The CIA Likely Has Evidence if God Exists or Not

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Even if I were to use the term "science" in the same way (which I don't have an objection to, I just don't use it that way that often), that still doesn't fit the way daskakik used the word when he was talking about science getting things wrong. It's the scientists that can get things wrong, not science (whether interpreted as referring to knowledge or a specific methodology to acquire said knowledge*) itself.

*: one may argue that a specific methodology is wrong, but that's not what daskakik was referring to when he 'said' that science often gets things wrong (technically, he was referring to someone else bringing up that point, so that person was the one saying it wrong). This way of using the word "science" is no different than using the phrase "science says ...". No, it's the scientists that say stuff. And it's the scientists that can get things wrong, and have gotten it wrong in the past.

Note that in my definition for knowledge, several methodologies or means to acquire said knowledge were also briefly mentioned.

Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/realities/certainties/truths* acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. *: I.e. things that are factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error.

Notice how it's not much different from what you described, especially if you keep in mind that experimentation builds personal experience and allows for relevant observations to the subject under "study"/investigation, which study would include "rational analysis".

But think about this, would it not be more useful (less confusing, less ambiguous concerning the term "science") if you were to make the following adjustment to your initial statement quoted at the start of this comment?

[A scientific method] is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

And then reserve the word "science" for what it meant originally (knowledge) when it was adopted from the Latin scientia (because people liked to show off their Latin skills and appear smart, lending more credence to whatever philosophies/ideas/views/opinions they were selling as "natural philosophers", as they still called themselves*, for marketing purposes).

*: From wiki on the page for "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Basically the term "(natural) philosopher" was getting a bad rep because of everything that was proven wrong by what Newton would call experimental philosophers, so again for marketing reasons, the term "scientist" was invented and became much more popular to describe yourself as.

a reply to: whereislogic

I kind of get where you are coming from, scientific methodology is a robust and reliable way to acquire knowledge, and the practice of scientific experimentation can and does involve human error as you suggest.

Hence the possibility of revising theories as our understanding deepens.

It's a process that acknowledges and corrects mistakes over time as new and better methods of experimentation become available.

But no process is perfect.

And the fact remains science as a method of inquiry has its limitations.

Its allowed us to make remarkable progress in understanding and explaining our natural world and universe.

However, there are aspects of the human condition and existence that extend beyond the scope of science.

Nonetheless, and as i suggest, science is the best tool humanity has in her bag that will allow us to attempt to understand our universe, even if it is only a fraction of such comparatively speaking.

REALLY???
...please read before posting further....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!


Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts
Terms And Conditions

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Nonetheless, and as i suggest, science is the best tool humanity has in her bag that will allow us to attempt to understand our universe, even if it is only a fraction of such comparatively speaking.

I would say inductive reasoning as applied to* scientific/knowledgeable investigation is one of the best tools "humanity has in her bag ..." etc., as it (along with observation, or because it relies on observed facts) also nicely satisfies the need for verification before you can correctly think of something as science/knowledge (or a fact, as something that is true/certain/correct, without error). As also recommended in the Bible at 1 Thess 5:21:

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

*: of course, I do mean, when properly or correctly "applied". I've seen some people claiming they were applying inductive reasoning make a real mess of their reasoning. Obviously, then it doesn't work that well at getting at the truth of the matter. I've even seen some people do it on purpose to attempt to denigrate the value and effectiveness of inductive reasoning at getting at the truth of a matter. Not a very convincing attempt either (that was not on ATS btw, I think it was youtube, 2 in a row in response to one of my comments there).

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you, just sitting through a school play/concert for my lad.

Interesting subject, enjoying the conversation.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

But scientific knowledge is always provisional, and subject to refinement and adjustment, based on new evidence and insights as our knowledge base grows.

Science is the best tool we have in the bag that will allow us to resolve and understand our universe and/or the reality we think we experience.

