Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
curiousaboy · 26-30, M
Science and religoions are two different subjects. Most of religions based on a God. But there are some religions such as Buddhism it doesn't based on god concept, based on facts and reasons. And it says about absolute truth.
But in science. There are not absolute trueth to explain incident,it change with the time according to the existing scientific methods.
This is my idea about this topic. Someone can think about it and put some comments to discuss about this
But in science. There are not absolute trueth to explain incident,it change with the time according to the existing scientific methods.
This is my idea about this topic. Someone can think about it and put some comments to discuss about this
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@curiousaboy [quote]according to the existing scientific methods[/quote]
Well, according to the [i]evidence[/i]. If the evidence changes, then changes are made to completely, coherently, and consistently incorporate that new evidence into the scientific explanation
Well, according to the [i]evidence[/i]. If the evidence changes, then changes are made to completely, coherently, and consistently incorporate that new evidence into the scientific explanation
curiousaboy · 26-30, M
@newjaninev2 that's why I mean it's not absolute truth. We can see the scientific explanation has changed with the time.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@curiousaboy Yes, it changes as the evidence expands and develops. That’s one of the great strengths of science... no authorities, no ‘absolute truths’, and everything must be questioned, tested, and questioned again.
and all that is evidence-driven, subject to extensive peer-review, and even then acceptance is provisional, because more evidence may be found in the future
and all that is evidence-driven, subject to extensive peer-review, and even then acceptance is provisional, because more evidence may be found in the future
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@curiousaboy Science do not seek absolutes.
It´s results are always partial, provisory, subject to be refuted or refined. And that´s good. Gave results.
Of course, methods as tools shape also provisory limits.
But Science is not defined by methods as Astronomy is not or was not defined by the use of telescopes. Yes the tech involved, not conceptually.
Science is defined by it´s object.
The natural causal Universe.
There are, of course, more related factors.
All ultimately shaped by the above.
Else, even if somehow good, calling Science to other aproaches is fraudulent.
An excelent case studdy for this is the ancient Ptolemaic System.
Based on observations, carefully formulated, with a sophisticated mathematical basis, predictive enough for that age needs, useful to other activities.
And even so, not scientific.
Is not only that was wrong about it´s description of the matterial nature of what described, that may happens and be still Science.
The problem was that did not care about the the matterial nature of what described, but only in what was called "to save the appearances".
And left the explanatory causal aspect to myth, religión and philosophy.
So and because, not Science.
It´s results are always partial, provisory, subject to be refuted or refined. And that´s good. Gave results.
Of course, methods as tools shape also provisory limits.
But Science is not defined by methods as Astronomy is not or was not defined by the use of telescopes. Yes the tech involved, not conceptually.
Science is defined by it´s object.
The natural causal Universe.
There are, of course, more related factors.
All ultimately shaped by the above.
Else, even if somehow good, calling Science to other aproaches is fraudulent.
An excelent case studdy for this is the ancient Ptolemaic System.
Based on observations, carefully formulated, with a sophisticated mathematical basis, predictive enough for that age needs, useful to other activities.
And even so, not scientific.
Is not only that was wrong about it´s description of the matterial nature of what described, that may happens and be still Science.
The problem was that did not care about the the matterial nature of what described, but only in what was called "to save the appearances".
And left the explanatory causal aspect to myth, religión and philosophy.
So and because, not Science.
curiousaboy · 26-30, M
@newjaninev2 yeah. So My question is if there some visions about absolute truth. Why don't we try to slimpify and don't try at least to learn it
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Entwistle "An absolute truth would be "Anything that has a beginning has an ending"".
Logic haves no ontological commitment.
What can be also said as: Logical "necessity" do not entail material existence, the source of truth...about material existence.
There is a naive but still interesting example.
Not at all a prove and not even strict reasoning but neither trivial.
Firefighters, there are young ones and older ones.
Firefighters, there are impulsive and wiser ones.
Thus, exhausting the potencial combinations…
Firefighters, there are young and wiser ones.
Firefighters, there are young and impulsive ones.
Firefighters, there are older and wiser ones.
…
…
Where are the impulsive older ones?
There are no more.
Logic haves no ontological commitment.
What can be also said as: Logical "necessity" do not entail material existence, the source of truth...about material existence.
There is a naive but still interesting example.
Not at all a prove and not even strict reasoning but neither trivial.
Firefighters, there are young ones and older ones.
Firefighters, there are impulsive and wiser ones.
Thus, exhausting the potencial combinations…
Firefighters, there are young and wiser ones.
Firefighters, there are young and impulsive ones.
Firefighters, there are older and wiser ones.
…
…
Where are the impulsive older ones?
There are no more.