Hiding in science?

[Leela]

I said that there is a lot more to life than doing science.

That being?

Science is the project of getting broad consensus on a single account of reality that best enables us to predict and control. We have lots of other concerns besides predicting and controlling. Some of these would be expressing gratitude, loving our children, trying to become better than we now are, writing poetry, singing songs, rooting for the Eagles, etc. Most of the things we do aren’t participating in the public project of doing science. We have lots and lots of private projects that are no less important for not being science.

 

[lemondiesel]

They act because of a First Mover. I.E., God.

This is a 100% faith claim.

 

[awatkins69]

This is a 100% faith claim.

Not quite, given that there is a first mover it’s quite easy to deduce the attributes of this first mover as God.

That a first mover exists can be found by reasonable arguments, even if not everybody finds them compelling. I myself don’t find them compelling. But I wouldn’t say that people who do are out of their minds or something. So it’s not, as you say, a 100% faith claim.

 

[The_Exodus]

This is a 100% faith claim.

Everything we experience through our senses is changed or moved by another agent. This cannot go on infinitely. Therefore, a first unmoved mover exists that moves all subsequent agents.

This argument is founded on experience. The only faith needed is believing that our senses can tell us about the world around us.

 

[4Horsemen]

From Aristotle philosophers have considered the purpose in nature. St. Thomas Aquinas used this idea of purpose (final cause) as the basis of a proof for God’s existence. It didn’t achieve importance and was not accepted by Descartes and some existential philosophers but assumed more importance in the mid-twentieth century as evidence began to accumulate for the finite aspect of the universe in space and time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

^^ Would you agree or disagree that gaining knowledge in science can lead to spirituality?

Not without metaphysics and a commitment to rational principles.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Science’s “beyond” would be to explain why atoms act the way they do. Why were these the elements of matter that came into existence?

In order to answer this rationally you would require a commitment to rational principles, such as, out of nothing comes nothing. If you think rationally about it, it cannot possibly be the case that physical reality came out of nothing; an absolute absence of being and reality. Thus the cause of their existence would have to be a non-physical existence; that which has no physical dimension.

Atheism must reject rational principles in order to maintain naturalism. I am sorry that you find it difficult to see that.

 

[Cat_Herder]

some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof."

Then have at them.

Once the existence of God has been demonstrated we can draw inferences from God just as we draw inferences from our five senses, or instead of drawing it from the senses. For example, we can say the Blessed Sacrament is that, and not a wafer, by an inference drawn from the Word of God.

This whole “science versus religion” thing is baloney. Before Calvin came along with his presuppositional apologetics (which was just circular reasoning “proving” the existence of God and of the Bible without going through the historical record, i.e. the Catholic Church), theology was the queen of the sciences. Remember that “science versus religion” is “Protestantism versus religion,” and any study of the historical record will reflect this. We, as Catholics, are above this dispute.

 

[NotReligous]

some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
" there is no biological proof that this piece of sandstone is sedimentary, therefore it cannot possibly be sedimentary. "

Well…your argument does not work…why? What is the difference between scientific proof and proof? Nothing really. Because science is the only way to check is something is proof or not, you are basically asking people not to demand proof.

So yes, you can say; “People demand proof for something that we can’t give them proof for! (god)”

And biology and geology are just two different parts of science. Both get proof, but are just two different definitions. On your case it is just give proof, or don’t.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well…your argument does not work…why? What is the difference between scientific proof and proof? Nothing really. Because science is the only way to check is something is proof or not

God exists and this can be scientifically demonstrated (as I have done in my post above), so your assertion is moot.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well…your argument does not work…why? What is the difference between scientific proof and proof? Nothing really. Because science is the only way to check is something is proof or not, you are basically asking people not to demand proof…

Are you saying that you cannot know for certain that you exist until somebody does an experiment on you?

Ridiculous. As usual, many non-religious people like yourself take reality for granted and blow scientific truth out of proportion. I see even some Christians on this very thread blowing science out of proportion.

