• 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.

What is Science?

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
So you disagree with me. Therefore, you think that I must be using a logical fallacy but you cannot seem to determine which one it is?

Hi,

Since Philosophy is your area and not mine, plus being totally out of place in science for the levels that you seem to be using it, I thought you could find your self in those three places right off that I found you.

I am a scientist, not a philosopher. As such, it is hard for me to switch to your language set, for it is not the language of science.

I found you, in three places I think. How many did you find yourself invovolved in? But remember this is about science, not philosophy. Science got us to the moon, and gave you computers. Philosophy did not.

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
None whatsoever, faith is not needed because I have evidence that it works, faith is only needed when there is no evidence,
that's why faith is reserved for religions, in fact it's the very reason all religions are called 'faiths'.
Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.

Does that mean that science will work well in the future?

Only if you believe that that the past is a good guide to the future.
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
None whatsoever, faith is not needed because I have evidence that it works, faith is only needed when there is no evidence,
that's why faith is reserved for religions, in fact it's the very reason all religions are called 'faiths'.

Hi,

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Only on your point, Faith, Religions and God are observeable and therefore in the realm of scientific observation, and observations. If any evidence is there, then a scientist can look at that. With enough evidence, he/she might actually be able to say something by the force of that evidence.

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

Since Philosophy is your area and not mine, plus being totally out of place in science for the levels that you seem to be using it, I thought you could find your self in those three places right off that I found you.

I am a scientist, not a philosopher. As such, it is hard for me to switch to your language set, for it is not the language of science.

I found you, in three places I think. How many did you find yourself invovolved in? But remember this is about science, not philosophy. Science got is to the moon, and gave you computers. Philosophy did not.

LOVE,
Science did not get me to the moon. Therefore, the claim "Science got is (us?) to the moon" is factually incorrect.

Science did not give me computers. However, even if it could be proved that science had given me this computer, why should I think that one past success is a good predictor of future success?
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Only on your point, Faith, Religions and God are observeable and therefore in the realm of scientific observation, and observations. If any evidence is there, then a scientist can look at that. With enough evidence, he/she might actually be able to say something by the force of that evidence.

LOVE,
You have previously claimed that you, as a scientist, proceed by trying to falsify a theory in question.

The theory is "God exists." How could I experimentally falsify this?
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Science did not get me to the moon. Therefore, the claim "Science got is (us?) to the moon" is factually incorrect.

Science did not give me computers. However, even if it could be proved that science had given me this computer, why should I think that one past success is a good predictor of future success?

Hi,

The unanswered question was, how many logical fallacies do you delve in that are on the list. I think it is three or more?

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

What number do you think represents your responses?

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
You have previously claimed that you, as a scientist, proceed by trying to falsify a theory in question.

The theory is "God exists." How could I experimentally falsify this?

Hi,

Why do I think that is an tacit or otherwise ad hominem attack and also a from authority attack, as you are wanting to judge me based on a test, in which you proceed from a position in which you seem to not be a scientist?

How does a non scientist, quiz or check the credentials or veracity of a scientist?

LOVE,
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

Why do I think that is an tacit or otherwise ad hominem attack and also a from authority attack, as you are wanting to judge me based on a test, in which you proceed from a position in which you seem to not be a scientist?

How does a non scientist, quiz or check the credentials or veracity of a scientist?

LOVE,
All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.

The reason I am asking is because most people seem to think that God's existence is not experimentally falsifiable. I do not consider it an ad hominem attack to ask you how to experimentally falsify God.

What kind of a test could be used to prove that God does not exist?
 
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.

Does that mean that science will work well in the future?

Only if you believe that that the past is a good guide to the future.
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?
Science doesn't care what went before or what comes after, if there is evidence for something then the people using science can find it and test it, if there is no evidence the people using science will not even see it, anecdotal testimony is not evidence it's hearsay.

What would you have us do forget science and go with mythology? would you have us go back to the dark ages just to satisfy your beliefs? would you have everyone believe in a non-existent God just because you do? do you believe in all the other Gods, if not why on earth would you expect people to believe in your God when there is as much evidence for their Gods as there is for yours, none.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.

The reason I am asking is because most people seem to think that God's existence is not experimentally falsifiable. I do not consider it an ad hominem attack to ask you how to experimentally falsify God.

What kind of a test could be used to prove that God does not exist?

Hi,

I don't know how to falsify a fact. The fact is God exists. How I found that out, was I tried to prove that the Bible is wrong, but using the standard techniques used in research as that was my field in that time frame.

I took a job in a division of a major company, that needed a researcher for a research project on an Optically Isolated 440 Volt SCR. I ran the project as project manager and when it was over, I did other work for them.

The question of the Bible came up, and I knew nothing about it. The year was about 1990. I had no idea if that God idea, or God Theory if you will allow that terminology, was real or not. However, the need to find out if that book were man made or not came up.

I chose to try and prove the book wrong, without prejudice. I hoped that if it were man made, there would be an error in there somewhere. I chose a method from the many many many methods that are available. I then set about to find an error that was provable.

