With regard to creationists versus science, I've heard Aron Ra used this term a number of times regarding creationist projection of their own malfeasance onto scientists:
quote"It's yet another case of the pot calling the silverware 'black'."
These things have been explained to him repeatedly for many months, yet he just keeps on posting the same stupid BS nonsense. He is being most stubbornly willfully stupid about everything, reverting to stupid taunts repeatedly ... He is far less than a bottom-feeding troll.
Those accusations are grossly unfair and lack empathy, compassion and understanding.
I'm just a stumbling, bumbling idiot trying to survive and make sense of a baffling world.
My latest struggle is trying to get my tiny little fragile egg-shell mind around the claim that science can't prove anything.
Evidently, it does. When you had your confirmation on the road to becoming a "good" Catholic, did you compile evidence before allowing yourself to believe? Some folks would do exactly that. For them, evidence is not only the most rational standard protocol, it is the only protocol that they follow. Is this a bad thing?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
I made no comment either way, but since you raise the issue, if we were to enumerate the good things that could happen to us versus the bad, which would be the longer list? We can actually do that. In no particular order I've listed the bad things in column 1 and the good things in column 2:
Love Sex Fresh sheets A crackling fire Beautiful view Good accomplishments Music Snuggling Refreshing sleep Sports Dancing Friends Good food Loving pets Smell of fresh cut grass Sunrises and sunsets Peaceful rainfalls Rainbows Humor Comeraderie Good deeds Nostalgia Ocean waves on the shore Night sky Full moon Flowers Children Leaf piles Holidays Parties Smell of freshly baked bread
What do you think? If you think of things to add to the good side just let me know.
Which part of "I know that God does not exist" is about science?
Since science is tentative, any definitive statements about the existence/nonexistence of anything are unscientific.
Really? So science can't prove that Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball further than me?
On something like this science could only express a confidence level. It would likely say that given that both you and Tiger are healthy that our confidence that Tiger Woods would hit a golf ball further than you is very, very high, 99.9% with some more nine's after that, but the confidence level would never reach 100%. But what if the question were, "You and Tiger Woods will hit one golf ball off the men's tee at the first hole at Pebble Beach. Who will hit the ball further?" Everyone would answer Tiger Woods, right? But what if the date were February 24, 2021, the day after Tiger's car accident. The correct answer would be you.
You can refine the question, but the confidence level can still only approach 100%, never reach it.
Science can't prove that water boils at about 100^C under standard pressure at sea level?
No. It can only provide a confidence level, which would be very high.
Science can't prove that DNA produces mutations?
That's an odd way of saying it, but yes, DNA experiences mutations, usually during cell division. A great deal of evidence supports this, but our confidence only approaches and never reaches 100%.
I think you meant to say, "A scientific theory is never about proof."
Again, an odd way of saying it, but better might be to say that nothing in science is about proof.
How do you determine what is "not imaginary or supernatural"?
I determine reality by what is detectable using the scientific method, leading to conclusions supported by observations and evidence. I'm not aware of any other reliable methods.
How do you determine reality?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
I was thinking the smell of fresh baked bread before I got to it on your list! I remember smelling it when my mom set them to cool on an open window sill when I was a kid. Us kids fought for the heels and resented it when she gave loaves away. The crust was a bit crunchy...damn! She got the recipe from my dad's mother and her mother brought it from Sweden.
Stubbed toes should go on the bad list!
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
In order to know (prove) that God does not exist because his attributes of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent are "mutually incompatible", first you have to prove that God does indeed possess those attributes.
So you're trying to show my argument is stupid by using a counter-argument that's... well, profoundly stupid? If I could prove that God had those attributes, he would have to exist, right? Otherwise God would not be there to possess those attributes. But the point is that 1) those attributes are mutually incompatible, so no entity can exist that posssesses them, and 2) God is defined to have those attributes by believers. Definitions do not necessarily comply with reality. Those believers don't realise their definition is logically impossible.
If the above is too complicated for you, think how you would go about disproving the existence of a green invisible monster under your bed. Good night.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
I can't prove it ... any more than science can prove that the process described by ToE produced the fossil record.
You left the smilie off my quote. I put it back because it indicates irony. Of course you can't prove it.
What you can do is exactly the same as what science does for things it studies. You can supply ever increasing amounts of reliable evidence for your miracles that bolster our confidence that they were real events. You need the evidence in order to differentiate yourself from those who claim to have experienced miracles but are lying or were fooled or misinterpreted events.
So science can't prove that a change in the DNA sequence of an organism results in a mutation?
You're told by multiple people multiple times that science doesn't prove anything, has never in its entire history proved anything, and yet you say this. I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps attempting to discuss things with you isn't really possible and that in reality it truly is the case that you're an idiot, or maybe just that:
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Make quote more complete so that context is clear.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
