Has Science Discovered God? - Page 2

My point?

What is the classic definition of science? Is the search for truth [whatever that truth may be] and the truth just may be that naturalism doesn’t work, that nature by her laws of chemistry and physics did NOT create us and wasn’t responsible for our origin, that maybe truth. And real science GSDTRAVELS is interesting finding the truth whatever the truth maybe, it doesn’t start by defining, well we are not going to look in this area, it might be true - we can’t prove is not true but we are not going to look in that area and we are going define that area as non-scientific by the definition manly supernatural creation. Guess what Gsdtravels.... Supernatural creation just might be true and science can’t prove it – it isn’t true. So science when it redefined as materialism says you may search for truth, only where and how we tell you, ONLY materialistic explanations are allowed and that is my conclusion in regards what you wrote. Your believe my dear gsdtravels that even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

Vk4, you already have a religion that you won't admit too...your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…materialism, naturalism is the presupposition without possibility proof by the scientific method, but the whole of reality is naturalism, there is no supernatural dimension and there certainly no supernatural creator, it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe that says it’s all materialistic, it’s all naturalistic; that is your religion my dear vk4....And I agree, I can understand that but just don’t call your faith science if it doesn’t qualifies as it; don’t mislabeled and expect me to accept that definition because it’s just not correct, not true.

Wrong again Shtal, there is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural and all of you visiting doesn't create evidence. If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it, period. Science can't test something that isn't there, no matter how much you kick and scream and complain. Bring some ACTUAL evidence that is testable and verifiable and science will be happy to have a look, they don't fear the unknown, they live to prove things. But you need something tangible in order to perform those tests, not what's in the minds of idiots who can't grasp the concept.

I find it amazing that so many people like you claim the moral high ground, yet use deception as a tool, it sickens me really. That takes self-deception , which I will never understand, nor would I want to, to an entirely new level. To you, dishonesty and ignorance are the greatest virtues.

Wrong again Gsdtravels, science can confirm neither creation nor evolution in terms of the beginning of life. Remember this video? does however provide one of many good explanations as to the enormous burden of proof evolutionists bear when they attempt use current scientific inquiry to form theories of life from non-life.

Science works, creationism doesn't. Creation is just another poorly written fairy tale with no evidence.

So science is wrong and has not discovered god or science is right and the earth is billions of years which makes creation....wrong.

Can't have it both ways.

YouTube clips are not science.

Shtal seems to have trapped himself into a circular argument.

Contradiction not circular.

The actual circularity that creationists like shtal and his god Rev Moon are trapped in is thus;

The bible is true because it says so in the Bible

OR

The bible is the word of god because the bible says the bible is the word of god.

 

5Or more formally;

 

P1: The Bible tells us that it is the word of God. 
P2: The word of God is infallible. 
C1: Therefore the Bible is infallible. 
P3: And as such, the Bible must be the word of God. 
P4: The word of God is infallible. 
C2: Therefore the Bible is infallible. 
P5: And... 

 

 

 

 

 

Short list of some creation myths, shtal needs to demonstrate why his myth is more valid than these;
Creation from chaos Edit
Cheonjiwang Bonpuri (a Korean creation myth)
Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth)
Greek cosmogonical myth
Jamshid
Kumulipo
Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)
Mandé creation myth
Pangu
Raven in Creation
Serer creation myth
Sumerian creation myth
Tungusic creation myth
Unkulunkulu
Väinämöinen
Viracocha
Earth diver Edit
Ainu creation myth
Cherokee creation myth
Väinämöinen
Yoruba creation myth
Emergence Edit
Hopi creation myth
Maya creation of the world myth
Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
Zuni creation myth
Ex nihilo (out of nothing) Edit
Debate between sheep and grain
Barton cylinder
Ancient Egyptian creation myths
Genesis creation myth (Christianity, Islam and Judaism)
Kabezya-Mpungu
Māori myths
Mbombo
Ngai
Popol Vuh
Rangi and Papa
World Parent Edit
Coatlicue
Enûma Eliš
Greek cosmogonical myth
Heliopolis creation myth
Hiranyagarbha creation myth
Kumulipo
Rangi and Papa
Völuspá

Science is great; love the science. The problem I have is with those who would try to make science something it is not and never will be -a sort of perversion of empiric thought. There is a relation between science/empiric observation and reason which cannot be breached without lethal consequence to necessary logical foundations.

https://youtu.be/qibfhj_JGyE