit, end of story. With god there's nothing that can be worked out.
]-goddidit for some things, limited things not all, many we don't know how they are to say that god did them so.
-for those we know how god did them, we can still know how, if we know how, we can know in more detail, if we knew all that, we can know why, this is just silly i don't believe you're sticking to it.
one can think without having logic or understanding, one can think and choose not to show any logic and understanding.
[ok now i'm being an ass:roflmao:]
falsy falsy!! it's provable and falsifiable, it's complementing you intelligence by hushing down your arrogance.
speaking of comforting stories, who says we're bubbles in the universe, do whatever you want, you'll be free of the consequences, for when you "plop" it's all over?
what a run away from responsibility and a direct blatant break of the simple cause and effect rule.
Here we go again
I've made this statement before, and I'll make it again. This is under religion, not atheists discuss the genius behind Creation account, but say bad things about it because we don't won't to believe in a Supreme Being who would make us guilty of the Lake of Fire thread- knowing that Darwinism and evolution period has a lot of flaws!
...
What balance?
What "angels"?
Which still doesn't make the bible any more valid.
I've made this statement before, and I'll make it again. This is under religion, not atheists discuss the genius behind Creation account, but say bad things about it because we don't won't to believe in a Supreme Being who would make us guilty of the Lake of Fire thread- knowing that Darwinism and evolution period has a lot of flaws!
...
Really?
Nothing at all ever starts as naturalistic? Ever?
Your "point" being?
Wrong again: if goddidit then the "rules" as we see them aren't the actual rules, just temporary conditions subject to change as when he feels like it.and so we discover god's "whims", like his whims about electrons and white blood cells.
wrong, on all accounts, don't know where to start [lol wonder if should
-goddidit for some things, limited things not all, many we don't know how they are to say that god did them so.
-for those we know how god did them, we can still know how, if we know how, we can know in more detail, if we knew all that, we can know why, this is just silly i don't believe you're sticking to it.
It's neither.
Er yes. Would you care to explain what you're ranting about?
You can say it as often as you like, but, preferably, next time you say it please do so coherently.
It doesn't matter what sub-forum it's in: if it invokes science then you'll get a science input on the subject.
didn't say that, but let me make your face:
"Nothing at all ever became naturalistic, after not being so at one point? Ever?"
it was an exAMplE, you know, the stuff they give after an analogy to make it stick..
at one point people homosexuality was not naturalistic, now it is, dots too far away to connect?
uhh, so? how does that make what i said wrong?
it's both.
what 'abrogates your intelligence for comforting stories' is evolution, not creationism, evolution makes you feel in control, the tip of the pyramid, it lets you go rampage and tells you you're not facing no consequences. get it?
How would you know it is naturalistic before knowing about it? Sure what you observe is natural but science aspires to find the mechanism with which it works- observation of something doesn't necessitate that the mechanism that is behind it is naturalistic- but you work under the assumption that it is and thus you find the mechanism... But you do work under the assumption that it is naturalistic- because if not, then you don't waste time on it-
There you go again- you have to assume that it is a scientific principle before ever conducting any science.
Peace be unto you
Wrong:
Which states directly that for something to be naturalistic it must not have been initially.
Too far away? Wrong again: you have assumed that homosexuality wasn't natural...
It's quite simple: science finds the underlying rules of things - if goddidit then what we see as the rules aren't actually the rules. How hard can it be?
Wrong. How is god falsifiable?
Wrong again, but at least you're consistent.
How does evolution make me feel "in control"? I'm subject to the whim of nature.
Oops wrong: we find out if it's naturalistic.
Also wrong - if there's something to be investigated then it is investigated... If it is naturalistic then that property will be revealed during the investigation.
You 'find out' without ever assuming that it first of all fits the field of science? Science being defined as the study of natural phenomenon- so you 'find out' with science without ever assuming that it first of all that it can even fit science as a topic to begin with? You assume everything is naturalistic before you 'find out'- I don't need to continue with this crap and screwing around with words which is what you are doing.
Also wrong - if there's something to be investigated then it is investigated... If it is naturalistic then that property will be revealed during the investigation.
Keep rolling your eyes.
Peace be unto you
Not necessarily, there is proof for things mentioned in religion..... God is the most important part- but religion says more than just one word.
Peace be unto you
i would go out on a limb and say a true scientist does not believe in god they may believe in a higher power but they dont believe god said POOF and everything was. then acording to anita created 3.14 so his creations could one day figure out that he indeed did create everything
about one of your comments before tho.. you said you were a born again christian... my question if god will let you be born again why not wait till you have had all the fun then some years before you die when your body cant handle the crazy stuff you use to be be born again?