I'll pick "Poorly or malformed question." for 500 points.

Do I win anything?



Not at work.

(November 3, 2021 at 11:22 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Do philosophy and justified belief depend on sound premises? Isn't that what science is for?

Alot of people might suspect that you're spooling up some god of the gaps - but...personally, I don't know if it fits when you have to carve the hole yourself.

I really have a hard time understanding you by the way. Lol. Philosophy will use science and take a leap of faith to attempt to answer existential questions.

(November 3, 2021 at 11:26 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 10:47 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

There is no such thing as 'theistic' or 'atheistic' science. There is just science.

Science, performed correctly, is not used to support any theistic beliefs, or lack of them. In fact, the existence of a god is not ever a component in any experiment, hypothesis, or theory. There is no room, or necessity for it.

Philosophy will use science and take a leap of faith to attempt to answer existential questions. Do you have any problems with this?

(November 3, 2021 at 11:20 am)GaryAnderson Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 11:12 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: It's not who owns the science but who listens to the evidence. Religions and dictatorships usually put ideologies in the first place and then ignore and forbid evidence that proves them wrong.

Like many Christians insist that Adam must have existed, that Noah's flood really happened, or that shroud of Turin was really Jesus funeral shroud or that blood of St. Januarius really turns into rocks and then fluid, etc. and ignore all the evidence that contradicts their dogma and persecute the scientists.

Sigh. There is no scientific evidence as to Why does the universe exists. This is where philosophy and belief begins.

So is this topic about why the universe exists or "who owns the science"?

Science can explain why the universe exists in relation to the forces that created it, just like it can explain why some mountain exists or a river or a rock or a fjord.

(November 3, 2021 at 11:33 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 11:20 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: Sigh. There is no scientific evidence as to Why does the universe exists. This is where philosophy and belief begins.

So is this topic about why the universe exists or "who owns the science"?

Science can explain why the universe exists in relation to the forces that created it, just like it can explain why some mountain exists or a river or a rock or a fjord.

Yes it’s about who “owns” science. Do you have any problems with philosophers using science to answer existential questions?

(November 3, 2021 at 11:07 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

The fact that the current presentation of the universe has the parameters that support life, does not mean it was fine tuned to do so.

Please let us know, how many iterations of the universe existed before this one, that were not able to support life?

We are the results of the universe being able to support life, not the goal of such a universe.

I frequently have argued the superfluous nature of inserting a God or religion into explaining nature or morality like this: If there was one cure all for humanity that theists or religious people claim, then why is it every nation on the planet, both friend and foe alike, have both hospitals and prisons?

Scientific method explains why we socialize and why we group. Religion DOES provide social structure creating safety in numbers, but that false perception does not make their beliefs fact. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for over 3,000 years, but that did not make Ra, Osiris, Isis or Horus real.

(November 3, 2021 at 11:37 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 11:07 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

The fact that the current presentation of the universe has the parameters that support life, does not mean it was fine tuned to do so.

Please let us know, how many iterations of the universe existed before this one, that were not able to support life?

We are the results of the universe being able to support life, not the goal of such a universe.

On your first point. This is what I mentioned to Brian: “ This is another interpretation which is also acceptable. But if the parameters of gravity were to change by a small amount, the universe and its lifespan wouldn’t have existed for very long. There’s also the theory of Universal Consciousness here which could fit your interpretation that even in a short-life universe, awareness exists and that’s as close as you can get to “life”.

As far as iterations, my theist position is that a Creator created this universe which is fine-tuned for life. If any of the Fundamental particles were changed by 0.1%, the universe and its lifespan will be short or unable to support life as we know it.

---

(November 3, 2021 at 11:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: I frequently have argued the superfluous nature of inserting a God or religion into explaining nature or morality like this: If there was one cure all for humanity that theists or religious people claim, then why is it every nation on the planet, both friend and foe alike, have both hospitals and prisons?

Scientific method explains why we socialize and why we group. Religion DOES provide social structure creating safety in numbers, but that false perception does not make their beliefs fact. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for over 3,000 years, but that did not make Ra, Osiris, Isis or Horus real.

This is another interesting topic regarding Hope and how atheists will try but fail to apply a lot of theory they preach into practice for themselves.

(November 3, 2021 at 10:47 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

If God exists and spontaneously heals an adult amputee, then, yes, such would be subject to scientific investigation.

(November 3, 2021 at 11:45 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 10:47 am)GaryAnderson Wrote: In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

If God exists and spontaneously heals an adult amputee, then, yes, such would be subject to scientific investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

We will discuss miracles and personal testimonies in another topic.
Do you have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs?

(November 3, 2021 at 11:35 am)GaryAnderson Wrote:

(November 3, 2021 at 11:33 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: So is this topic about why the universe exists or "who owns the science"?

Science can explain why the universe exists in relation to the forces that created it, just like it can explain why some mountain exists or a river or a rock or a fjord.

Yes it’s about who “owns” science. Do you have any problems with philosophers using science to answer existential questions?

We seem to be changing the subject.

When it comes to existential questions, people usually answer them for themselves. Like "What's your purpose in life?" - it's not up to Francis Fukuyama or Deepak Chopra or Pope Francis to answer but everyone for themselves individually.