Try not to conflate the goals of science with the goals of people who perform science. Science is only an instrument we use to gain knowledge about the universe. What we do with it is something else completely.
Try not to conflate the goals of science with the goals of people who perform science. Science is only an instrument we use to gain knowledge about the universe. What we do with it is something else completely.
But can we perform science without resorting to those goals?
But can we perform science without resorting to those goals?
Of course we can.
Science is merely a set of philosophies that are particularly useful when exploring physical phenomena. You can perform science without furthering any specific goals in much the same way that you can hold any philosophical view without furthering any specific goals.
Science is merely a set of philosophies that are particularly useful when exploring physical phenomena. You can perform science without furthering any specific goals in much the same way that you can hold any philosophical view without furthering any specific goals.
...If you have no specific goals, why are you doing science at all?
there is no evidence the universe came from absoultely nothing and then exploded
your arguement is invalid
His argument isn't invalid because he never said that the universe came from absolutely nothing and then exploded. You're putting words in his mouth, a very sad attempt at a straw man when you can't actually refute what he said.
Science alone will lead you nowhere, as will faith. When combined, however, they make for a better life.
Example: it is scientifically impossible for me to prove that others exist. However, I have faith that others do exist, if not just for the fact that it would make me really sad if I was alone in the world
Science alone will lead you nowhere, as will faith. When combined, however, they give you a greater understanding of the universe.
Example: it is scientifically impossible for me to prove that others exist. However, I have faith that others do exist, if not just for the fact that it would make me really sad if I was alone in the world
I chose both because I am a christian but I believe there has to be scientific backup.
Plus the idea of "Miracles" is just stupid.
And Blaster, You will never degrade my faith using facts because of this So all your scientific statements wont work on me because I use both science and faith.
You don't prove that others exist, yet for all purposes, if the evidence suggests they do exist, then they exist until other evidence shows that they do not.
Example: I meet a person and chat to them for a bit. I then try to shake hands and find that there is nothing there. I adjust the theory that the person exists based on conflicting evidence to a theory where they do not exist.
Okay, so let me summarize:
You gathered some evidence and then formed a conclusion. Then you gathered some more and formed another conclusion.
That's not science. EDIT: That's not even reasonable.
There is no on-going battle between science and faith. The whole idea that there is comes from a lack of understanding. Science seeks to find measurable answers to exact questions that can be answered. Faith seeks to define those things which science cannot. Questions of morality for example cannot be answered by science. Science can give you an invention, but the invention could be used for good or evil. It is faith based questioning and searching that leads to our understanding of ethics.
Also, in before "Morality is relative." That is a load of ********, and anyone who says morality is relative is straight up wrong, and I won't bother arguing with them about it.
But can we perform science without resorting to those goals?
You heard that, green and red.
Yes. Science is only a tool, your destination with it is your choice. It's like saying you HAVE to use a hammer for woodworking or else.
Of course we can.
Science is merely a set of philosophies that are particularly useful when exploring physical phenomena. You can perform science without furthering any specific goals in much the same way that you can hold any philosophical view without furthering any specific goals.
...If you have no specific goals, why are you doing science at all?
You heard that, green and red.
The universe has been shown to be expanding.
Faith is something you have for your fellow human beings.
When the two switch roles, terrible things happen.
His argument isn't invalid because he never said that the universe came from absolutely nothing and then exploded. You're putting words in his mouth, a very sad attempt at a straw man when you can't actually refute what he said.
Yes there is, but it's inconclusive.
You heard that, green and red.
Example: it is scientifically impossible for me to prove that others exist. However, I have faith that others do exist, if not just for the fact that it would make me really sad if I was alone in the world
This is true.
Wait, you don't exist.
Short answer, no.
Long answer, if you're feeling that you're not frustrated enough yet.
When you create a false representation of an opponents argument and then proceed to attack it.
Please, at least TRY to make your posts readable.
Also, this is the Off-Topic section, we can debate if you want. We have a mass of debators here.
Are you ****ing serious?
I just...
It's something you resort to when you don't actually have an argument. Look it up on Wikipedia.
Plus the idea of "Miracles" is just stupid.
And Blaster, You will never degrade my faith using facts because of this So all your scientific statements wont work on me because I use both science and faith.
Okay, so let me summarize:
You gathered some evidence and then formed a conclusion. Then you gathered some more and formed another conclusion.
That's not science. EDIT: That's not even reasonable.
You heard that, green and red.
Also, in before "Morality is relative." That is a load of ********, and anyone who says morality is relative is straight up wrong, and I won't bother arguing with them about it.