Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

incorporeal tends to place science and God as polar opposites. if you accept that there is merit in science, it means you disbelieve in God.

 

Yes, and? There is no evidence of a God not existing, I think everybody can agree with that.

 

Do I really? And I am holding a degree in Computer Electronics.... Wow! What polar opposites is expressed in that FACT?

 

thats the part I don't get ... someone so anti science having ANY degree is amazing ....

I guess something happened in between.

 

I don't know about DD, but I did the first experiment in high school physics during the first week. I've played with prisms before, and can confirm that it does indeed happen. In college I did get an opportunity to compare casts of bones of extinct animals with bones of present animals as part of the unit on human evolution.

I take it you've never had much in the way of formal education in science? Because most scientific courses include a fair amount of hands-on experimentation and observation. To show you why the books teach the content they do.

 

I think what people are trying to say is that the fact that there is no evidence to support any claim that any deity exists is evidence that deities do not exist.

Much in the same way no evidence exists that would suggest magic is real, so therefore we do not believe in magic.

If I religiously believed in magic, I could use the Harry Potter books as a source in the same way christians use the bible as a source.

 

Nothing happened in between. I was a Christian when I started that endeavor in the electronics field, and remained a Christian. I learned real fast that science has its' limits and have never attempted to use science for anything that it was not designed to accomplish. As an example: Under current technology, there is no computer system (stand alone or in conjunction with other systems as an aggregate) that is capable of processing the data within a human brain, so as to enable a computer operator to 'see' the actual thoughts that are in the human brain. Such a technician may well be able to see representations of what is thought to be chemical reactions in the brain rendering electrical impulses, but those impulses are beyond this current technology to see the actual thoughts. One poster a while back attempted to show some new technology which allegedly did just that, but what was not made clear is the fact that the image produced by that computer system was nothing more than a computerized rendition of the electrical input into the visual cortex of the brain of some letter of the alphabet, prior to processing by the 'mind' which is the real functioning part of the brain as far as cognizance is concerned.

So when people attempt to use science as a means of refuting that which they have "no evidence" of, then I respond in a way that is appropriate for the occasion.

 

And we've been through this, not that there appears tp be any point in repeatedly demonstrating truth to atheists mind you, because the adage is true: if you avoid all evidence then there is indeed no evidence.

And the problem is that science cannot answer the question to a point of testable certainty. That leaves confirmation in what is called a preponderance of the evidence cases. From Aquinas to godandscience.org there is literallt a legion of arguementation demonstrating the distinct both possibility and probabilty of God.

What we never get from atheists is a preponderance of the evidence case saying, "if we look here we should find. .. And we do not." All we get is various claims about how the evidence presented could possibly be quite literally anything else - hell, many atheists would sign up for the idea that the moon was made of cheese before they'd acknowledge God, even if he were standing there right in front of them. (there is a reason Paul is a Saint.)

All we have from atheists is certainty that is totallt lavking in support. Its just obstinance to be asking for evidence when uts righr there waiting for the lazy to get up and take a look.

 

Wishful thinking is not evidence.

 

There was one on this forum who actually stated that "if god was standing in front of" him (the poster), he (the poster) "would spit in his (Gods) face". The epitome of arrogance. "If" (supposing) God was there in front of him, God would be the God of the Bible (as that was the subject of discussion) and God would be all that the Bible says that He is... I doubt seriously that there would be enough courage to attempt such an act.

 

Ahh! The next discussion: What is the religious meaning of Evidence? That should make another interesting discussion.

 

I don't think there is one. Religious evidence is just anything you want to be evidence. Oh, your mom got better from cancer? MUST BE GOD! Oh, you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you go to church? MUST BE GOD! Something unlikely happens? MUST BE GOD!

 

that is a very good summary of the religious position on evidence ... well actually not ... a priest several years ago won the Templeton Prize for a mathematical proof of God.

I looked at it, and although I couldn't see that it had proven anything ... it was a bit more complex ....

but yes, for ordinary people on this forum ... that seems to be whatthe evidence for God amounts to.

 

Well, it was not my mother, but my wife did die from Cancer. So you want to get more personal?

 

How grossly wrong both of you are. ... we shall explore the nature of evidence in another thread.

 

The text is not my own but of the earth.

 

Learn chemistry. When the science tells you mixing two chemicals will cause an explosion, and then you mix the two chemicals and they do in fact explode, the textbook will have been proven right .

This whole thread misunderstands the scientific method. According to your logic, due to the fact that I myself cannot perform heart surgery, and a book tells me it has been done in the past successfully, then I am not justified in believing heart surgery can be successful. I'd have to do it myself!

 

You're Using A Computer You Luddite.

 

Yes... intelligent dirt????? How novel.

 

Learn to follow instructions contained in the OP, and you will find that you are out of bounds in this courtyard. Basics of Chemistry... I know... took it in High School. Big deal... does not explain what is being sought in the OP. Try again.

 

Chemistry isn't science? What about my heart surgery example?

 

Projecting again I see. Another EPIC fail on your part. Learn to follow the instructions in the OP...

 

Do you know a thing. When is asked prove your religion without making references to the bible, is because we want to give you advantage The bible is refuted thousand times. So go to the bible is using arguments that have been refuted and shown in many ways wrong.

With the science, no. There is no wrong, and if there is a wrong theory is automatically discarded. With religion if it is wrong, it tries to justify it by thousand different ways.

It is your problem. Science just explains a fact, and you can reproduce that fact, and the results will be the ones that scientific theory explains. That is the reality.

Science explains the things, and it is only way to explain the reality. You can't say if you don't understand anything that was God. No, if you can't understand that, there is something that you're missing, and you must research for that. Until then, you don't know what is the answer, and you accept that you ignore the answer. Until the experiments come with the answer.

With religion that is impossible. So, for that reason we ask for religion prove it. Your post is asking people prove science(whatever is that in this so generic definition) with faith. And that is impossible. Science is about facts, is about proofs, is about investigation. Things that religion never will have, religion is based in ignorance.

To give an example, in his ignorance, what a religious person said:

- In the Occidental world people study so much. They know too much, and that is no good.

Without aknowledging he was saying that knowing too much was bad because it takes away from the religious path, and is better being ignorant because you will be more religious.

And that shows that even religious know that to be religious you need to know much less, how more ignorant you're easier to be believer.

 

Well, following the "instructions" contained in the OP either renders the OP void of meaning or invites to a discussion of psychology. There is no "god/religion called science" and there are no "gods/religions scientific texts" to reference, so all of this is obviously illusory and hence resorts under a discussion of the human psyche and specifically, I strongly suppose, the field dealing with the psychology of religion.

 

I don't see how you say Chemistry doesn't do this. Combine chemicals that science says will blow up and they blow up. And that is the argument that the science behind the processes is good because the information is gained specifically from a "science text."