There is no possible scientific explanation for the universe

[reggieM]

Strictly speaking, science is the ONLY thing that can tell us about our universe short of the answer being made known to us …

This is clearly false because science is not capable of evaluating the truth of that statement itself. You’ve reached that conclusion and built an opinion using non-scientific thought.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Science is about what we can learn through experimentation and logic (mathematics) that the universe defines itself by. Saying that the fact that it has not (or maybe can’t) define the actual origin of the universe does not lend credibility to any other idea

.

your right, it doesnt lend any other idea credibility, thats the point, the consensus seems to have been that atheism, has recieved some credibility from science, eliminating the possibility of a scientific explanation makes atheism a personal opinion, based on desire, not scientific rationalism.

Strictly speaking, science is the ONLY thing that can tell us about our universe short of the answer being made known to us (i.e. God coming down and saying hello) because you can only learn 2 ways: 1) find out yourself (science) or 2) Someone teaches you (whatever knows the answer - i.e. God), so Until God comes down here I’ll stick to science.

and i think you should, scientific research is invaluable, but it cannot answer the ultimate question and therefore cannot be a credible resource to atheisms, empirical denial of theism.

things do go bump in the night , so to speak. lol

 

[liquidpele]

This is clearly false because science is not capable of evaluating the truth of that statement itself. You’ve reached that conclusion and built an opinion using non-scientific thought.

Okay, then I’ll humor you. Lets have an experiment… I’ll learn using science (trial/error if you will) and being taught, and you try to learn something another way, and then we’ll see which ways actually work.

 

[liquidpele]

.
your right, it doesnt lend any other idea credibility, thats the point, the consensus seems to have been that atheism, has recieved some credibility from science, eliminating the possibility of a scientific explanation makes atheism a personal opinion, based on desire, not scientific rationalism.

and i think you should, scientific research is invaluable, but it cannot answer the ultimate question and therefore cannot be a credible resource to atheisms, empirical denial of theism.

things do go bump in the night , so to speak. lol

Well… yes and no. Science has empowered atheism a bit in that science has found things over the years that directly contradicted the teachings of the church, but it doesn’t have the ability to prove atheism or disprove a deity that I’m aware of.

The ultimate question being… where everything came from? 42! Honestly, that answer makes about as much sense as any other answer at this point…

 

[reggieM]

Okay, then I’ll humor you. Lets have an experiment… I’ll learn using science (trial/error if you will) and being taught, and you try to learn something another way, and then we’ll see which ways actually work.

Ok, you could try to learn about the true meaning of the word “science” using an empirical, scientific method. You could go out into the wilds, or on fossil hunts and try to find this word and it’s true meaning. Additionally, you should avoid using logic since itself it is not an empirical science.

For myself, I could consult the philosophical developments that lead to several meanings of the concept of science and show how the term, concepts and meaning originated.

After that, we could try to learn about great music and art. You could develop laboratory experiments to prove the value of art and music (we can add literature). I can look at the philosophical and immaterial/spiritual aspects of great works.

In the end, we can discover what the term “actually work” means also.

 

[liquidpele]

Ok, you could try to learn about the true meaning of the word “science” using an empirical, scientific method. You could go out into the wilds, or on fossil hunts and try to find this word and it’s true meaning. Additionally, you should avoid using logic since itself it is not an empirical science.

For myself, I could consult the philosophical developments that lead to several meanings of the concept of science and show how the term, concepts and meaning originated.

After that, we could try to learn about great music and art. You could develop laboratory experiments to prove the value of art and music (we can add literature). I can look at the philosophical and immaterial/spiritual aspects of great works.

In the end, we can discover what the term “actually work” means also.

Ah, I think I see where you are coming from here. I guess I should have defined learning as “learning about the physical universe” and not about the immaterial preferences of individuals and society which are typically entirely subjective. Good points though.

 

[reggieM]

Ah, I think I see where you are coming from here. I guess I should have defined learning as “learning about the physical universe” and not about the immaterial preferences of individuals and society which are typically entirely subjective. Good points though.

Thanks. That’s an important distinction though because if you limit your view just to the physical universe then some important things could be missing there.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well… yes and no. Science has empowered atheism a bit in that science has found things over the years that directly contradicted the teachings of the church,

what? when has this ever happened in the modern world?

but it doesn’t have the ability to prove atheism or disprove a deity that I’m aware of.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Vatican had cohosted a conference on Charles Darwin in early March. I found it revealing the those in favor of Intelligent Design were not invited.

Darwin was mentioned at the conference, but the event wasn’t about Darwin per se. To correct the record, the conference was a high-level discussion about evolution – between scientists, philosophers, theologians and historians. If it had been a conference about “intelligent design” I’m sure ID proponents would have been there; if it had been a conference about atheism I’m sure Dawkins would have been invited.

StAnastasia

 

[PennitentMan]

i assume you are referencing the eternal universe claim from post 42. we have disposed of that possibility. no physical thing can be eternal as it continually changes, we observe a beginning to the universe in the BB. cyclic universes violate the second law of thermodynamics and we currently observe the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating. ther will be no bounce as far as we can tell.

if you simply mean to imply that something physical always existed, then thats another special pleading in violation of all the evidence that we have. its simply unobserved.

if one believes that something uncaused always existed. regardless of observation, or logic. then that is the same thing as a faith. its simply faith in the impossible, you may as well have Faith in G-d.

Or…he could be talking about one of the best books ever: The Hitchiker’s Guite to the Galaxy

In the first novel and radio series, a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought 7½ million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42. Unfortunately, The Ultimate Question itself is unknown.

When asked to produce The Ultimate Question, the computer says that it cannot; however, it can help to design an even more powerful computer

Spoiler

that can.

Spoiler

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker’s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

 

[StAnastasia]

Or…he could be talking about one of the best books ever: The Hitchiker’s Guite to the Galaxy

“One whose computational matrices I am not worth to compute.”