Why can't religon and science be friends?

[Dywyddyr]

because at a certain point,it wasn't accepted by the community, including the scientific one.

Whether or not it was "acceptable" doesn't alter whether or not it occurred. How about the ancient Greeks? What is "natural" and what is "accepted" are not always the same.

give me something that is not natural.

Er, it was 786 that started this "naturalistic" business. How about god, ghosts, telepathy?

his rules are. and that's what science studies.

But his rules are only what he's decided apply for the time being. Science tries to find ALL the rules, and why they are the way they are: if god exists then the rule will be "it's that way because god wanted it to be" - i.e. not amenable to science.

then you don't know what you're talking about.

Keep trying: YOU claimed they were falsifiable, and have yet to show you're right.

you're THAT clueless, not to see the sarcasm?

Oh dear. Did it not occur to you that I was fully aware you were attempting sarcasm and that my reply simply reflected that?

 

[scifes]

Whether or not it was "acceptable" doesn't alter whether or not it occurred. How about the ancient Greeks? What is "natural" and what is "accepted" are not always the same.

ok, we'll try it your way.

Er, it was 786 that started this "naturalistic" business.

well i didn't read the whole thread to see where naturalistic fits, but i saw the other stuff and chimed in..

How about god, ghosts, telepathy?

well you see, those are just not "accepted"..not "accepted" and not "natural" are not always the same:roflmao:

But his rules are only what he's decided apply for the time being. Science tries to find ALL the rules, and why they are the way they are: if god exists then the rule will be "it's that way because god wanted it to be" - i.e. not amenable to science.

once again, you're pretty weak on this point, god might choose his rules to always apply:shrug:
and even if he does change his momentary will, doesn't (or can't) science change accordingly? we might have been truly living in a flat earth once, then god willed it to be round...

Keep trying: YOU claimed they were falsifiable, and have yet to show you're right.

ok, i don't know enough about other religions' assertions about god, but mine are falsifiable, check the last bit in my last reply in the formal debate, a daring challenge, a falsifiable one, is there. there are other ways to falsify other assertions, as i said, you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh dear. Did it not occur to you that I was fully aware you were attempting sarcasm and that my reply simply reflected that?

oh dear. did it not occur to you that i was fully aware that you were attempting to deviate from my sarcastic sting by taking it literally and i was yet sarcastic of you by replying to it literally too?

 

[Spectrum]

Science has split the atom, which God does to create stars. It is the laws of physics that make stars global.

 

[Dywyddyr]

ok, we'll try it your way.

It's not "my way". You claimed that homosexuality didn't start as "natural"...

well i didn't read the whole thread to see where naturalistic fits, but i saw the other stuff and chimed in..

Well done. (That was sarcasm).

well you see, those are just not "accepted"..not "accepted" and not "natural" are not always the same:roflmao:

And you're mistaking "lack of scientific evidence" for "not acceptable".

once again, you're pretty weak on this point, god might choose his rules to always apply:shrug:
and even if he does change his momentary will, doesn't (or can't) science change accordingly? we might have been truly living in a flat earth once, then god willed it to be round...

Weak on this point? If it's all up to god (and we can't find god) then we cannot ever get at the underlying reasons.
Your comment on the Earth is an example: if the Earth was flat at some point (and recognised as such by science) and then became round what can science say about the universe? That it's subject to change any time, at a whim and that nothing is as it seems. Which makes the entire effort somewhat futile since science wouldn't know how long things are going to be the way they are. There would be nothing at all that is reliable information.

ok, i don't know enough about other religions' assertions about god, but mine are falsifiable, check the last bit in my last reply in the formal debate, a daring challenge, a falsifiable one, is there. there are other ways to falsify other assertions, as i said, you don't know what you're talking about.

And you can't be bothered to link or repost those claims? Lame. And what do your personal claims have to do with it? Are you making claims about god that aren't in line with your religion?

oh dear. did it not occur to you that i was fully aware that you were attempting to deviate from my sarcastic sting by taking it literally and i was yet sarcastic of you by replying to it literally too?

In other words you extended the joke past breaking point.

 

[scifes]

It's not "my way". You claimed that homosexuality didn't start as "natural"...

and that's my way, things become natural when we discover them as such, that way natural things which we don't know are natural are not natural.
your way is that natural things are alway natural, that way what we think may be natural now may turn out not to be so in the future, and anything that is unnatural now may become so in the future.
ironically, rendering present knowledge useless.

Well done. (That was sarcasm).

thank you.

