Opera Nut

Required reading:

Blackhawk MUST read THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD by Carl Sagan before he comes back. He does not understand how science operates.


Theory generated to predict what happens upon observation of subject--->data collection--->data examined---->determination if

data is valid. If data is valid, it is checked to see if it supports

theory(this is where logic and statistics come in to use).

If so it is evidence for the truth of the theory.

If data does not support theory--->back to drawing board;

modify or throw out theory; come up with new one---->retest----

>repeat cycle until sufficient proof is gathered for coherent theory.

Proven theory is current model for understanding a subject; new

information or non conforming data requires a new

theory/model/paradigm; often another scientist later adds to

previous theory with a totally new theory; both can be true at

same time, or may not be compatible at all. Theories must be

changed to fit reality. Scientific reality expands with technology

and innovation.


I'm thinking of Newtonian physics which apply in our observable ordinary world; and quantum mechanics and relativity which apply at the atomic and subatomic level.
Both are still valid provable, and proved, theories.

Starboy

<flame deleted - liv> Science can’t speak about god because god has not been found to be real. You think it is real because you confuse “truth” with reality and have been taught to accept the bible as “true”. But there is hope for you, because at least you seem to understand that science is not about “truth”, but it is indeed about reality. To be more accurate it is about exploring reality. Now the problem with claiming things are “true” when you confuse “truth” with reality is that no one knows everything about reality. In fact we may know very little about reality, but by calling anything “true” we are presuming to have knowledge that we do not have. People who do this are liars. This makes Christians the biggest liars of all, because in this day and age there is just no excuse for what they are doing.

So to tie this into the OP for the sake of The Other Michael, as I have said before, anyone that swallows the bible as “true” and confuses “truth” with reality is wacko and a in my book a fundie. That would make most Christians fundies. And explains a great deal about why all these "good" Christians let the extreme fundies get away with their excesses. They are all brothers in unreality under the skin and liars to boot!

Starboy

Rational BAC

You calling me a liar Starboy???

Don't really care anyway---I have a very thick skin.

Actually, however, I have a lot more in common with agnostics than I do with Fundies.

blackhawk

Put downs do nothing. Sorry I asked you hard questions and all but I did not intend to make you this upset.

Huh? So if we found out that a supernatural being is real science can speak about it? So if a being who transcends science is real then science can explain it. Make sense? Not in the slightest.

but we must make assumptions or we can't get anywhere. I can't prove anything is real but I have to make an assumption that some things are or I can't discuss anything else. So I have to believe that somethings are true. I must.

So most scientists are also liars? Really almost everyone on the planet is also. I do not see how making some philosophical assumptions makes onea liar when one must do so. Life is about making the best guesses and calling them truth. To many God is a very good guess. I would not call these people liars.

Again just name calling will do nothing.

Starboy

Rational BAC, based on your name alone you could be a comedian or a liar or both, but if I had to guess I would say you are confused. In our society no one wants to admit they are ignorant or stupid so we seek out and follow people who claim to have all the answers. Some of the older among us have been there and done that and realize that nobody has all the answers, however it is easy to go along with the crowd and pretend as if we buy it. That’s were I think you are. Someone just going along but not convinced of much of anything your professed religion has to say. So if I were even close on my assessment, I would not call you a liar, just confused. But who could blame you. Religion is in the business of confusing people to the point where they can’t tell the difference between what’s real and unreal.

Starboy

Rational BAC

I don't think I am confused at all. I will admit that I found no real spiritual happiness as an agnostic though, which I was for many years.

I am quite content with my belief system.

My belief is very simple and very Christian in my opinion.

Something happened 2000 years ago that was supernatural (call that part a belief if you want, which in essence it is, but I think it is also a rational explanation of the surprisingly fast rise of Christianity and the tenacity and stubborness of its early martyrs.)

In any event my opinion is just as valid if not more so than the atheist assumption that the whole thing was a mass hysteria induced tall story that got waaay out of hand.

(You pick-a your theory. I pick-a my theory. And we all be happy. Live and let live on that one, since no one knows for sure anyway.)

Don't know what happened exactly 2000 years ago. All I have is a very strange and confused and most obviously very errant book (to anyone halfway sane) called the Bible to give me any insight at all.

I do the best I can with the Bible---------considering that I think it was man made, man inspired----something the creation of which God in His infinite wisdom decided to stay the hell out of.

Starboy

Blackhawk, I assure you I am not upset, just frank. <flame deleted - liv>
Spot on! It doesn’t make any sense. That is because anything discovered by science automatically becomes natural. If god were thus detected by science it would no longer be supernatural but natural. However, if something cannot be detected in any way it is not considered real. Leprechauns, Santa Claus, trolls, elves as well as god, soul, sin, angels and so forth fall into the category of undetected. So until they are detected they are unreal.