One can have true knowledge, and even certain thus superior pre-scientific knowledge, when making strict inferences within a particular context of reality; and this can be done without reference to the empirical method which i have just shown with my first question. There are general facts about reality that can be known with absolute certainty. The more general the fact the more certain it is. Science deals with particular facts, fine details about physical objects which cannot be perceived in a general sense, such as the existence of particular types of atoms. Its true that the area of knowledge that science seeks, the question of what “physical things or causes exist”, is most efficiently attained by science. But even this knowledge is probabilistic in nature and is not absolute, since the method itself is based upon pre-scientfic assumptions and presuppositions about reality. It is faith driven, and Scientific evidence is dynamic. It changes. Theories that were once thought true are now debunked; and the same again will probably happen in the future. Yet scientist have a pre-scientific rational ideal that they should believe what the evidence tells them, even if it could be proven wrong tomorrow. So this talk of “proof” is evidently misplaced. The history of science should tell you that if you truly know anything about it. Reality is evidently multifaceted and there can be several different objective truths about the same object, as well as scientific truth, since reality can be approached from different contexts. So don’t be confused about the limited role that science has in human knowledge. While it certainly true that science in its own context is the only method by which we can describe the particular nature of physical things, there are truths about reality in general that cannot be known through science, such as the fact that you exist; since you must first exist with true knowledge of that existence before you can apply the scientific method as a means to knowing probabilistic “truth”. So it seems at least evident to me, and anybody who knows what science truly is, that it is not the only means of gaining true knowledge about reality. Necessity must precede probability; otherwise there is no such thing a truth or proof.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Are you saying that you cannot know for certain that you exist until somebody does an experiment on you? Ridiculous. As usual, many non-religious people like yourself take reality for granted. One can have true and even certain pre-scientific knowledge when given a particular context of reality without reference to the empirical method. Its true that the area of knowledge that science seeks, the question of what “physical things or causes exist”, is most efficiently attained by science. But even this knowledge is probabilistic in nature and is not absolute. It changes. The history of science should tell you that if you truly know anything about it. Reality is evidently multifaceted and there can be several different objective truths about the same object, as well as scientific truth, since reality can be approached from different contexts. So don’t be confused about the limited role that science has in human knowledge. While it certainly true that science in its own context is the only method by which we can describe the particular nature of physical things, there are truths about reality in general that cannot be known through science, such as the fact that you exist; since you must first exist with true knowledge of that existence before you can apply the scientific method as a means to knowing probabilistic “truth”. So it seems at least evident to me, and anybody who knows what science truly is, that it is not the only means of gaining true knowledge about reality. Necessity must precede probability; otherwise there is no such thing a truth or proof.

And NotReligous must not only exist, (s)he must also have a sound mind, reliable senses and reliable scientific equipment before making empirical observations so as to build a scientific epistemology. And if NotReligious is not making his/her own observations, the persons giving his/her their scientific observations must be trustworthy, and all of the preceding must be true of them as well before such an epistemology may be built.

(And as it turns out, the people instructing NotReligious are not trustworthy because they have withheld the evidence that proves the existence of God.)

However, NotReligious does not even need to be refuted, because his/her argument–only science produces truth–is moot because science proves that God exists.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

because science proves that God exists.

Sorry; I don’t know what you mean by that.

 

[NotReligous]

Are you saying that you cannot know for certain that you exist until somebody does an experiment on you?

That is probably the only case in which you can know with out proof, simply because you think- (so you are)
MindOverMatter2;7078645:

One can have true knowledge, and even certain thus superior pre-scientific knowledge, when making strict inferences within a particular context of reality; and this can be done without reference to the empirical method which i have just shown with my first question. There are general facts about reality that can be known with absolute certainty. The more general the fact the more certain it is.

Examples, please?

Science deals with particular facts, fine details about physical objects which cannot be perceived in a general sense, such as the existence of particular types of atoms. Its true that the area of knowledge that science seeks, the question of what "physical things or causes exist

", is most efficiently attained by science. But even this knowledge is probabilistic in nature and is not absolute, since the method itself is based upon pre-scientfic assumptions and presuppositions about reality. It is faith driven, and Scientific evidence is dynamic.

I would like to sum this up so that ‘if there is anything at all to be known of the universe it is trough science.’ Of course you cant not be 100% certain, but if anything of this universe is true, science is true.

It changes. Theories that were once thought true are now debunked; and the same again will probably happen in the future.

Scientific theories with a lot of proof, are very, very unlikely to be true. Theories get improved, but they hardly ever get completely debunked. (if you disagree, do so with examples)

Yet scientist have a pre-scientific rational ideal that they should believe what the evidence tells them, even if it could be proven wrong tomorrow.

Evidence can not be proven wrong… (that is why it is evidence)

So this talk of “proof” is evidently misplaced. The history of science should tell you that if you truly know anything about it.

Hmm, what do you mean?

Reality is evidently multifaceted and there can be several different objective truths about the same object, as well as scientific truth, since reality can be approached from different contexts. So don’t be confused about the limited role that science has in human knowledge

In what way limited…? How else can you approach anything in this universe?

