What is so special about us?!?

[Purple Rabbit]

Then please connect for me the laws of gravitation with christian dogma. How can we arrive from christian dogma, which is assertion without evidence, to observables?

First of all, Christian dogma does not equate to religion. God and His observable principles of nature do.

You're talking jibberish. Does not compute. Non sequitur.
Name me one observable to which we uniquely can identify the hand of god. Not any god, no, your god.
Or better still an observable that cannot have natural origin.

Think of it for one moment from a religious stand-point; God created all of life as a gift to us, and created us with the extraordinary capability of scientific understanding, which by the way, does nothing to refute Him.

Why should I indulge in moral abject activities? I rather use my rational faculties. You fabulate a lot but you give not one shred of evidence. Could not Zoroaster have created it on equally ungraspeble grounds? Then show me how we can unambiguously distinguish between this utterly shameless attribution of the beauty of nature to your abject god and the attribution of it to Zoroaster?

There can be no less credible or more credible anything, because without faith/belief you have no idea if what you are seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching/feeling is all a lie or not.

Why is it a lie without religious faith? That is a non sequitur. It does not follow that all is a lie from the fact that your religion is a lie. I think you are mixing knowledge with morals. However, the fact that you don't like how reality is constituted has no bearing whatsoever on the way reality IS constitued.

I didn't say that all is a lie without religious faith, I said without faith how do you know that all is not a lie? You don't, if you don't have faith.

Why should not knowing be a reason for god? That does not make sense but only shows your determination to fabulate answers rather than to investigate. This really is illogic and I urge you to investigate into this. You disqualify yourself in debate with such arguments. Not knowing is never a reason to blindly assume and it certainly is not valid in reasoning. Also please observe that you mix knowing and having faith. Having faith is not the same as knowing.

If science is wrong about something it will be falsifiable. Build in into the scientific method is the condition that all scientific statements are stated falsifiable. In religion such a check is totally absent. Furthermore science is ultimately verified by what it accomplishes. Religion accomplishes nothing observable. Science accomplishes a lot.

Since it is an extremely unhealthy practice to have no faith, I choose faith.

Again you bring in a moral judgement to argue a logical necessity. This is a fallacy. You show no sign of even understanding what valid reasoning is. Even if it was unhealthy to have no faith, that as such does not make faith true. Furthermore, figures show that having no faith has no negative effect on health. So you are fabulating away again.

And there is a perfect example of how our scientific models of reality are getting more and more accurate in terms of predicting, explaining and describing phenomena. An example how the scientific method can validate between more probable and less probable: general relativity more accurately describes celestial mechanics than Newtonian mechanics.

This...literally proves nothing about what I said. At all.

It proves there indeed is a way in which some truths are verifiably more true than others. The condition needed therefore is falsifiability which is absent in christian dogma.

A major difference between religion and science is that religion has no such method. It cannot resolve between truth statements even within one creed of religion, let alone between different religions. This is because truth statements in religion are almost all unfalsifiable. The ones that are falsifiable await refutation by science. They are in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

I'd like you to show me somethings sciencehas proven and let me take a crack at connecting them to God.

Electricity. Now connect it to your god please.

Are we even in agreement her that the set of truth statements used to model the world should be a consistent set?

Somewhat. Not everything can be said to be cut from the same bolt of cloth, but it is all part of the same tapestry. So yes, in a way, the model of truth should be set for all.

Then your god concept should be restricted to the realm of logically valid statements and you cannot argue that not knowing what is truth is an argument for your god.

Religious agenda? What do you think I'm trying to do, convert you or something?

You are deliberately mixing homonyms of 'faith' to credit unsubstantiated religious claims over naturalistic ones. It's parasitic behaviour on the achievements of science.

...What? Seriosly, what does this even mean? Demonstrate to me how I am 'mixing homonyms.'

By saying that faith is required to know anything and not making a distinction between religious fabulated faith and falsifiable assumption.

I'm very thankful for science, you know. Yes, I wouldn't be able to type right now if it were not for science. It would not be able to do many things without science.
Science as a whole is fascinating and the study of how things work is interesting and cool. Who doesn't want to know things like that?

