The Ownership of Science

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[GaryAnderson]

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life

Nope

Yes. I’m not going to spend energy to explain this to you but this is a fact.

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.

Not precisely. Life has tuned itself to the universe (more specifically, to environments within the universe).

Boru

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”.

Yes but science cannot and will not give us the answers to existential questions such as “Why does the universe exists” or “why do we exist” so some people like Michio Kaku and other theoretical physicists make leaps of faith based on educated guesses to attempt to answer “the why”.

Why not? Either something, a being with intent exists or it doesn't. You're conceding the point of atheists in withholding belief in something not proven if you say that science, the study of the physical world, could not ever give us the answer of "why". If your god is real and made everything with intent, then it could conceivably, eventually be proven in some way. And the proving would be using science(physical observation and testing, even in a rudimentary way). And the why could simply be "this happened as a result of this" which science could also illustrate.

I think you’re missing the point here. Do you have a problem with people using science to philosophize? Or theists to support their beliefs?
Nobody will know for sure either way because if we did we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Philosophers and theists and other people make leaps of faith based on educated guesses.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Theists will use science in relation to the existence of the universe and that it’s fine tuned for life. 

I’ve yet to see one do that. To be as generous as possible, theists think they’re using science to do these things, but they don’t understand the implications of the facts they’re reciting by rote.

To be somewhat less generous, they’re deliberately misusing science to keep contributions from the gullible flowing in.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I strongly doubt that religionists can use science to support a religious proposition (although they can certainly use it for other things). A methodology which is designed to base hypothesis on observations of the natural world, construct theories to explain those observations, and then have those theories challenged by other observers seems remarkably unsuited to apply to supernatural or spiritual ideas.

Boru

It's absolutely possible, there's such a thing as a religion of nature.  Insomuch as a given religionist fails to employ such a productive and compelling methodology of gathering facts about the world in mere reality to inform their religious views, then it's no wonder they end up with dead and life denying religions. It's a specific and individual failure.

[Nay_Sayer]

Science?! That's the work of the antipasta. Careful now op.

[GaryAnderson]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Deesse23]

Nope

Yes. I’m not going to spend energy to explain this to you but this is a fact.

Unfortunately (for you) not.

[Simon Moon]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes. The mis-use of science. This is where we are going to get into interpretations again.

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened.

An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here?

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you. Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

All I see are 3 opinions about generally accepts facts. Why is fine-tuning not a viable hypothesis? What exactly is your objection other than incredulity?