Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[downbeatplumb]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.

No supernatural event has ever been discovered. To continue to believe in them is like believing there is a unicorn just round the corner, not thinking it is a vague possibility but believing there is one. Without evidence for unicorns the rational thing is to not believe in them.

[The Grand Nudger]

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

You're not clarifying, you're trying to split the baby - and that's fine...but that -is- what I'm asking you about.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.]

b-mine.

Then there's no need to reference a metric that you do not accept as applicable.  You have not done so, you've simply termed those contradictory narratives "supernatural" and so exempt from the criteria that -you- proposed.  The one cannot be consistently maintained in the face of the other. So which should we do, and why, again.....?

The trouble doesn't end there, ofc.

The world -is- the center of the universe, supernaturally.
Sickness -is- a judgement from god, supernaturally.
The earth -is- 6000 years old, supernaturally.

You cannot consistently dismiss these, unless your opinion on the exemption of the supernatural is abandoned and we re-assume the previously abandoned metrics.

Not only are you proposing inconsistent metrics, you're inconsistently -applying- them. It's all a hot fucking mess and there's no point to it whatsoever. You have not done what you propose should be done, and that's okay..because, according to your own comments, it cannot -be- done. You don't believe in the silly shit™, but it's not for the rationalizations presented to us here.

[robvalue]

"It's reasonable to believe X because you can't prove X wrong" is the argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. It's not a sensible position for anyone trying to be scientific to take. Someone would only take it with a conclusion they want to be true. Why else why you start from a specific conclusion and work backwards?

Just saying "You can't prove X to be wrong" is simply observing it's (currently) unfalsifiable. Science doesn't deal with such useless claims.

https://youtu.be/BzxMXzdaxtI

[madog]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.

Look, by your logic nothing can be in conflict with science as long as the claim is its not possible (supernatural) .... So a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is not in conflict with science .... Even if science can prove what a rainbow is it doesn't prove that those that believe wrong ....they can just state there is an end to the rainbow and a pot of gold only visible to a believer ...

True  "supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world" natural people in the natural world do, based on nothing other than an ancient fiction book 

[RoadRunner79]

I would say that it would be stretching it to say that science, can "prove" any such thing.  

I am curious.... are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?

Don't start again with your reading what you want into what I say to turn it into something you think you have an argument for 

And note I was clear "at our present evolutionary stage" " produce the birth of a human child without sperm"

I am noticing a trend, with your starting assumptions, and how you begin a conversation with me.

But I wonder what you think that it is that I am reading into it, and what you are implying that I am trying to manipulate into a different argument?

I am taking issue with the word "prove" in your statement.   Science can tell you what is normative, or possibilities based on what is thought should happen.   It may be able to make inferences, but I don't think it can come to a deductive proof, especially with an outside agent involved.

Perhaps you could clarify on what you thing that science has "proved" in this matter?

Also I would like to repeat my other question, of "are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?" Or basically just asking why behind your claim.

[madog]

Don't start again with your reading what you want into what I say to turn it into something you think you have an argument for 

And note I was clear "at our present evolutionary stage" " produce the birth of a human child without sperm"

  "are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?" Or basically just asking why behind your claim.

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really necessary.  Here, we either came from life, seeded if you will, or we can from inanimate organic chemicals present on this rock.  Either way, we evolved from that point to this point.

[Homeless Nutter]

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

No, not really. Theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life - as of yet, anyway. Regardless of how life on Earth came to be - biological evolution is a fact.

[SteveII]

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

You're not clarifying, you're trying to split the baby - and that's fine...but that -is- what I'm asking you about.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.]

b-mine.

Then there's no need to reference a metric that you do not accept as applicable.  You have not done so, you've simply termed those contradictory narratives "supernatural" and so exempt from the criteria that -you- proposed.  The one cannot be consistently maintained in the face of the other.  So which should we do, and why, again.....?

The trouble doesn't end there, ofc.

The world -is- the center of the universe, supernaturally.
Sickness -is- a judgement from god, supernaturally.
The earth -is- 6000 years old, supernaturally.

You cannot consistently dismiss these, unless your opinion on the exemption of the supernatural is abandoned and we re-assume the previously abandoned metrics.

Not only are you proposing inconsistent metrics, you're inconsistently -applying- them.  It's all a hot fucking mess and there's no point to it whatsoever.  You have not done what you propose should be done, and that's okay..because, according to your own comments, it cannot -be- done.  You don't believe in the silly shit™, but it's not for the rationalizations presented to us here.

I understand your point. I will think about it and respond later. Right now I should be working.

[madog]

No, why would you even think that?  Life had to begin from something that was not living ... it is necessary for evolution ....

No, not really. Theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life - as of yet, anyway. Regardless of how   life on Earth came to be - biological evolution is a fact.

True .... bad example, but I still consider life came from non life, even if life came from another planet ....

But then it could be argued that that would just push evolution back to the point and place where non life became life .....