Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[BeRational]

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

Were you there?

[jeremyp]

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose.

That's a bold comment. You may be right, but then, you may not.

For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

Oh, please, this is kiddie stuff. Haven't you got anything better?

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

But it's all just guesswork. You can't provide any means of differentiating between true religious ideas and false ones.

[jeremyp]

You are confusing scientism with science.

So you can't answer the question. You religionists are absolutely full of crap.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can't answer the question. You religionists are absolutely full of crap.

Don't take it out on us religionists just because you don't know your science(good) from your scientism( Bad ).

[SteveH]

Wow, is Spud really saying that because we haven't been present when stars form, therefore it didn't happen?   Gordon Bennett.  I thought I'd seen everything.   So only things that I experience, can be counted as 'true'?   That sure narrows it down a bit.  How about Christ's crucifixion then?

In your rush to have a sneer at religion, you have misread Spud's post. He didn't say that.

[Spud]

That's a bold comment. You may be right, but then, you may not.

See #1045

Oh, please, this is kiddie stuff. Haven't you got anything better?

What I said about humans not being able to see star and moon formation was probably not a good way of illustrating what I was trying to say. Science could come up with the mechanism; however, Vlad articulated what I wanted to say, in #1045. But then I guess we are back to your claim that there may not have been a beginning!

But it's all just guesswork. You can't provide any means of differentiating between true religious ideas and false ones.

"By their fruits you will know them"
If someone has encountered God he is probably gonna have white hair, no? 

[Gordon]

Spud

Vlad's #1045 quoted below.

I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.

You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.

While Vlad notes, in his first paragraph, that 'science' is limited to what its methods are appropriate for (which nobody disputes) he says nothing about how anything that is claimed to fall outwith 'science' should be recognised in the first place and then studied, which would presumably require methods that are analogous to the scientific method - the 'unscientific method' if you will. His second paragraph is presumably intended to convey some point or other - I've no idea what though.

That you and Vlad are in support of each other is lovely - though I'm not sure which one of you should be worried most.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.

You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.

So science can't study something when there's nothing to be studied eh?

Wow, that's like, you know, deeeeep man (takes another very long drag on the wacky baccy)...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

See #1045

Reply 1045 is entirely vacuous. You're going to need a better argument.

[Spud]

Spud

Vlad's #1045 quoted below.


While Vlad notes, in his first paragraph, that 'science' is limited to what its methods are appropriate for (which nobody disputes) he says nothing about how anything that is claimed to fall outwith 'science' should be recognised in the first place and then studied, which would presumably require methods that are analogous to the scientific method - the 'unscientific method' if you will.

Why should he say anything about that? His point was that science can only analyse what exists. It can't explain why anything exists, only describe it as it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Why should he say anything about it? His point was that science can only analyse what exists. It can't explain why anything exists, only describe it as it is.

Did you mean to say that?

[Spud]

I meant to say that science can't explain how or why thwre is something rather than nothing, if that helps clarify.

[Gordon]

I meant to say that science can't explain how or why thwre is something rather than nothing, if that helps clarify.

It might at some point explain the 'how', when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions, but 'why' is a different question altogether - why do you think 'why' is a valid question to ask in this case?

[jeremyp]

Don't take it out on us religionists just because you don't know your science(good) from your scientism( Bad ).

I asked you a question and you haven't even attempted to answer it. Of course I'm going to blame you for your inability to frame a coherent defence of your position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might at some point explain the 'how'

How?

[jeremyp]

See #1045

Why? It was just Vlad's usual pile of incoherent garbage.

What I said about humans not being able to see star and moon formation was probably not a good way of illustrating what I was trying to say. Science could come up with the mechanism; however, Vlad articulated what I wanted to say, in #1045.

Science could come up with a mechanism and then (this is the important bit) the predicted effects of the mechanism are compared with reality to see if the mechanism is plausible. What tests do religionists do to determine if their ideas are right or wrong?

But then I guess we are back to your claim that there may not have been a beginning!"

