The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

Atheists use the word "science" with such devout reverence.......almost as if they were referring to a God or something like that. Hmm. Interesting.

Yes this is pretty common which is why the title has the word “ownership”. 😄
Some atheists want science only for them and no one else.

We theists for example are not so greedy about our Gods and are open to sharing. 😂

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Using fine-tuning as an argument for God is circular - you have to presume that the Universe was intended to support life as we know it. You therefore make God both the premise and the conclusion. Doesn’t work.

Boru

[GaryAnderson]

Dude are you reading? Fine-tuning is a scientific fact which a theist can use to prove that the universe was intelligently designed.

Then please explain why, the vast majority of physicists (72%) from all over the world are atheists. What do you know, that these people who have dedicated their lives to study, actually work in the appropriate fields of science, and actually understand it, do not know?

And even the vast majority of the rest of them, are deists, not theists.

The fact the parameters of the universe are very specific, and if changed, the universe would not have brought forth and sustains life, does not offer a shred of evidence that it was designed that way.

How many other universes have you been able to compare our universe to? Please describe, without unsupported assertions, what an un-designed universe would look like.

We’re not on the same page here. The point is whether you have a problem with anyone using scientific facts to arrive at some unproven conclusion.

---

Using fine-tuning as an argument for God is circular - you have to presume that the Universe was intended to support life as we know it. You therefore make God both the premise and the conclusion. Doesn’t work.

Boru

Works perfectly but you don’t have to like it and that’s fine. Same as saying “an infinite multiverse” which I don’t like but I’m not criticizing those scientists who support this view based on their work on other scientific areas such as string theory or quantum mechanics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thank you for saying that you have  “ no problem with people arguing from fine tuning toward some conclusion”. That’s all I’m asking here.

Then lead with that next time.  Not some horseshit about the use or ownership of science concern trolling atheists about their "intolerance".

Atheists use the word "science" with such devout reverence.......almost as if they were referring to a God or something like that. Hmm. Interesting.

Yes this is pretty common which is why the title has the word “ownership”. 😄
Some atheists want science only for them and no one else.

We theists for example are not so greedy about our Gods and are open to sharing. 😂

It seems as though you've hit on the idea that science could be a source of religious reverence.  That puts both of your stated beliefs into a pretty harsh light.  Science could do it, just not for you, or your beliefs. To the two of you, it's a competing god, and someone else's competing god. That's not a great spot for an alleged god to be in, either.

[GaryAnderson]

Thank you for saying that you have  “ no problem with people arguing from fine tuning toward some conclusion”. That’s all I’m asking here.

Then lead with that next time.  Not some horseshit about the use or ownership of science concern trolling atheists about their "intolerance".

Yes this is pretty common which is why the title has the word “ownership”. 😄
Some atheists want science only for them and no one else.

We theists for example are not so greedy about our Gods and are open to sharing. 😂

It seems as though you've hit on the idea that science could be a source of religious reverence.  That puts both of your stated beliefs into a pretty harsh light.  Science could do it, just not for you, or your beliefs.

Bro, I don’t English you. 🤜

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't much of anything, as far as I can tell. I have to wonder about a person who resorts to pretending that they're stupid when they get called out on their shit. I mean...do you really think that your shit is so bad you'd rather people thought you were dumb?

[Jehanne]

Atheists use the word "science" with such devout reverence.......almost as if they were referring to a God or something like that. Hmm. Interesting.

Look up the word "science"; it comes from the Latin "scire", which means "to know".

---

Using fine-tuning as an argument for God is circular - you have to presume that the Universe was intended to support life as we know it. You therefore make God both the premise and the conclusion. Doesn’t work.

Boru

If God existed and created the Universe, he/she/it did not need to "tune" anything. We could have all been living on the surface of the Sun.

[The Grand Nudger]

Finding ourselves exactly as we are, but mysteriously sitting on a star..would definitely suggest something hinky had occurred.

Any space cadets wanna volunteer for a long term mission to find the godstar? There are private ships leaving now, I hear.

[Spongebob]

Not to confuse the matter even more, but mathematics is an example of an axiomatic system.

---

Wait, this was not in the OP.  Using science (I assume you mean the scientific method) to make any "leap of faith" is inappropriate and very different from your original question.  The scientific method is meant to test an idea, not justify a leap of faith.

I see that you’re confused again. Here’s an example.
1 - Science has shown us the values of Fundamental forces in this universe.
2 - A theist says: these values  are fine-tuned by God.
Do you have any problems with theists saying that?

3 - A philosopher says that “these values are created randomly in an infinite multiverse, where universes collide and create new random big bangs”
Do you have any problems with him saying that?

I'm not confused at all, but your statements are.

1 - Scientists have identified the fundamental forces using the scientific method.  (I assume you mean the strength of each force).

A theist can hypothesize that statement 2 is true, but this is just a hypothesis, not a theory.  I have no problem with someone asserting such a hypothesis, but that's all it is.  He will have to do the necessary work to move this to theory territory.

3 - Again, this is a loosely supported theory, not a very strong one.  He can assert this all he wants but it doesn't mean its true.  

The only thing you stated before that was very well supported was that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe.  This is supported by very strong scientific evidence and thus is beyond any whimsical arguments to the contrary.  Those other arguments are far weaker and thus less worthy of acceptance.

I don't know what's so confusing about this for you.

[arewethereyet]

Just when I thought our new friend couldn't be more of a pain in the ass...

Never underestimate is the lesson learned.