The Ownership of Science

[Ahriman]

Man, this shit is a real snooze fest.

[Abaddon_ire]

If your reading comprehension is that poor, what does that say about your reading of the magic book?

Your idiotic god created the universe and fine tuned it for life? That is not a fact, not science and not even vaguely rational.

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Not at all. Science is evidence based. What science can you provide for your god?

None.

Am I wrong? Have you some particular scientific evidence for your particular version of a god? Of course not.

Put up or shut up.

---

Man, this shit is a real snooze fest.

Is somebody forcing you to read it? No? Then don't read it.

How it eludes you to figure that out is...odd to say the least.

[Anomalocaris]

You understand just fine, you simply insist on arguing counterfactually.  

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I like it - there actually is a difference between religious beliefs and the body of superstition that a given religion might accrue which surround those beliefs.

Dude. A theist will use fine-tuning as a reason to say that the universe is intelligently designed. A theist will also say that God was the prime mover.
Both answers, answer something which science can’t prove but science is used in our case to make an educated guess.
Philosophers use other scientific facts based on quantum mechanics to say that we live in a multiverse or a simulation.

Why are you so confused about this?

---

At a fundamental level, “why” is a nonsensical question.   At fundamental level there can only be how, there can be no why.   if you think why is fundamental, you are not really very inquisitive. 

Anyone can use science, no one should get a pass on borrowing science’s good name to advocate nonsense.

Understood. You’re a true atheist and don’t allow yourself to ask “why”. Some other people like to ask “why”.

No, the Other people you mention, you amongst them no doubt, don’t “like” to ask “why”,  what they like is an comfortable but nonsensical answer that stops more fundamental and more penetrating questions.   

or if those answers are available, shout them down so as to preserve in their own minds a nonsensical world view their childish psychology depends on for an infantile perception of security.

[GaryAnderson]

Yes, some of us have heard of brute facts but I do not think you are there yet. Does the universe exist in the the particular way that it does by necessity or could it have been otherwise? To what exactly, i.e. what kind of objects, do the symbols of the math equation "2 + 2 =4" refer?

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

---

No man. This is why we don’t understand each-other. I’m simply asking if you have a problem with one group or another using science to make leaps of faith on existential topics. And it sounds like you do have a problem with people doing that. This doesn’t strike me as very tolerant because I don’t care who uses science to answer existential questions.
Live and let live.

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.
Science has shown us the values of Fundamental forces in this universe.
A theist says: these values are fine-tuned by God.
Do you have any problems with theists saying that?

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?

---

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Not at all. Science is evidence based. What science can you provide for your god?

None.

Am I wrong? Have you some particular scientific evidence for your particular version of a god? Of course not.

Put up or shut up.

---

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

[Anomalocaris]

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.
Science has shown us the values of Fundamental forces in this universe.
A theist says: these values  are fine-tuned by God.
Do you have any problems with theists saying that?

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?

---

Not at all. Science is evidence based. What science can you provide for your god?

None.

Am I wrong? Have you some particular scientific evidence for your particular version of a god? Of course not.

Put up or shut up.

---

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

fine tuning is not scientific, much less a fact.   get over it and learn some real science from some serious scientists, and stop borrowing the good name of science to push christian garbage.

[Jehanne]

I don’t want to get into math because I’m neither an expert on it nor a big fan but Max Tegmark who has spent his life on mathematics says that “the bottom or pure reality is mathematical”. This is of course a respectable view to me and I don’t mind him using math to arrive at that conclusion.

Professor Tegmark, like everyone else, is entitled to his views.  Problem is that mathematics, sometimes, does not describe reality.  Here's J.J. Thomson's, a Nobel laureate, model of the atom:

Plum pudding model.

His model is perfectly mathematical, but, it does not describe reality, at least in our Universe.  Professor Tegmark really should know better.

[GaryAnderson]

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

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?

---

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

fine tuning is not scientific, much less a fact.   get over it and learn some real science from some serious scientists, and stop borrowing the good name of science to push christian garbage.

Oh okay, so you’re one of those flat-earthers. All right. 😄

[Anomalocaris]

fine tuning is not scientific, much less a fact.   get over it and learn some real science from some serious scientists, and stop borrowing the good name of science to push christian garbage.

Oh okay, so you’re one of those flat-earthers. All right. 😄

go shove a bible up your ass.   for you that is science.

[LadyForCamus]

Man, this shit is a real snooze fest.

As opposed to what you bring to the table?

[GaryAnderson]

I don’t want to get into math because I’m neither an expert on it nor a big fan but Max Tegmark who has spent his life on mathematics says that “the bottom or pure reality is mathematical”. This is of course a respectable view to me and I don’t mind him using math to arrive at that conclusion.

Professor Tegmark, like everyone else, is entitled to his views.  Problem is that mathematics, sometimes, does not describe reality.  Here's J.J. Thomson's, a Nobel laureate, model of the atom:

Plum pudding model.

His model is perfectly mathematical, but, it does not describe reality, at least in our Universe.  Professor Tegmark really should know better.

Hey, whether we like it or not, is not the point. Personally I don’t believe in that, but I respect the guy who has spent his life on Math and I absolutely don’t mind him at all using math to arrive at his conclusions.
I don’t condemn him for using math basically and I certainly don’t want to take math away from him.