You understand it is not a claim? It's merely a possibility that hasn't been ruled out. It looks like time in the Universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, but the Universe itself might just be. This is not any more of a stretch than the Christian assertion that God just is. Well, in fact it is less of a stretch because we have direct evidence that the Universe exists.

You have no means of knowing if your ideas about God and religion are true. This means that your pontifications about them are a pointless waste of time.

[jeremyp]

Why should he say anything about that? His point was that science can only analyse what exists.

So science can't analyse God because God doesn't exist. For once we agree.

[Gordon]

How?

No idea, Vlad - but you'll know this already since I also said, and which you decided to ignore when quoting me, 'when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions'.

Naughty Vlad!

[jeremyp]

No idea, Vlad - but you'll know this already since I also said, and which you decided to ignore when quoting me, 'when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions'.

Naughty Vlad!

There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question. Perhaps that is one reason why religion is so successful; people would rather accept any old crap rather than embrace their ignorance on a topic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I meant to say that science can't explain how or why thwre is something rather than nothing, if that helps clarify.

Then you're entirely wrong to do so. "Science" spends a great deal of time and effort working out just how and why the phenomena it observes occurred. The study of fossilised dinosaur footprints for example yields all sorts of data about the species involved, their size, their health, their weight, their type of locomotion, their speed, whether they travelled alone or in groups, you name it. 

Try this to get you started:

https://www.popsci.com/dinosaur-footprints-found-in-scotland

[Gordon]

https://www.popsci.com/dinosaur-footprints-found-in-scotland

Been there and seen them for myself - one set is in the rocks at Staffin, and are easily found (when the tide is out).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So science can't analyse God because God doesn't exist. For once we agree.

Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy, including the origin or existence of the universe. In these matters science often gives way to maths and IMV whether some scientists like it or not philosophy and when those don't do the job, antitheist scientists will try and shuffle back on science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Science cannot analyse a lot of things Jeremy, including the origin or existence of the universe. In these matters science often gives way to maths and IMV whether some scientists like it or not philosophy and when those don't do the job, antitheist scientists will try and shuffle back on science.

Even by your dismal standards that’s already a strong contender for stupidest post of the day.

First, “science” can already tell us a lot about the origin of the universe and there’s no reason to think that its remarkable progress in that area won’t continue.

Second, science often “gives way” to other disciplines because of the impracticality of testing their hypotheses. Consider for example the Higgs-Boson conjecture before the technology and funding was available to build the Large Hadron Collider. There’s no “like it or not” about that though – it’s just the reality of doing science.

Third, it’s not “antitheist scientists” – it’s “anti incoherent nonsensists” (or “indifferent to incoherent nonsensists” if you want to be accurate about it). The tools and methods of science are indifferent to the claims of theology for the same reason they’re indifferent to the claims of leprechaunism or of turtles-all-the-way-downism. They’re just white noise with zero explanatory power – necessarily so until and unless their various proponents come up with a method to test their assertions.

Which is precisely the point at which you always head for the door remember?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Even by your dismal standards that’s already a strong contender for stupidest post of the day.

First, “science” can already tell us a lot about the origin of the universe and there’s no reason to think that its remarkable progress in that area won’t continue.

Second, science often “gives way” to other disciplines because of the impracticality of testing their hypotheses. Consider for example the Higgs-Boson conjecture before the technology and funding was available to build the Large Hadron Collider. There’s no “like it or not” about that though – it’s just the reality of doing science.
   

What do you think science tells us about the origin of the universe Hillside?

There are things that science cannot yet tell us about matter because we don't have the means.

Science may well tell us more and more about matter but it cannot say anything about the origin of matter/energy without invoking more or previous matter/energy in which case it is not examining the origin but merely matter/energy itself.

That is why science cannot examine the origin of the universe.

[Spud]

It might at some point explain the 'how', when there is a sufficient basis to investigate the 'how' and draw provisional conclusions,

So far it has had to make assumptions in order to do so. Eg the existence of dark matter to enable gas clouds to collapse and form stars. How do you know this won't always be the case?