Why religion is dumb - reason 4 (science)

Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

This would an opportune moment for a Christian Scientist to speak up.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This would an opportune moment for a Christian Scientist to speak up.

"Christian Scientist" - does that mean something more than just a scientist who is also a practising Christian?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Christian Scientist" - does that mean something more than just a scientist who is also a practising Christian?

It's a church, or sect--the Christian Scientists.

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Can you "empirically" test and observe all sciene? What about geology and evolution? What about your principles, can you test the validity of your method?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's a church, or sect--the Christian Scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science

Originally posted by lucifershammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science

Thanks. What do you think?

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Is emperical or the physical all there is to this, are the molecules, the atoms, all there is to it.??, and if man can only build measuring instruments out of the atoms, and take emperical measurements, there is no way they can ever measure the spiritual, which does not consist of atoms, so that's why you don't have no readings for the spiritual, you fool's.

anyways, on a lighter note let's look at the big-bang and einstein's e=mc^2 for a while, and try and see what we can get out of it.

Since we already know that energy can never be destroyed, nor created, but can only be converted into another form, and that
one can calculate the total energy to be released by a certain amount of mass if one desired to convert that mass to energy, using e=mc^2 :where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light.

Now what if one wanted to convert the total mass that exists throughout this universe, any other universes, all galaxies etc, into energy, by taking their total combined mass, one could get the total combined energy that they have in them.
Then using e=mc^2, one would endup with a lot of energy, which was packed into a minute space, and then exploded as per "big-bang" theory.

The bible tells us that in the beginning God created the everything, how did he create everything??, The bible says that he "spoke" the word, and such as was spoken, it became. So the words of the father were pregnant with energy equivalent to all the above packed into e=mc^2.

Now the bible also tells us that man is created in His image, and when we do not tire from speaking a sentence, so we can assume the same for the father.
Now if any being can release all the energy to form the worlds in a single sentence, then my friend, God must be quite powerfull.
by the way the energy needed to create the angels, and fallen spirits (ie Lucifer), etc are excluded from this here.

And regardless how you look at it, these worlds have a beginning, that is non-physical, and that beginning is told in one book and one book only. For me that's enough I kinda "blindly" believe what it says anyway, for I am a spirit, I live in a body, and I have a soul, so are you my dearest friend.

Now about saying that science is all there is and science is hence god, is rather remarkably shallow. It's like the days before magnetism, where because nobody crossed the sea's and oceans, they thought that europe is all there is, and europe is god. So after magnetism they bump into the America's and call them the new-world.

In other words just because you can't feel/measure it/test it/ it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Or rather from a Mil Intelligence point of view, if you are a spy, and nobody knows, you are a spy, (no equipment to test with) it does not mean that you do not exist, or are not a spy.

Also Psychologically, just because nobody has been able to measure a feeling, or a thought, it does not mean those things are not real, every human being knows that they are real, and science has no emperical proof of it.

Anyways enjoy your day.

Originally posted by zombies
Is emperical or the physical all there is to this, are the molecules, the atoms, all there is to it.??, and if man can only build measuring instruments out of the atoms, and take emperical measurements, there is no way they can ever measure the spiritual, which does not consist of atoms, so that's why you don't have no readings for the spiritual, you fool ...[text shortened]... knows that they are real, and science has no emperical proof of it.

Anyways enjoy your day.

Bravo 🙂

Originally posted by kingdanwa
What about your principles, can you test the validity of your method?

Are you asking about the scientific method itself?

One can observe that it incorporates induction, which is not a strictly valid method of reasoning, so it incorrect to state that the scientific method itself, or particular applications of it that use induction, are valid.

But very few methods of reasoning are valid, and they are also in the large uninteresting and useless except to mathematicians and logicians. The reason is that valid arguments are simply those whose conclusion must follow from their premises, also known as deductions. Valid arguments are called non-ampliative; their conclusions contain no information that is not already present in the premises.

The goals of science could not be hoped to be achieved via valid methods. If science limited itself to valid methods, then after years of observations, we wouldn't have any information beyond what could be strictly deduced from those observations. We could not posit, for example, the existence of gravity; we could say only that several apples have been observed to fall on people's heads. Deduction does not allow for even the generalization "All apples on earth fall," much less "Earth's gravitational field causes all apples to fall."

To the extent that people wish to better be able to describe and make reliable predictions about a universe that they don't fully understand, the scientific method, although not valid, has proven itself to be the best known method in terms of achieving those goals. It has also proven itself to be invalid numerous times, but the beauty of the method is that it is designed to be used to correct its own mistakes when it is observed to yield incorrect conclusions.

This is a decent reference, with the sections "Starting Over," "The Scientific Method and Truth," and "The Case Against" being relevant to your question:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A918461

P.S. "Science is all there is and ever will be" is not a view that can be held by anybody who understands the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool that man has found convenient, like a really good hammer, and a tool that man would dispose of it were useless. Man need not be a slave to science. However man has found science to be at least an objective, if not valid, arbiter to yield to when disputes about the way the universe is arise. Any application of the method to problems outside of the realms of the empirical and the rational is a misuse; man should give the method no jurisdiction in such areas.

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Einstein's theories of Relativity were constructed without observable science. It was purely thought experiments. Yes, his thoughts were influenced implicitly by what he saw around him, but the theories did not appear to explain current observation. In fact, very few believed in the theories for years because there was no evidence for their implications, and it wasn't until science itself caught up with the theories that it was possible to start to test them.

The point is, relativity theory initiallly appeared to have no grounding in emperical science (and it didn't), but that didn't mean it was incorrect. Therefore, the lack of observable emperical evidence of religion does not necessarily imply that religion is dumb (or incorrect).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you asking about the scientific method itself?

One can observe that it incorporates induction, which is not a strictly valid method of reasoning, so it incorrect to state that the scientific method itself, or particular applications of it that use induction, are valid.

But very few methods of reasoning are valid, and they are also in the ...[text shortened]... mpirical and the rational is a misuse; man should give the method no jurisdiction in such areas.

Great post.

Originally posted by bbarr
Great post.

Thank you kindly. You should have seen the first version. I still have two grammatical edits to make before perfection is achieved, but my time has expired. Oh, what an allegory for life these forums can be.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you asking about the scientific method itself?

One can observe that it incorporates induction, which is not a strictly valid method of reasoning, so it incorrect to state that the scientific method itself, or particular applications of it that use induction, are valid.

But very few methods of reasoning are valid, and they are also in the ...[text shortened]... mpirical and the rational is a misuse; man should give the method no jurisdiction in such areas.

Wow, great insight. Since you have already put a dent in the truth-producing ability of the scientific method, I might also add a few stipulations to your comment about "arguments...whose conclusion must follow from the premises, also known as deductions." Deduction carries with it the assumption that the premises are true. This must be the case in order to have necessarily true conclusions. One can attempt to deduce the premises still more general premises, ad infinitum. In general we find that the premises of our deductions are products of induction, which you have stated to be convenient, but not valid. My final point is that truth cannot be the product of induction, deduction, or any combination of both.

Originally posted by Halitose
Nobody has been able to prove the existance of the supernatural through observable empirical science. Science is all there is and ever wil be. Science is god.

So, there!

😛

Can you prove the existence of your personality, an emotion, or anything that is not currently being presented to your senses with strictly "observable empirical science"? If you cannot observe them throught science, does that mean they cannot or do not exist?