I look at it this way, there are two books that never fail. That are real knowledge, or science as it were. The first is the book of creation. According to scientists there are four fundamental laws of the universe: (1) Electromagnetism, (2) the strong nuclear force, (3) the weak nuclear force, (4) and gravity. By means of these irrevocable laws that are unfailing, we don't have to worry about falling off the earth. We can be sure the sky will be above our heads when we wake up, that the sun will faithfully carve its path across the sky each day, that the boisterous waves of the ocean will remain in their place. By means of these laws we can communicate with each other with no problem by means of things such as the internet, even if we don't know each other. I can communicate my thoughts with you, and you are able to read them and understand them. What is more, by means of these unwavering laws, we can build satellites and send them to the far reaches of the solar system. We can calculate where a planet, a comet, an asteroid will be, and with 100% precision and certainty, without any doubt, launch a satellite and make it reach its destination successfully.

We as humans have the capacity to peer into the book of creation and learn of these laws that already have been put into place. We may not fully understand them, and we may be wrong. But they are not.

The second book are the words God inspired to be guarded in the book that was handed down faithfully to us known as the Bible. True, there may be certain errors that have crept into the Bible over the millennium, but they usually can be detected because there are so many ancient copies available to compare to each other. And God's word never errs. It is always right 100% of the time. As Jesus Christ, when he came to the earth said, about his Father's, Jehovah God's unerring word of truth:

"Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled."-Luke 16:17.

And since the heaven and earth will always exist, there is no way that God's word in the Bible could ever fail:

"He has established the earth on its foundations;
It will not be moved from its place forever and ever."
-Psalm 104:5.

As whatislogic stated, any so-called knowledge or science that is contrary to God's word is false knowledge, or pseudoscience:

"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith."-1 Timothy 6:20-21.

"But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar."-Romans 3:4.

originally posted by: randomuser
any so-called knowledge or science that is contrary to God's word is false knowledge, or pseudoscience:

There are stories in the Old Testament that actual science can easily prove are false. The science isn't 'false knowledge', the myths are. Myths claimed as 'Gods Word', but they aren't. Noahs Ark. Garden of Eden. Earth and/or humanity being 6,000 years old. Tower of Babel. Proven false beyond any doubt. You are wrong and no amount of bible verses that you post saying otherwise will change that.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Your claim that the deluge did not happen has been dealt with before.

But now you're saying that the "Tower of Babel" has been "proven false beyond any doubt" as well.

Interestingly, archaeologists have uncovered in and around the ruins of ancient Babylon the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki, which was within Babylon’s walls. Ancient records concerning such temples often contain the words, “Its top shall reach the heavens.” King Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have said, “I raised the summit of the Tower of stages at Etemenanki so that its top rivalled the heavens.” One fragment relates the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.”

Bible and Spade, 1938, S. L. Caiger, page 29.

A text of Sharkalisharri, king of Agade (Accad) in patriarchal times, mentions his restoring a temple-tower at Babylon, implying that such a structure existed prior to his reign.

This isn't archeological proof disproving the Tower of Babel, it is actually just the opposite.

originally posted by: randomuser
Your claim that the deluge did not happen has been dealt with before.

And you failed to provide credible information proving the science wrong. However, on another thread, I have provided six pages of science, archeology, history, and math proving it did not happen.

Egypt, India and China all had vibrant civilizations that grew and flourished before, during, and after the Noahs Ark Flood time period ... UNINTERRUPTED. Explain how all these people were killed off yet at the same time survived and thrived if Noahs Flood really happened. Oh .. and they all spoke and wrote different languages so there goes the 'everyone spoke the same language before the Tower of Babel' nonsense.

Oldest Civilizations in the World - Unbroken Civilization Through Noahs Ark Time Period - Not Wiped Out

Christian site - Christogenea - Noahs Flood Was Not World Wide

If the whole earth was covered by six miles of water, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. However Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of the flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C.. In lower Sumer, later called Chaldea, which occupied the same Plains of Shinar to which Noah’s family journeyed after the flood, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2285 B.C.. Its history is not broken by any flood in this period.

Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, about 2250 B.C.. There is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the eleventh dynasty began to reign about 2375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation. The eleventh dynasty ruled to about 2212 B.C., and was followed by the twelfth dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C.. There was no break in the eleventh dynasty at the time of Noah’s flood, 2345 B.C.. The nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period.

Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 B.C. The Shu King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C., 11 years before the start of Noah’s flood, and ruled China for many years after the flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho river, which drains the mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province, had excessive floods for three generations. Here again, there was no break in history. The Chinese nation was not wiped out. Its own records show it continued in existence right through the period of Noah’s flood.