Then you should be deeply worried by the fact that religious faith cannot say anything about our reality, that god is totally absent in the current scientific model. If you adhere to truth, even if it is not absolute truth, you should investigate how this difference between science and religion arises.

I have, thoroughly. And in so doing I have found that the so-called 'differences' between science and religion actually melt completely away. They exist co-dependent on each other, not at each other's throats.

You show no knowledge of the scientific method. You fail to observe the sharp distinction between epistemic rigour of the scientific method and the anecdotal dogmatic sky hook fabulation of religion. God is totally absent in the scientific story of reality and yet you simply neglect that fact.

Never did I say that God simply 'did it all.' I stated that God as He is created this world and created us in such a way that we would be capable of learning more about life and how it works. Whether or not you believe in Him is irrellevant to that.

You are just restating unfalsifiable truth statements one of which (that god reality) is a god did it all statement. If we are indeed agents free from divine intervention than we should be able to choose our nature. Science teaches us that such is not the case. That your behaviour is determined by natural laws in a chain of cause and effect. When your brains fail your identity changes. Investigate these things and you will find that the statements of science are incompatible with that of religion.

"God created theuniverse" is no more a God did it all statement than saying the Big Bang createdthe universe. The proposition that the construction of the universe was God's doing and that His design for it was set up in such a way as to include many different options for us does not contradict at all with a theory like the Big Bang or the singularity.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, the big bang is the scientific account of the universe from the moment some 10e-35 seconds after the beginning. Second the big bang model predicts the abundances of the light elements in the early universe with an astounding accuracy. It explains features of the microwave background radiation. It explains the abundances of fundamental particles to some degree. The god-did-it "explanation" is devoid of explanatory predictive and describing power. It simply is no match to the big bang theory. There is no god in the equations of physics.

I reallydo not believe that, that I'm incapable of doing things if my brain doesn't want me to, or that you are too. I have options, I have dominion over my mind. My decisions are my own, so that if I fuck up, only I can take responsibility.

So you are a little god yourself. Anything more that you wanted reality for you to offer, by sheer fabulation?

It really is very simple. God does not interfere when a kid dies of kid cancer. Science tries to interfere. God is not relevant, scientific knowledge is.

Why would God interfere?

It seems to me that moral perfectness would be a pretty good reason. In my country it's a fellony to not assist people in distress. Your god is capable of helping the innocent but inactive as a bystander. That is morally abject.

That goes against His nature entirely, the reason for the kid's cancer is that the cells in his body mutated into cancer cells and now the doctors will try to fix him. Do you want to know where God comes in?

If that goes against his nature than he is evil. Are you sure you are worshipping a good god?

God built a path called life and He gave it many different paths. He gave it to us as a gift because He loves us, and let us pick the paths we want to walk. The kid with cancer has many different options, one being; "be angry and sullen and depressed all the time about the cancer," OR, "be happy that he lived a good life so far and hope for the best, including good doctors."

For god's sake, innocent kids get cancer and your god despite his allmighty powers fails to interfere. What option has the kid on his own?

And, really, you think love is an abject moral?

Hm.

Of course not, just that it is cherry picking the statements in the bible.

No it's not. Pick out any Bible verse you'd like, I'll show you what it means from the eyes of God and the eyes of love. Give me full context and passage, too, since that helps/matters.

You show me? And what guarantee against cherry picking is that. Read Leviticus.

And what father should ever submit his own son to the whims of a god and the trauma of a burning stake over an unfalsifiable god? You're human aren't you, judge that from a human perspective and get back your senses.

Not the point. It still stands depending on whatever scientific method we have for observing subatomic particles. You see that claiming to see on ethrough science and claiming to see one through God is no more or less credible than the other. Unless you have faith in the answer being given, you don't know that it isn't all a lie.

Scientific statements are stated falsifiable, must be reproducible are under the scrutiny of peer review. All this does not gaurantee absolute truth but tentative verifiable demonstrable truth in that we can build explanatory, predictive and descriptive models of reality with it that work. Science is based on verification not on simply believing statements on faith. It is a human activity and as such prone to error and fraudulent behaviour and yet it is the best kind of knowledge available to man as is manifest all around us.

And please, don't screw up the quote tags again.