And you're mistaking "lack of scientific evidence" for "not acceptable".

hah, they're essentially the same, homosexuality or flat earths were natural due to the lack of evidence...
... and hence,were unaccepted, my mistake indeed.

Weak on this point? If it's all up to god (and we can't find god) then we cannot ever get at the underlying reasons.

even if it's not up to god we will never ever get the underlying reasons. we will keep learning, no?

Your comment on the Earth is an example: if the Earth was flat at some point (and recognised as such by science) and then became round what can science say about the universe? That it's subject to change any time, at a whim and that nothing is as it seems. Which makes the entire effort somewhat futile since science wouldn't know how long things are going to be the way they are. There would be nothing at all that is reliable information.

as i said, it's the same when god is not present.
current science is always different from future science, so? we may discover the earth is not round(we already did that,as it's not perfectly so), so?
asi said,putting god into the equation changes nothing.

And you can't be bothered to link or repost those claims? Lame. And what do your personal claims have to do with it? Are you making claims about god that aren't in line with your religion?

i can't be bothered.
why is that lame?
and where are my "personal" claims?

In other words you extended the joke past breaking point.

nope, in other words you thought you knew what i was thinking when i knew you thought you knew what i was thinking.

if you say you knew this all along, that'll be beyond breaking point.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and that's my way, things become natural when we discover them as such, that way natural things which we don't know are natural are not natural.
your way is that natural things are alway natural, that way what we think may be natural now may turn out not to be so in the future, and anything that is unnatural now may become so in the future.
ironically, rendering present knowledge useless.

So effectively your definition of "natural" isn't "something that occurs in nature"?

hah, they're essentially the same, homosexuality or flat earths were natural due to the lack of evidence...
... and hence,were unaccepted, my mistake indeed.

See my comment above.

even if it's not up to god we will never ever get the underlying reasons. we will keep learning, no?

Wrong again. What science knew earlier is a foundation for what we know now. If things change at god's whim then none of it was worth learning.

as i said, it's the same when god is not present.
current science is always different from future science, so? we may discover the earth is not round(we already did that,as it's not perfectly so), so?
asi said,putting god into the equation changes nothing.

Also wrong: what was known in the past is a foundation for what is known now, and built upon.

i can't be bothered.
why is that lame?

Because you refer to it and fail to illustrate it.

and where are my "personal" claims?

Um,

but mine are falsifiable

 

[Smellsniffsniff]

I believe a gay is made of mostly what they metabolised, and that was not an asteroid, nor did they eat stupidous amount of sand, they are infact made of nature. They are mostly made of bacteria, just like everyone else. We call them cells. If it would've been unnatural however, like god is, it would be a child with unearthly birthright, and there is no reason to pick on that either.

 

[jayleew]

Creation and evolution are "friends?" That's a joke. I mean its a plausible theory for creationists, but it is just too convenient that there is nothing written in any bible about how the creator did its work in creating the world. That's a big hole that can be filled with any story, and no one can prove it isn't true.

The very idea exists because creationist cowards are too insecure in their faith that they actually need to find out the how of creation. Who cares, if you have faith, it shouldn't be worth the time wondering how your god built the Earth. The more important thing is that it did. No, that kind of faith doesn't exist that I've found yet, and that is why I cannot believe in a god, because right now, and as far as I know, man is doing all the work for the gods.

 

[Doreen]

so effectively your definition of "natural" isn't "something that occurs in nature"?

I could be wrong but I took it to mean that once the mechanims are understood it will turn out to have been natural all along.

Wrong again. What science knew earlier is a foundation for what we know now. If things change at god's whim then none of it was worth learning.

I don't think this argument holds. Let's use a virtual reality as an analogy for the universe - a possibility quite a few scientists consider seriously and potentially literal, by the way. In such a scenarion the virtual reality has rules that are programmed in and the learning of these can help them to navigate and thrive in the reality they find themselves in. However, on occasion, the makers of the virtual reality can interfere. Their interference will be seen as breaking laws, potentially, by the inhabitants of this virtual reality, when in fact the breaks are natural in the larger universe that contains the virtual one. Still, knowing this or not, the inhabitants will continue to find the assembling of knowledge about the everyday rules of their universe valuable.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I could be wrong but I took it to mean that once the mechanims are understood it will turn out to have been natural all along.

Which is more or less how I took it: until Scifes claimed that homosexuality wasn't natural and became so...