This isn't archeological proof disproving the Tower of Babel, it is actually just the opposite.

There is an old tower that some claim is they mythological Tower of Babel. There is no evidence that it is THE Tower of Babel. However we have actual records of the language in Egypt, India and China before during and after the supposed Tower of Babel time period - all different languages. There was no ' one language' in the world. We have records from all over the planet of different languages. The Tower of Babel story is just one of many myths that primitive people created to try to explain a world they didn't understand.

Again ... claiming that the only true science is the Bible is

a reply to: whereislogic
I used it the way a religious person used it on another thread, maybe it was this one.

The point is that whatever error "scientists" can make when interpreting data is also there when religious people interpret data to use "science" to prove intelligent design.

I'm not opposed to a creator, so it makes no difference to me one way or the other but it is one thing to say "a creator did it" and it is another to say "my god did it".

From what I have seen, the majority saying "science proves a creator" then leap to the conclusion that this creator is the god they believe in.

Also, I refuse to acknowledge the claim that "science is their religion" when people here are trying to use science to prove their god because, if you can appreciate and apply science without it being religious, then so can others.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not opposed to a creator, so it makes no difference to me one way or the other but it is one thing to say "a creator did it" and it is another to say "my god did it".

That's always reminded me of a trick question with intent.

I try to always make it clear that I do not believe in a God/Creator in the religious sense.

Could there be more advanced off-planet beings assisting earth/human development? Sure.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
The point is that whatever error "scientists" can make when interpreting data is also there when religious people interpret data to use "science" to prove intelligent design.

But you were responding to my comment and the argument of induction concerning creation/engineering that I laid out. There is no interpreting of data/interpretation involved in inductive reasoning or when drawing a general conclusion from observations (observed facts/realities) by induction.

Established and observed facts are not interpretations, and a conclusion by induction based on such established facts, is therefore also not based on interpretation (or does not require interpretation).

Also, I refuse to acknowledge the claim that "science is their religion" when people here are trying to use science to prove their god because, if you can appreciate and apply science without it being religious, then so can others.

People who use that phrase are usually referring to scientism, they're just saying it wrong. As soon as "modern science" was born in the 17th century, spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped this concept of "science" in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

a reply to: whereislogic
Actually I just read the first paragraph.

Even if I were to use the term "science" in the same way (which I don't have an objection to, I just don't use it that way that often), that still doesn't fit the way daskakik used the word when he was talking about science getting things wrong. It's the scientists that can get things wrong, not science (whether interpreted as referring to knowledge or a specific methodology to acquire said knowledge*) itself.

To reply that I was just using it like someone else had and to point out that "It's the scientists that can get things wrong" also applies to the religious people who are trying to use science to claim it proves their god is real.

I'm guessing that the rest of that post explains why you think using the term that way is incorrect, not my problem. If it really means that much to you find the person who originally used it that way or anyone else using it that way and tell them you have a problem with how they are using it.

Personally, I got what they mean and I don't care if it is used that way because I get what they mean.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic

... If it really means that much to you find the person who originally used it that way or anyone else using it that way and tell them you have a problem with how they are using it.

I don't have a problem with it, it provides a nice opportunity to talk about what is science and what isn't (or what you can view as science, or scientific or not). It's always a good thing to re-emphasize the demarcation lines between fact and fiction, or science vs opinions/philosophies/ideas, i.e. philosophy, interpretation, speculation, imagination, hypothesizing, "wishful speculations" (these do not all have the exact same meaning, but they all have the nature of being based on what we do not know for sure, as opposed to science/knowledge that we do know for sure, i.e. facts/certainties/truths/realities).

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity, but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations" (Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2001, p. 205).

So, coming back to my initial comment and argument of induction in this thread regarding these biochemical systems of machinery, who is arguing based on the facts (what we know for sure) and who is arguing based on what we don't know (arguing from ignorance) for sure? Even taking it one step further towards the realm of philosophy, imagination and speculation and arguing based on "wishful speculations", wishful thinking, arguing from fantasy ("according to their own desires").

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Maybe one day someone like David Berlinski should write a book entitled: "Philosophy, if only it were dead as promised." (or is that "was" instead of "were"?)

a reply to: whereislogic
If you don't have a problem with it, then why did you reply to it like you did?