The short story was, I could find none. I looked around then. No one else had either. I then took the required break between segments of a research project that is long, and then ran five contolled experiments, testing really if God said some things or not. ((I think))

The results of those had no variance and only one answer. God did indeed say those things. When I was done, I knew not only that in a very special way, the Bible is Real, but also God is Real, and then God did much to reveal Himself to me, first in small doses and then in a very very very big way.

I don't know if that is what you were asking. I tried to falsify the Bible, not God.

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.
Are you feeling alright, you do realise that when no one can falsify your God it will mean all the other Gods will exist as well,
on top of that it will mean you will believe that anything that can not be falsified (like Unicorns) will also exist, not to mention all the comic book hero's, do you really want that? would it not be simpler just to wait until there is evidence for something before you believe it exists?
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Science doesn't care what went before or what comes after, if there is evidence for something then the people using science can find it and test it, if there is no evidence the people using science will not even see it, anecdotal testimony is not evidence it's hearsay.

What would you have us do forget science and go with mythology? would you have us go back to the dark ages just to satisfy your beliefs? would you have everyone believe in a non-existent God just because you do? do you believe in all the other Gods, if not why on earth would you expect people to believe in your God when there is as much evidence for their Gods as there is for yours, none.
You didn't answer the question. In fact, if we look at katerinah1947's list of logical fallacies we can see that you are engaging in the Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy. You are claiming that questioning science will lead to a catastrophic return to the dark ages.

Get a grip.

Answer the question. On what basis do you believe that the past is a good guide to the future? Or do you simply take it on blind faith?
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Are you feeling alright, you do realise that when no one can falsify your God it will mean all the other Gods will exist as well,
on top of that it will mean you will believe that anything that can not be falsified (like Unicorns) will also exist, not to mention all the comic book hero's, do you really want that? would it not be simpler just to wait until there is evidence for something before you believe it exists?
Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's go back and take the argument from the top.

1. K insisted that God is open to scientific inquiry.
2. Things that are subjects of scientific inquiry are experimentally falsifiable.
3. I asked whether God was experimentally falsifiable.
4. Then you, out of nowhere, try to argue that unicorns must exist if God is found to not be a subject of scientific inquiry.

Get a grip.

Clearly you are not following the argument. Try again.
 
Upvote 0

Zosimus

Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Oct 3, 2013
1,656
33
Lima, Peru
✟24,500.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

I don't know how to falsify a fact. The fact is God exists. How I found that out, was I tried to prove that the Bible is wrong, but using the standard techniques used in research as that was my field in that time frame.

I took a job in a division of a major company, that needed a researcher for a research project on an Optically Isolated 440 Volt SCR. I ran the project as project manager and when it was over, I did other work for them.

The question of the Bible came up, and I knew nothing about it. The year was about 1990. I had no idea if that God idea, or God Theory if you will allow that terminology, was real or not. However, the need to find out if that book were man made or not came up.

I chose to try and prove the book wrong, without prejudice. I hoped that if it were man made, there would be an error in there somewhere. I chose a method from the many many many methods that are available. I then set about to find an error that was provable.

The short story was, I could find none. I looked around then. No one else had either. I then took the required break between segments of a research project that is long, and then ran five contolled experiments, testing really if God said some things or not. ((I think))

The results of those had no variance and only one answer. God did indeed say those things. When I was done, I knew not only that in a very special way, the Bible is Real, but also God is Real, and then God did much to reveal Himself to me, first in small doses and then in a very very very big way.

I don't know if that is what you were asking. I tried to falsify the Bible, not God.

LOVE,
Obviously, not everyone agrees that God exists. Accordingly, God is not a fact in the same sense as "grass is green." Everyone can see that grass is green, but not everyone can see God.

Additionally, your response didn't answer the question. You tried (and say that you failed) to falsify the Bible. However, you didn't say what you would have found that would have convinced you that the Bible was false.

You said that you performed 5 controlled experiments. What were those experiments?
 
Upvote 0

Bradly Capel

Active Member
Dec 2, 2015
239
52
37
UK
✟651.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Obviously you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's go back and take the argument from the top.
1. K insisted that God is open to scientific inquiry.
2. Things that are subjects of scientific inquiry are experimentally falsifiable.
3. I asked whether God was experimentally falsifiable.
4. Then you, out of nowhere, try to argue that unicorns must exist if God is found to not be a subject of scientific inquiry.
Get a grip.
Clearly you are not following the argument. Try again.
You are right I did not follow your argument, I was wrong and you were right.
My mistake, I don't know where I read this, 'All I am asking is for you to design a test that would experimentally falsify God.'
I'm sorry I must as you say get a grip because I have a serious reading comprehension problem.
 
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Okay, so science seems to have worked well in the past.

Does that mean that science will work well in the future?

Only if you believe that that the past is a good guide to the future.
How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?

Hi,

I have seen Bradley's answer.

