@vivify said
Same with engineering and space exploration. One is not possible without the other. Doesn't make engineering a science.

Math is intrinsic to science like engineering is but still isn't a science.

I doubt you listened to the talk, but felt the need to spout off as if you did. Why bother entering in a thread, engaging in a discussion about a link if you have no intention to watch it?

@divegeester said
Nice succinct video which I fully agree with.

And it seems to be good for theists to compartmentalise the overlap of causality and effect, but of no use whatsoever to atheists, or for convincing atheists scientists that, essentially, “God did it”.

On the gravity point which you highlighted @KellyJay; do you accept the Newton’s scientific explanation of where gravity comes from?

👍🥳

@kellyjay said
I doubt you listened to the talk, but felt the need to spout off as if you did. Why bother entering in a thread, engaging in a discussion about a link if you have no intention to watch it?

As usual, you're wrong. I did watch the video.

He makes several logical errors, the most glaring of which is asserting a god exists and doing so without evidence. His argument is no different from discussing whether Santa Claus is compatible with science.

@vivify said
Same with engineering and space exploration. One is not possible without the other. Doesn't make engineering a science.

Math is intrinsic to science like engineering is but still isn't a science.

See, you don't understand. Think of the God particle and the two facilities working on it. Without the engineering of the construction of the colliders, scientific theories could not be validated. The same is true for proving Einstein's famous mathematical equation: E=mc2. The engineering is crucial for making items that demonstrate just how much energy can be released from tiny atoms.

In other words, all the ingredients needed to make an Italian minestrone are essential, including math and engineering. Fermi and Majorana were among the ingredients which made Einstein's equation come to life. Regretfully using the term, life, since death and destruction was the ultimate proof.

@vivify said
As usual, you're wrong. I did watch the video.

He makes several logical errors, the most glaring of which is asserting a god exists and doing so without. His argument is no different from discussing whether Santa Claus is compatible with science.

You really need to brush up on realistic analogy and simile.

@pettytalk said
You really need to brush up on realistic analogy and simile.

You're right because at least there's evidence Santa was based on a real person.

A more realistic analogy for "God" would be Bugs Bunny.

@pettytalk said
Then why did you ask me in the first place?

I came to my conclusion based on your response to me asking .

@vivify said
As usual, you're wrong. I did watch the video.

He makes several logical errors, the most glaring of which is asserting a god exists and doing so without evidence. His argument is no different from discussing whether Santa Claus is compatible with science.

You saying God does not or does exist is not a logical error it is a statement of belief. I doubt your honesty now because the discussion was about the nature of explanation.

@pettytalk said
You really need to brush up on realistic analogy and simile.

I think he has an issue with truth.

@vivify said
You're right because at least there's evidence Santa was based on a real person.

A more realistic analogy for "God" would be Bugs Bunny.

That's better!

@kellyjay said
I think he has an issue with truth.

We all do. Only God knows the truth. And to tell you the truth, none of us has the foggiest idea.

@kellyjay said
You saying God does not or does exist is not a logical error it is a statement of belief. I doubt your honesty now because the discussion was about the nature of explanation.

What you said makes no sense.

The speaker in your video could just as easily make a video about why science is compatible with the Hindu god Brahma and there would be no difference from asserting the god of the Bible.

@vivify said
What you said makes no sense.

The speaker in your video could just as easily make a video about why science is compatible with the Hindu god Brahma and there would be no difference from asserting the god of the Bible.

I don’t believe you when you say you watched it, the thrust of the discussion was explanation, and you, Mr. Abiogenesis is not evolution, screws up the point of the discussion. Your honesty as far as I am concerned now has as many issues as your ability to reason.

@kellyjay said
the thrust of the discussion

*Crux

The crux of the video was about how science explains god or how science allegedly makes the idea of god more realistic.

That's fallacious given he doesn't explain how he just asserts it does.

@kellyjay said
👍🥳

Shall I assume then that you do accept the scientific explanation of how gravity works and why?

🙂