In this day and age if a pharmaceutical company makes claims about their products without evidence they are shutdown, and if they fabricate their data and do not follow well-accepted methods of experiment and evidence they are locked up. If others cannot repeat the results they claim they are looked upon with great suspicion. In all walks of life except religion people are not allowed to make reality claims without something to back them up. It is the religious that claim nonsensical things such as angels, heaven, hell and so forth are real with nothing to back them up. Now back in the wooly past such revelatory declarations were acceptable but not today. In this day and age if you make reality claims without evidence and just tell people to trust you simply because you say it is real, then you are a fraud.

Blackhawk, you can assume anything you like, that is your right, but when you start claiming your assumptions are real with no evidence to back them up and go around trying to convince every one else of its reality then you a liar and a fraud.

Oh Blackhawk you had me going there. For a moment I thought you might actually understand something about science, that you might actually know something about the most important development in human history in the last millennium. Okay lets get something strait. Science is not philosophy. Philosophers are as reality challenged as the religious. And the religious do a great deal more than make presumptions. They make claims about reality. In other words they make statements of existence and declare them to be “true” and then implicitly confuse “truth” with reality. They require their adherents to accept these claims on faith, in other words with no evidence.

Scientists on the other hand also make reality claims, however they do not label them as “truth”. It is also understood that such claims are tentative, that is some time in the future better explanations may be found. It is also understood that no one must take the word of the scientist on faith. On the contrary, others are required to repeat the work of the scientist. In fact the results of the scientists may be repeated indefinitely.

Another thing that makes science so very, very, very different from religion is that if a scientist comes up with new science they are not crucified or excommunicated by other scientists, they are very likely to get the Nobel Prize.

<flame deleted - liv>

Starboy

Starboy

Rational BAC, if it were indeed a matter of “you pick your theory and I pick mine” then I might think that rational went with BAC but you are doing a great deal more than that. 1) You have declared a winner by faith (not rational). 2) You are not open to other explanations (not rational). 3) The explanations you have accepted would not be accepted today (not rational). 4) You are perfectly willing to accept the explanation as bazaar as they are with little investigation (not rational). Rational BAC because of your past equivocation on this board I would not say you make any "truth", existence or reality claims, however you are confused and definitely not rational.

Starboy

blackhawk

YOu are angry about something. If you were not then you would be civil. And do not confuse frankness with just bad manners.



No. We do not determine reality just by science if so then much of life would nto make sense. Science is a great tool but can only be used for certain applications. questions like if God is real or not is not one of them. It has no way of answering that kind of question.

There is a great difference between a pharmaceutical company and someone asking wheterh there is a God or not. Two different kinds of questions and should not be used in this kind of analogy as if they were similiar.

Religious claims do have something to back their claims up. Tehy do not have proof but they have evidences to back up their claims. YOu might not agree with their claims but it is not like they do nto try to back them up. So you are not representing religious claims accurately.




I think we have already been down this road before. I claim that a belief in God is the most rational and logical thing to conclude after looking at all the evidences. I cannot prove that there is a God ir that the Christian God is true but I think it is the most rational thing to believe.



First I want to say that it was not adevlopement in this last millenium. The ancient greeks used science.


First science is built on philosophical assumptions. It cannot work without them. There is nothign real in science unless we grant these certain assumptions. So I would be careful on how you label philosophers when they undergird your science.

Next I will say that there is a God. That the statement that there is a God is true. But can I prove 100% that statement? No. But was it wrong for me to make that statement? no. I made a statement of belief so it is fine. If one says I believe x is true purely on reason and logic alone without ANY faith then that person is deluded. It is impossible. The question really is how much faith is okay and when does it become too much faith compared to logic and reason? But we all use faith in some way.

And lastly again you do not do religious claims justice when you say that they ake claims without any basis to back them up. That is untrue.

They make claims that what they observed was real and the that what they observed was true. That it can be used as evidence. Sure they say that one can come and show them to be wrong but they say they saw such and such occur and that they saw it was the truth. They ask me to take their word that they saw it on faith and that we can trust their senses on faith. Sure we can go back and try to repeat their experiments and such and prove them wrong but that is not much different than religion or philosophy except that they do not have experiments to observe. So again science can't speak about it. In your view i science can't speak abut a subject then we should just not beleive it. Okay but then we could not live our lives. So please understand that science is good for the natural world but not for the supernatural or things that just occured in the past.

AGain science and religion are completely different fields and answer completely different kinds of questions. So one can do this in science but religion is different. You cannot expect religion/ philosophy to be like science or science to be like religion/ philosophy. You have to use both to understand the world around us and the one we can't measure or observe.

Whatever. Again put downs do not do anything. If you do not have anything to say do not say anything.

Rational BAC

You are adding a lot to what I said.
------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say I declared a winner by faith?

No--- I just find it more likely that some type of supernatural events happened than not due to the circumstances concerning the rise of early Christendom. Atheists believe that the whole thing was a made up story. I find that explanation possible but unlikely. It is a toss up. I think I'm right. You think you're right. Live and let live.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say I was not open to other explanations? No again.

I am open to almost any explanation. I just like my theory better than yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The explanations I have accepted would not be accepted today?

Actually they are by most people (at least most Americans) today, like it or not, rational or not. Don't know why you brought that one up.

You must be slipping Starboy.