While it certainly true that science in its own context is the only method by which we can describe the particular nature of physical things, there are truths about reality in general that cannot be known through science, such as the fact that you exist; since you must first exist with true knowledge of that existence before you can apply the scientific method

as a means to knowing probabilistic “truth”.

It can also be proven in a scientific way that I exist. And again, that is the only exception I can think of.

So it seems at least evident to me, and anybody who knows what science truly is, that it is not the only means of gaining true knowledge about reality. Necessity must precede probability; otherwise there is no such thing a truth or proof.

Tell me another way of gaining knowledge of reality than trough science. (or personal experience, which is another matter)

PS. Are you telling me that you should not ask for ‘scientific’ proof for god?
What other proof that that do you have?

I think that by your logic I could believe in fairies. If not, present to me evidence for god. (you decide what “type” of evidence you want to give me )

Oh, and you never actually answered my point, (of god needing evidence) just went on talking nonsense about how " you can not know everything with science" and yet failed to give any examples of what you mean. (and again, you can also scientifically proof my existence)

 

[NotReligous]

God exists and this can be scientifically demonstrated (as I have done in my post above), so your assertion is moot.

Ok, do present the evidence for your god.

PS. I fail to see how your link had in any way proof for god.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ok, do present the evidence for your god.

PS. I fail to see how your link had in any way proof for god.

1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. If your answer is not an Infinite Being: If E=mc^2, and new matter is created as the Big Bang explosion continues, please explain why the Universe is infinitely expanding without the cause being an Infinite Being.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Tell me another way of gaining knowledge

Your argument implied that the only way we can know something to be “true” is via the scientific method. I have disproved this with the logical syllogism “I think therefore I am”. This is enough for me.

There are arguments for Gods existence which have the same degree of certainty as cogito ergo sum; but I am not going to waste my time battling your denial. Its unhealthy, and I value my health.

 

[NotReligous]

Your argument implied that the only way we can know something to be “true” is via the scientific method. I have disproved this with the logical syllogism “I think therefore I am”. This is enough for me.

That is the one and only exception to this thing, and is simply caused by the fact that your are thinking proves that you are thinking… (well duh, right?)
This can not be used in any way for god, fairies or anything else like that. Meaning that everything else but your own thoughts require other evidence. Otherwise we could believe anything!

So you do need to provide evidence for god. I still fail to see why you think that you should not. (nor have you even told me)
MindOverMatter2;7079346:

There are arguments for Gods existence which have the same degree of certainty as cogito ergo sum; but I am not going to waste my time battling your denial. Its unhealthy, and I value my health.

Unhealthy…? If you say so.

 

[NotReligous]

1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. If your answer is not an Infinite Being: If E=mc^2, and new matter is created as the Big Bang explosion continues, please explain why the Universe is infinitely expanding without the cause being an Infinite Being.

I will quote my reply, which I always use for this question. (From another post of mine)

"Haha, I knew this question would come. Nevertheless, I shall answer it.

The short answer is; “I don’t know.” And before you start jumping for joy in your chair, I will tell you that you don’t know either. You say that god created it. But you don’t have any proof that god actually created it. You say it is because we don’t know anything that could have created the universe, so it must have been god. Well…no. You only presume god created the universe. As long as you have no proof, of the specific thing that created the universe, your ‘god’ does not mean anything.

Let me explain. Scientists don’t know what created the universe. They only say; “Something created it.” You say that that something is ‘god’. But as long as you don’t define your god, and give proof why it must be that particular god, you are also saying; “something created it.” Why? Because god can mean so many different things. I can say my socks are god! God can be defined as anything, therefore it does translate to; ‘something created it’.

In short; As long as you don’t define your god, and give proof to this definition, I could as well say that fairies created the universe. (they both have equal amount of proof) Both were also discovered by man about the same time . (I think invented)

And also, not knowing something, does not give an excuse to say; “Well, we don’t know what did it, so…god must have done it…yes!” This is how religion began to exist…to explain things that seemed supernatural. (stars, fire, etc.)

If you have further questions, I’ll be happy to reply."

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ah, but we can know a lot about the Cause of the Big Bang by evaluating observable evidence in the physical world. And that is all I did on my link above. If the Big Bang is an observable phenomena, all observable phenomena have a cause explainable through science, conservation of energy and E=mc^2 are true and the universe is constantly expanding, then:

The Cause must be singular, exempt from the limitations of time, and infinitely powerful.

That’s not an “excuse.” That is science.