This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.  Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.  

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven".  Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.  

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here.  What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

1) Correct, science is not equipped to conclude about that which cannot be observed.  So yes, it's basically an irrelevant thread as there never could be empirical proof for God.  The debate should instead center around 'a priori' knowledge and not 'a posteriori' knowledge.

2) Correct, the continuing refinement of theories is why science is awesome for its intended purposes.

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed.  For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.

I posted this back in the summer:


Shame it was ignored. Would of saved months of pointless arguing and anger.

Well, people are always going to think they are right.

If they didn't think they were right, they wouldn't have been thinking that way in the first place. 

And to that point, I don't see much point in sitting around putting my 2 cents in when people aren't going to listen anyway.

You're speaking here to the difference between the generally inductive process of the scientific method as a whole vs. the deductive process that occurs during individual scientific experiments.   Yes, you are correct that many scientific hypotheses are about unobservable phenomena, but those scientific hypotheses are always based upon the results of other empirical observations.  Those observations then lead us to inductively hypothesize about what caused the events that are observed.  

For example, when an apple falls from a tree and we see other things falling, we can inductively hypothesize that there is likely some unobservable law (gravity, as it turns out) responsible for these allowing these objects to 'fall'.  From that hypothesis we deduce an experimental design to test the strength of our hypothesis which is either accepted or rejected.

The observation of falling objects to create the hypothesis of a law that allows objects to 'fall' was, in itself, an informal experiment.  The hypothesis of this informal experiment is that if something is dropped then it will fall, and we've already tested that hypothesis informally because, on Earth, we always see things fall when dropped.  

What science cannot do, however, is test a purely abstract hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis that itself was born out of non-empirical ideas.  For those hypotheses, we have the aforementioned, more abstract disciplines I spoke of earlier.  God as a hypothesis is purely abstract, and while such hypotheses are beyond the scope of science, they are not beyond the scope of philosophy.  From a philosophical standpoint, all you need to do to prove the existence of God is to ascribe a definition to God and logically argue whether such an entity must exist by necessity (or, conversely, that it cannot possibly exist, or perhaps even that it is not possible to conclude whether such an entity exists.

Speaking to my previous sentence, I personally like the approach taken by Christopher Langan who, instead of trying to inductively exploring the idea of God based upon evidence or trying to deduce God from a series of axioms, seeks to first remove layers of logical complexity in the Universe and see what remains when there are no more layers left to remove.  As it turns out, taking this approach, the case for God becomes incredibly strong.

Here's a nice article about scientific hypotheses: https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

The universe is at your disposal.



Why would I? After reading your garbage responses, I don't have any reason. However, if you want to pay me enough, I might consider tutoring you.



At least I have a high enough IQ that I can understand it a little.



Better to have others speak about you, rather than attesting to yourself. After all, you could be lying. The more the witnesses that affirm what you speak, the better chance there is that you are telling the truth.

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

Okay, so, let's look at this statement you make:


While I'm not suggesting that there haven't been poor experimental methods (and, by the way, experimental methods are different from the more general scientific method), and while I'm also not suggesting that some scientists mistakenly commit unnecessary fallacies by intentionally trying to fit data to match a hypothesis, can you point to a single example of this with regards to evolution?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I have the impression that you're saying things without ever having the awareness to recognize specific examples as they arise.

If you can't find an example with regards to evolution, then I'll accept another concrete example of where "men of science...twist math and nature in laboratories."


A)  Correct, we have no concrete scientific facts about how things came into being.  Fortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution is *only* concerned with exploring the biological and environmental processes that lead to adaptive changes in the genome.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it ever attempt to explain the origin of life.  Evolution also makes no comment about religion.

B)  I, too, believe God is the most probable and logical cause of the Universe, but your arguments in no way support this.  Your reasoning continues to be shockingly horrible.  You can be correct for the wrong reasons, and you have demonstrated more wrongful reasons to believe in something than I imagined possible from someone who clearly can read, speak, and write the English language.  Simply put, you haven't put forth one legitimate argument for the necessary existence of God, nor have you put forth one legitimate counterargument to evolution, except in a few recent posts where you have obviously begun piggybacking off the ideas of others.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

This is one of the most profound and glaringly accurate, direct-to-the-point statements you havge made.



Try telling that to all the kids in grade school, high school, college, medical school, etc., who are virtually forced to study evolution as though it were some kind of logical process, if not the absolut truth behind all life.



Probably, yes. But why would a religion that tries to ignore the whole idea of religion even mention anything about religion at all?



No? My idea isn't to bolster arguments. My idea is to set down some points that will help you and others clarify for yourselves - that is, instigate valid internal arguments within yourselves - about why or why not God or evolution or something else might be valid. I see from your discussion that it is working. I also see that you have very subtle ways for evading the point.