I don't think this argument holds. Let's use a virtual reality as an analogy for the universe - a possibility quite a few scientists consider seriously and potentially literal, by the way. In such a scenarion the virtual reality has rules that are programmed in and the learning of these can help them to navigate and thrive in the reality they find themselves in. However, on occasion, the makers of the virtual reality can interfere. Their interference will be seen as breaking laws, potentially, by the inhabitants of this virtual reality, when in fact the breaks are natural in the larger universe that contains the virtual one. Still, knowing this or not, the inhabitants will continue to find the assembling of knowledge about the everyday rules of their universe valuable.

I think you're missing my point: yes we can learn about the virtual universe, but what we learn won't be the genuine rules of reality - and they would be subject to change if the programmers so decided. Which we would never know since they could possibly also alter our perceptions of what we know...

 

[scifes]

I think you're missing my point: yes we can learn about the virtual universe, but what we learn won't be the genuine rules of reality - and they would be subject to change if the programmers so decided. Which we would never know since they could possibly also alter our perceptions of what we know...

but if said change occurred in our learning about a real universe, we would simply say that we have missed the genuine reality which is fixed, and my point is, we don't know that it's fixed, -it's the free will fiasco all over again:runaway:-, if we believe the programmers exist, we say there are two possibilities, either we failed at unveiling their put rule(like god created the earth round and we didn't know it), or that the programmers changed their will(god created the world flat then changed it to round), those however don't believe the programmers exist, will simply eliminate the second possibility and sick to the first, that we misunderstood or failed to reach the real laws(earth was always round and we didn't know it)..

in both cases, learning makes sense, and science makes sense..

and before you say what's the point to learning rules which are(may) change on a whim of the programmers, not only will i ask what alternative do you have, but also how do you know that the rules in a programmer-less world don't change?(the earth was flat and rounded itself up naturally)

again, the two cases are IDENTICAL!:blbl:

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not quite: IF we don't know about the programmers/ god then what we know we can take as real, if we know (or even believe) that they do exist then we also know/ believe that whatever we know is subject to change according to rules that we can never find out.

 

[scifes]

Not quite: IF we don't know about the programmers/ god then what we know we can take as real,

not correct: one, what we know might not be the genuine real, as we might learn afterwards.
two, you're assuming that the true real may not change by itself.

if we know (or even believe) that they do exist then we also know/ believe that whatever we know is subject to change according to rules that we can never find out.

also a-not correct: one, we may actually reach their rules. i.e we may find them out.
two, them being subject to said change doesn't necessarily mean that it DOES change.
b-not practical, even if the rules do change, that doesn't make learning them useless.

so natural laws may change by themselves as the programmers\god would change them.
and we may not know if we've really discovered the programmers' real rules or not as much as our indecisiveness about our discovery of the genuine natural laws.

 

[Dywyddyr]

not correct: one, what we know might not be the genuine real, as we might learn afterwards.

Which is what I said.

two, you're assuming that the true real may not change by itself.

Wrong again: if what we know is real then we'd know the mechanism by which it would (or can) change by itself. Stop introducing strawmen.

also a-not correct: one, we may actually reach their rules. i.e we may find them out.

Really?
Since god is said to be beyond human understanding (and the programmers, by definition, are outside of our universe) then how could we?

two, them being subject to said change doesn't necessarily mean that it DOES change.

Which I have also said. But it doesn't alter the fact that we can't get at the underlying reality.

b-not practical, even if the rules do change, that doesn't make learning them useless.

Not the point: granted what we learn is useful, but it's not the answer.

so natural laws may change by themselves as the programmers\god would change them.
and we may not know if we've really discovered the programmers' real rules or not as much as our indecisiveness about our discovery of the genuine natural laws.

Already covered.

 

[scifes]

ok, let's stick the metal rods in before the flying electrons start going out of control.

state precisely and explicitly, why the existence of a god introduces a new hindrance to the process of science in any way.one or many which do not exist if god doesn't.

 

[Dywyddyr]

state precisely and explicitly, why the existence of a god introduces a new hindrance to the process of science in any way.one or many which do not exist if god doesn't.

So you haven't actually bothered reading any of my posts?
I have ALREADY stated precisely and explicitly why god is incompatible with science.

 

[scifes]

So you haven't actually bothered reading any of my posts?
I have ALREADY stated precisely and explicitly why god is incompatible with science.

can you pleeeeeease state it again? in a short yet concise form? double pleaaase?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Here's one example : (post #124).

If it's all up to god then we cannot ever get at the underlying reasons.

 

[scifes]

even if it's not up to god we can't get at the underlying reasons.

give me an argument that is inapplicable to science without god.

 

[Dywyddyr]

even if it's not up to god we can't get at the underlying reasons.

Why?

give me an argument that is inapplicable to science without god.

Pardon?
All of science operates on the basis that god doesn't have anything to do with it.