Let me offer an olive branch. The original:

So, you want to claim you use science to prove god, like others here, but if it (referring to science) can be wrong so can you/they because of bias.

Updated:

So, you want to claim you use science to prove god, like others here, but if scientists can be wrong so can you/they because of bias.

I actually don't see that big of a difference.

So, coming back to my initial comment and argument of induction in this thread, who is arguing based on the facts (what we know for sure) and who is arguing based on what we don't know (arguing from ignorance) for sure?

Both sides are arguing what isn't known based on the small amount that is known.

And as others have said over and over, the difference is that the "scientists" are open to new data while many on the other side only acknowledge what fits their bias and resist accepting new data because they think some old text overrides it.

Don't even try to deny it when you have a bible verse in the post and your sig.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
If you don't have a problem with it, then why did you reply to it like you did?

That question was answered right away in the comment you are responding to.

Updated:
So, you want to claim you use science to prove god, like others here, but if scientists can be wrong so can you/they because of bias.

I actually don't see that big of a difference.

And I don't see how pointing out the obvious that people can be wrong in general (because of bias or otherwise) is relevant to my argument of induction without any specifics as to whether anything as laid out there is wrong or not, and if wrong, which part. Any of the facts? The conclusion? Is there any sign of bias there?

I said:

So, coming back to my initial comment and argument of induction in this thread, who is arguing based on the facts (what we know for sure) and who is arguing based on what we don't know (arguing from ignorance) for sure?

You responded:

Both sides are arguing what isn't known based on the small amount that is known.

Which of the 2 observed facts as described in my "argument of induction" that I was referring to in the quote above can be appropiately described as something that "isn't known"? If any. Please, let's stick to the argument I was referring to when asking that question, and not invoke imaginary sides of religious people vs "scientists", or religion vs science, when both types, religious people and scientists, can be found on both sides of the debate concerning evolution vs creation (for example, both Kenneth Miller and Michael Behe are Roman Catholics, they are also both scientists, and they have debated eachother on the topic of evolution vs intelligent design; Kenneth Miller is probably most famous for his 'Chromosome #2 fusion' story and postdiction presented by him as a fulfilled prediction based on evolutionary theory). I know you want to sell this picture that when scientists come to the conclusion (by induction) that creation is the best explanation for the origin of life rather than chemical evolution, that they are not 'using science' but are entirely motivated by their religion, but I'm not buying it, is that OK with you?

When responding to a question, you may also consider answering it before bringing up another point (also by leaving out "based on" in between "arguing" and "what isn't known", it changes the point in relation to what the question was actually about).

originally posted by: whereislogic
And I don't see how pointing out the obvious that people can be wrong in general (because of bias or otherwise) is relevant to my argument of induction without any specifics as to whether anything as laid out there is wrong or not, and if wrong, which part. Any of the facts? The conclusion?

It is relevant because those claiming one group makes errors is also prone to make errors. You want to claim they can be wrong and that bounces back and hits you as well.

Which of the 2 observed facts as described in my "argument of induction" that I was referring to in the quote above can be appropiately described as something that "isn't known"?

How molecular machinery came to be isn't known. Someone engineers our machines so these things also called machines had to be engineered is a hasty generalization fallacy.

You don't have proof that is any more solid than "evolutionists".

I know you want to sell this picture that when scientists come to the conclusion (by induction) that creation is the best explanation for the origin of life rather than chemical evolution, that they are not 'using science' but are entirely motivated by their religion, but I'm not buying it, is that OK with you?

They are just human scientists and I think we agreed that they can be wrong. That is what I meant by "Both sides are arguing what isn't known based on the small amount that is known" even if both sides are using science.

ETA: I think you misunderstood, I said if religious people can use science without it being their religion, other people can as well.

a reply to: whereislogic

I suppose "inductive reasoning" can be a powerful tool and also a useful method for drawing conclusions.

But again it is not without its limitations and potential problems.

Some of the main challenges associated with "inductive reasoning" include the fact that it depends on the quality of observation.

And there can be hidden variables you are not aware of, where uncertain conclusions can arise because the strength of the conclusion depends on the reliability of the observed instance.

As to commenting on YouTube videos, do you know i don't think I've ever done that but looking at some of the conversations, i would not imagine we are missing out on much.