I agree totally with the science part of his answer.

The second paragraph is not of interest right now.

You stated he did not answer your questions, the one above. I would like to answer them the best that I can from my background.

Does that mean that science wil work well in the future ?

Yes but a qualified yes. Within reasonable spans of time, it is and has been an accurate predictor of the future, with near absolute accuracies.

How can you know whether the past is a good guide to the future?

Although I do not want to talk about what I am not schooled in or familiar with, in science for at least the last 2000 years or so, it very well predicts what is going to happen in the future.

Not in my field, it seems that history repeats itself, and we are presently in the throws of No Nation that is a Super Power, stays that way forever. Once, India was the worlds richest and most powerful country in the world, I am told, but. I am no historian.

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

katerinah1947

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,690
805
✟81,130.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Obviously, not everyone agrees that God exists. Accordingly, God is not a fact in the same sense as "grass is green." Everyone can see that grass is green, but not everyone can see God.

Additionally, your response didn't answer the question. You tried (and say that you failed) to falsify the Bible. However, you didn't say what you would have found that would have convinced you that the Bible was false.

You said that you performed 5 controlled experiments. What were those experiments?

Hi,

The point of knowing God exists or not, is not for everyone. The point of everyone agreeing that God exists is also not the point. The point also is not for everyone. I would like it to be though. I would.

The fact that I know God is Real, is really something that I know. I also know some things that no one else knows, but all people might be like that. All people have something in their lives that they know about, that few if any others know.

I did not try to falisify the Bible in my world of work and words. I tried to prove that the Bible is not Real, it is not what it purports to be. I tried to prove that the Bible is wrong somewhere, not falsifiy it. That word is foreign to me. It sounds more like a Philosophy word, and may have a direct equivalent in science, or it may be used in science now, but it was not a word used when I worked in science. So, I'd rather not use it, in reference to my work.

What would have convinced me the Bible is false, is anything that I understood exactly what was meant in their wordings in The Bible, and, it was contrary to any proven science but, but proven science that I also fully understood, and I fully intended and did present my findings then to the world.

When I was done, I had two items that I could prove did not happen that The Bible said did happen****


**** Only in peer review, what I thought was wrong by sending my work off to any major religion that would look at it, was that I did make two errors in my findings, and actually I only had two provable items that would prove to me and the world that the Bible is and was a work of fiction, rather than what I actually found.

So the long story is, I found only two items, but upon review after two religious groups the Baptists and The Roman Catholics got back to me, was I had made errors. Those two items were now Plausiby correct.

Are you sure you understand controlled experiments? Only one thing is changed in a controlled experiment, and the results are tallied.

In my case, the first of those is all I remember any more. The control was similar in nature to the way things always work, like in a a person's year, in happiness and satisfaction and interactions with others. And then changing but one thing, doing that because it is stated in the Bible and assumed to be said directly by God, therefore it is doing it because God said it, and not knowing at all how it would work out.

Rather than a year's worth of interactions, I chose the responses in happiness and satisfation and interactions over a 35 year period, which I knew being a natural researcher as it is just something we notice and categorize. I chose my parent's level of happiness and satisfaction and the same interactions, as I had, 35 years of results, in working with and for them, at times in both family, business and now a daughter relationship. I had all of that for an issue that I had always done. I always honored my mother and my father. I have always done that.

Then, I chose honor the father and thy mother, because God was supposedly to have said that and it was simple enough for me to understand, almost. Almost, as when I ran the experiement, I realized almost instantly that I did not really know the definition of the word honor.

I ran it for two weeks anyway, expecting to shut it down, for that error, as not even a single item, not even a word can be not understood, in a controlled experiment. Everything has to be understood. Everything.

In two weeks, that was no longer a problem, as I could feel if that makes any sense yet, what the word meant, and what I could feel is what it meant.

100% of the results matched what would be expected if God did actually say that, and more. I was not their primary caretaker. My brother and his wife were, as the family business was passed on to my brother to run, and he actually loved his mom, and his dad. He actually did.

I ran that experiment till I had enough pain versus satisfaction results. In my entire life, I have never ever not had problems with some of things I did with my dad and my mom. I that year and a half, that 18 months of secret, yes secret experimenting, not once were they not happy with the results. And, like I said, they knew nothing. No one did. I could not taint the results, by letting anyone know.

When it came time to stop that first experiment, the results were so good, that I left it running telling no one, but I went on to each of the other four and ran them, one at a time.

Later, I was the go to person for my mom and dad. I live more than 500 miles from them. All issues on what to do with them and how to treat them came to me. Yes, they are both dead now, both dying years apart. Yet, till they died, even with each of them on thier death beds separately, I was the go to person, because of that first controlled experiment, where I had to feel honor, as that word I soon found out, I did not know what it meant in practice, when I was sure that I did, when I designed that experiement.

I compared 35 years of results, to only 1 1/2 years of results. The only change was doing that because it is said in That book that God said that.

Is this any help?

LOVE,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0