Atheism, Evolution, Origin of Life, Scientific Method

Im pretty sure i got it North, thanks .

Still... Chaos is saying science "was never wrong" (his words). Obviously Science has been wrong, but obviously, what he is saying again, "science was never wrong", and he goes on to imply it is an on going process. and i get that. But Science has been wrong. And clearly he is stating that he believes "Science was never wrong" If not (hence my warning) he should be careful with his words.

Im jus sayin...

As far as your topic which is titled (Atheism, Evolution, Origin of Life, Scientific Method) I would say No. Science is definitely useful, just because they (scientist) haven't figured out everything doesn't mean they cant or wont.

They may even prove the existence of God someday, the problem is, they could NEVER disprove it. Because God is supernatural. There is no logical explanation. God is incomprehendable.

So No, the fact that there are unknowns still to be discovered, does not in anyway mean science is not useful, nor does it prove there is a higher power.

I will say this though, we basically have two choices

1. the world, and life as we know it, started by an act of chance. With some Unbelievable, massive, I cant think of a word to describe it so big, odds.

or

2. A supernatural, immortal, creator, breathed the world into existence.

Anyone who knows the odds of choice 1 will admit, that these two options are much closer than it may seem.

Either options are technically miracles

 

As long I you understood what I meant to say, that's good. I put only the word "wrong" in quotation marks for a reason.

you have any idea about how many self-contraditions, absurds and logical fallacies are there in such a small quote? my god!

 

And as I've said over and over again, now - I understand the sublety of the point seems to elude you, but one cannot literally never be "wrong" and imply it is an ongoing process. It is your inability to comprehend, no one else's.

Glad you finally addressed the topic of the thread.

I didn't want to even go into this side-issue, as the main one seemed to be a bit of a problem, but yeah, agreed.

 

Please explain because my in-superior brain just doesn't get it

 

forgive me NPT, but he asked me

simplyg123:
(1) "They may even prove the existence of God someday" + "they could NEVER disprove it"
A) logical fallacy. logically, if by premise something can NEVER be disproven --> consider it proved. The theory of logic has "True", and "False": but no "NULL" or "Don't know", and so is the existence of god, a "true" or "false" case.
B) in condtradiction with the foundation of science. In the essence of the term "scientific theory" lays the principle of refutability. Namely, in order for an explanation to be called "scientific theory", it must come with an experiment (real or imaginary), that will refute it. Otherwise, it conjunction with point (A), it can NEVER be disproven ---> consider it proved even before we thought of it.
(2) "God is supernatural" + "They may even prove the existence of God someday"
If science proves or explain something, it ceases to be "supernatural" and becomes "natural". Given the premise that go is supernatural --> by immediate logic we arrive that the conclusion it can not be proven.
(3) "There is no logical explanation" + "Because God is supernatural"
The theory of logic is an abstract mathematical theory that deals with natural as well as the supernatural. The word "because" relating the two is hence a self-contradiction.
(4) "There is no logical explanation" + "they could NEVER disprove it" + "They may even prove the existence of God someday"
A set of phenomena/observations that can not be described using a set of consistent rules - can not be proven or disproven, naturally.
(5) "God is incomprehendable" + "They may even prove the existence of God someday"
One can not prove the existence of something he does not comprehend, does he?

Besides, "They may even prove the existence of God someday"
Have a look at this post (middle) of mine, explaining why scientists will NEVER prove the existence of god.
Confused?
Hope this will clarify:
As written in the linked post from above. God and Science are not related. They do not interact. Science proves or disproves the existence of: defined entities that have measurable interactions with other, previously definedentities. God does not fall under that category: he is not defined. his (allerged ) interactions with other entities are not subject to measurements, nor they are self-consistent.


http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx <== very nice. find your 4 fallacies there (1 I named, 3 I didn't).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

 

nice, I see the light, ok, im sold, good job. Man you guys love your science don't you.

 

LOL - no worries, Chaos. Great post, and I'm sure it provided some ... deep reflection.