Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. I think you are confusing me with another PP.

I support separation of church and state in another thread but have not mentioned religious impact on laws here.

I was addressing the fallacy that religious beliefs can be validated or invalidated via the scientific method.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.

Still waiting on that.

Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.

Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.

Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.

Such as?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.

Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.

Thanks for calling us Bible quoters. That's a huge compliment. Seriously.

Yet you still answer not a single previous inquiry.

Which bible are you quoting? If an entity is capable of creating everything in the universe, couldn't it have created some material with text everyone could understand to convey its teachings to us lowly, ignorant creations instead of us having to divine meaning through smoke signals with burning bushes? It could have used the language from prior to the tower of babel. Also, why would this entity be afraid of these lowly creations?

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!

Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?

Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.

Still waiting on that.

Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.

Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.

Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.

Such as?

If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.

If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.

If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.

Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking

You are dishonestly misrepresenting Hawking's position. Although admittedly maybe you don't understand it. He was saying the opposite of your insinuation.

No, I actually said very clearly that you can take the collection of facts and run many direction with them.