20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyThe truth is the truth. You refuse to see reality. You are stuck in your little bubble and unable to see any other perspective.
I understand you have scored an own goal plain for every reader to see; making out someone else other than you cannot read while showing you don't yourself.
You are a true believer. From what I can see the only person who communicates with me who is not an outright true believer is wildgrass. With wildgrass there are glimpses of someone who can see beyond his own point of view.
20 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarThat is a science discipline. You should know about the limits of math. Godel showed that:
It has to do with what science can yell us and what it cannot.
It has to do with truth and the limits at which we can know things.
Given assumptions we can then say something had to happen. Yet faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.
This is why it is important to question and not simply believe what you are told.
"In Gödel's realm, no matter what the system of axioms or rules is, there will always be some assertion that can be neither proved nor invalidated within the system. Indeed, mathematics is full of conjectures–assertions awaiting proof–with no assurance that definitive answers even exist."
That bit from this:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/limits-mathematics
Isn't that what you are after?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseA more practical idea of what limits science, at least directly testable events which can be repeated.
That is a science discipline. You should know about the limits of math. Godel showed that:
"In Gödel's realm, no matter what the system of axioms or rules is, there will always be some assertion that can be neither proved nor invalidated within the system. Indeed, mathematics is full of conjectures–assertions awaiting proof–with no assurance that defini ...[text shortened]... his:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/limits-mathematics
Isn't that what you are after?
This is the kind of science which should be taught. This is what people classify as true.
Untested by direct experimentation needs a different classificatiin which everyone knows cannot be assumed to be true. It can be believed to be true, but such belief is equivalent to a religious belief.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarShow me a case like that. What do you consider only assumptions?
A more practical idea of what limits science, at least directly testable events which can be repeated.
This is the kind of science which should be taught. This is what people classify as true.
Untested by direct experimentation needs a different classificatiin which everyone knows cannot be assumed to be true. It can be believed to be true, but such belief is equivalent to a religious belief.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladar1. No, there is no compulsion to assume this.
That in order to arrive at fact, we must assume that God does not exist.
If it can be explained by natural laws, then we know that a miracle did not take place.
We must assume that everything is a result of the natural universe.
Although this is true for anything we can do, therefore is useful for us, this does not prove God does not exist.
2. ... unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.
3. No, there is no compulsion to assume this.
4. Agreed, pragmatism does not prove that God does not exist. Do you think anyone believes that it does?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThat's a possibility, not an assumption. Another possibility is that Genesis is a work of fiction.
That the universe was not created by God as described in Genesis.
Neither rules out the possibility that God created the universe.
20 Oct 17
11 edits
Originally posted by @eladarThis isn't an assumption any scientist makes to interpret evidence nor needs to.
That the universe was not created by God as described in Genesis.
Science make's no such assumption.
Many scientists that accept scientific facts (such as big bang) as fact are Christian.
Science is NOT about and NEVER is about assuming your personal religious beliefs being false but rather is only about going wherever the evidence points. If there was evidence of a god then theism would become just part and parcel of science.
We have evidence (proof, in fact) for big bang and evolution; no assumptions there of 'no god/gods' and no such assumptions required.
You can without contradiction believe big bang and evolution happened and that there is a god, no problem.
But as soon as you insist we should believe something the evidence contradicts, you've got a problem. Don't know why you insist on making your personal religious beliefs contradict the evidence; very unreasonable and unwise of you. The reasonable thing to do is change your beliefs (whether it stays theistic or not) to fit the evidence, no dismiss the evidence and/or scientific proof as 'assumption', which it clearly isn't.
Why make life so hard and unreasonable for yourself?
Why don't you change your theistic beliefs to fit the evidence and stay theistic?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusI know that everyone who has communicated with me in this forum assumes that the creation account is false.
Sonhouse: "what do you consider only (merely) assumptions."
Eladar: "that the universe was not created by God as described in Genesis."
Who do you think assumes that the universe was not created by God as described in the Book of Genesis?
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYou impute to me assumptions which I do not make or hold.
You assume that what we know proves it wrong.
I compare the evidence which tends to support the claims in Genesis with the evidence which tends to disconfirm Genesis, with evidence which tends to support other scenarios, with evidence which tends to disconfirm other scenarios, in light of what is known about how nature works, and prefer the scenario for which the preponderance of evidence is consistently in favor.
That is nothing like assuming something to be false.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusAs wildgrass points out science itself does not prove the Creation account false.
You impute to me assumptions which I do not make or hold.
I compare the evidence which tends to support the claims in Genesis with the evidence which tends to disconfirm Genesis, with evidence which tends to support other scenarios, with evidence which tends to disconfirm other scenarios, in light of what is known about how nature works, and prefer the s ...[text shortened]... i] of evidence is consistently in favor.
That is nothing like assuming something to be false.
You are free to believe that the Creation account is false. Yet when you use schools to brainwash kids into believing as you do, you use the power of government to create uniform beliefs in the realm of religion.
20 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarAh, the truth comes out at last. This isn't about assumptions at all. It isn't about turning water to wine or evolution or the age of the universe or how it got started. It's about politics! It's about public school curricula and trying to preach religion as if it were science in the public schools.
As wildgrass points out science itself does not prove the Creation account false.
You are free to believe that the Creation account is false. Yet when you use schools to brainwash kids into believing as you do, you use the power of government to create uniform beliefs in the realm of religion.
Religion should be taught as religion and science should be taught as science.