Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So this "something" will make itself known to me, and convince me that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, and then I'm good?Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.
Neither. The purpose of science isn´t to question something but to find workable, reliable explanations about the way the physical world works.Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything indefinitely?
OR
Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything until an undeniable truth is found?
If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?[7quote]
I don´t understand what one has to do with the other.
In order to avoid equivocations (I know the way you operate with the word "truth" from earlier threads, after all) I would talk about "facts" rather than "undeniable truth".If the purpose is the latter, then wouldn't each individual be expected to accept the undeniable truth?
But again I am having problems understanding your question: "Expected" by whom? And what does this expectation have to do with anything?
Well, it´s neither.IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth.
Hmm. The results are remarkable, though. As opposed to all other methods of "figuring out reality".I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.
To tell from previous threads, you have a very unusual way of defining "rational" and "reasonable". Maybe eventually you´ll find the time to support this your opinion.The most rational way to view reality is to question it with the intent of finding the truth.
Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything indefinitely?
OR
Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything until an undeniable truth is found?
If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?
If the purpose is the latter, then wouldn't each individual be expected to accept the undeniable truth?
IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth. I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.
The most rational way to view reality is to question it with the intent of finding the truth.
Thoughts?
Or do we continue assuming they're might not be an ultimate conclusion so we can continue with the pointless circular process that isn't leading anywhere significant? Or is it leading to something significant?
Does science have a point? If so, what is that point?
If all facts and all true things do not point to an ultimate truth, then what's the point of understanding facts and true things?
I agree in the main; however, I also believe science serves a less pragmatic, aesthetic role: it activates a certain aesthetic appreciation for nature.Neither. The purpose of science isn´t to question something but to find workable, reliable explanations about the way the physical world works.
After all this... you totally blew it with the conclusion.In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality....
After all this... you totally blew it with the conclusion.
Actually, that is much better. A generalization still, but way better.There is truth in my conclusion. I view science as a tool to help reach complete understanding of our reality, but this complete understanding can only be through God, who has complete understanding of reality and can give understanding as He pleases.
You don't take this view do you? Therefore, you view science as a tool to help understand reality, but not necessarily find complete understanding because you don't know if complete understanding is possible for humans to achieve.
This is my conclusion. Take it or leave it.
You really weren't listening, were you?Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.
In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.
Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"
Seems contradictory, that:I view science as a tool to help reach complete understanding of our reality, but this complete understanding can only be through God
Seems contradictory, that:
Complete understanding only comes through God AND science is a tool for complete understanding.
That's a definition of intelligence, not science; and in terms of application, it's technology and engineering.Definition: science...
ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.
In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.
Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"
In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God. Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.
Just some observations. Take them or leave them.
Since your conclusions are completely self serving of your original intent with this OP and clearly demonstrate you ignored the points made by many, I will leave them.
As we are capable of 1. observation and 2. reason, and we are curious, its inevitable we developed science as a method. If you think it was God's goal that we posses those capacities, that makes a certain Christian sense.Science is a tool that God has allowed us to develop because God views understanding as good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?