How to prove God exists.

[just a believing guy]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, guy!

Thanks

 

[just a believing guy]

DP

 

[just a believing guy]

This makes no sense to me.
First, this has nothing to do with science.
Second, an atheist is not a person who just doesn't by into christianity, nore is christianity the first religion known to mankind or whatever.
Third, atheism isn't some "alternative" to religion, any religion, either.

Just like "off" isn't some type of alternative TV channel.

Unless, off course "no religion" is to be called an "alternative to religion".


and happy birthday, btw!

The warlocks and witches were offering medicines, remember?

My premisse is that science sprang out of pre-Christianity, off course.

If atheism is no alternative to religion, why is science fighting religion then?

Thanks

 

[bhsmte]

The warlocks and witches were offering medicines, remember?

My premisse is that science sprang out of pre-Christianity, off course.

If atheism is no alternative to religion, why is science fighting religion then?

Thanks

Give specifics, on how science fights religion.

 

[just a believing guy]

DP

 

[just a believing guy]

Give specifics, on how science fights religion.

Science is becoming ever more materialistic. There are scientists who'd like to see their fellow colleagues, who are believers, retired.

 

[Speedwell]

If atheism is no alternative to religion, why is science fighting religion then?

Thanks

Science is not fighting "religion." Science is staving off attacks from right-wing Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is becoming ever more materialistic. There are scientists who'd like to see their fellow colleagues, who are believers, retired.

Examples please. Science follows the evidence and has no concerns about religion in doing its work. Religion on the other hand, does fight with other competing religions, quite often.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science is becoming ever more materialistic. There are scientists who'd like to see their fellow colleagues, who are believers, retired.

-_- you say that while plenty of the most prominent scientists in the community are, in fact, religious. People do not demand that others retire on the basis of their faith alone. Also, science as a discipline has always dealt with the physical and measurable. Even the scientists of the past that tried to form theories around souls and the like made attempts to physically measure the phenomena.

 

[Kylie]

Can you give me an example of a benefit of science that I am happy to take, while at the same time dismissing the science that produced that benefit according to my Boolean standards?

For example, in your opinion, do I enjoy the benefits of the rays of the sun, while at the same time dismissing stellar evolution?

Antibiotics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The warlocks and witches were offering medicines, remember?

Yes, before science was properly established, appeals to magic was rather common place.

My premisse is that science sprang out of pre-Christianity, off course.

Which is a false premise, off course. Not to mention an irrelevant one.
It doesn't actually really matter how science was developed by whom and for what reason. The point is that science works and that it is currently the best tool at our disposal to differentiate truth from fiction.

If atheism is no alternative to religion, why is science fighting religion then?

Science is not "fighting religion".
If science fights against anything, I'ld say it fights against bad/innacurate/false ideas.

Considering that there are hundreds, thousands, of different religions and considering that at best, only one of them is correct (as all religions are mutually exclusive), then it's only logical that through gaining more understanding about reality, several of these religions or interepretations thereof will be shown incorrect. Sure.

If your own religions ideas happen to be some of those ideas that can't stand up to the scrutiny of scientific investigation... then tough luck. Then the sensible thing to do is to revise those ideas, instead of blaming science/reality.

If your beliefs don't match reality, then your beliefs are wrong.

 

[just a believing guy]

Yes, before science was properly established, appeals to magic was rather common place.



Which is a false premise, off course. Not to mention an irrelevant one.
It doesn't actually really matter how science was developed by whom and for what reason. The point is that science works and that it is currently the best tool at our disposal to differentiate truth from fiction.



Science is not "fighting religion".
If science fights against anything, I'ld say it fights against bad/innacurate/false ideas.

Considering that there are hundreds, thousands, of different religions and considering that at best, only one of them is correct (as all religions are mutually exclusive), then it's only logical that through gaining more understanding about reality, several of these religions or interepretations thereof will be shown incorrect. Sure.

If your own religions ideas happen to be some of those ideas that can't stand up to the scrutiny of scientific investigation... then tough luck. Then the sensible thing to do is to revise those ideas, instead of blaming science/reality.

If your beliefs don't match reality, then your beliefs are wrong.

I'm certainly not mentioning magic, but medicines.

There are plenty of examples where science doesn't work. Therefore, calling it ''the best tool'' would be an exaggeration...

Well, not quite... Some Christian churches hold that even those who aren't Christian will be saved...

Who's to say what is reality?!...

 

[quatona]

There are plenty of examples where science doesn't work.

Can you give a few of these examples? Just so we know what you mean...

Therefore, calling it ''the best tool'' would be an exaggeration...

What would you suggest as a better tool for exploring reality?

 

[just a believing guy]

Can you give a few of these examples? Just so we know what you mean...


What would you suggest as a better tool for exploring reality?

I don't have all the answers, but I'm convinced science isn't one of them... it's started to promote bionics, for example... who knows where that would lead.

 

[quatona]

I don't have all the answers,

I didn´t ask for "all the answers". I asked two specific questions.

but I'm convinced

So nothing to see here...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm certainly not mentioning magic, but medicines.

Warlocks and witches... sounds pretty magical to me.

There are plenty of examples where science doesn't work.

Could you give an example? Don't forget to also not mention for each one which "alternative" would work where science doesn't.

Therefore, calling it ''the best tool'' would be an exaggeration...

It is the best tool at our disposal, because it is the one with the single best track record of success.

I didn't say that science is capable to answer any and all questions one might ask. I just said that it is the best tool we have to differentiate truth from fiction.

As in: if science can't manage, then surely no other tool or method can't either.

But hey, you are welcome to demonstrate the opposite.

Well, not quite... Some Christian churches hold that even those who aren't Christian will be saved...

"some"? But not all? Why is there a difference in the first place? Don't they read the same bible?

Who's to say what is reality?!...

How about, we let reality itself answer that question?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't have all the answers, but I'm convinced science isn't one of them...

You don't know, but..... you know anyway?

it's started to promote bionics, for example... who knows where that would lead.

There's a difference between applied science and science as a method to investigate and understand reality.

One is the application / use of knowledge and the other is the gathering of knowledge.

Having said that, here's how wikipedia defines "bionics":
Bionics is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology

and

Examples of bionics in engineering include the hulls of boats imitating the thick skin of dolphins; sonar, radar, and medical ultrasound imaging imitating animal echolocation

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Kylie]

I don't have all the answers, but I'm convinced science isn't one of them... it's started to promote bionics, for example... who knows where that would lead.

So you judge the validity of a tool based on whether you like what it does?

 

[just a believing guy]

So you judge the validity of a tool based on whether you like what it does?

Biophysiology and mechanics -- cannot be good.

 

[bhsmte]

Biophysiology and mechanics -- cannot be good.

LOL