What is the necessity of science?

PDN

Wicknight, let's try this three questions on you.

1. Do you believe it is morally wrong to torture babies to death for fun?

2. If so, did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion?

3. If you didn't use the scientific method to reach that conclusion, then what's the point of science at all?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I would if everything was revealed to me from a sufficiently reliable source.

Again revelation is not a methodology. Lots of things, from various religions, are "revealed" to you. You some how shift through which ones you believe and which ones you don't, using some methodology.

PDN wrote: »

That would depend on who they were, and on what basis they claimed to know that information.

Well obviously, that comes down again to the methodology you would use

PDN wrote: »

If it was you then I would reject it out of hand. If it was someone who died on a cross for me and then was raised from the dead, and claimed to be God, then I would be more inclined to listen.

Look what you managed to determine without requiring science, Jesus was resurrected, Jesus was God, God is accurately described in the Bible.

That is pretty impressive, given that there is nothing to test from a scientific position. Yet you still, using what ever methodology you used, managed to determine that this is a very accurate description of reality.

So, why not just do that (what ever that was that lead you to these conclusions) for everything, every claim?

PDN wrote: »

Because, while science is not a useful tool for testing art, morality or love - it is a useful tool for measuring certain things.

Useful in what way? What does science do that other methodologies don't?

I should also point out, simply because you have mentioned it a few times, that science is not a process of measuring things. People have been measuring things since before we had language, where as science is a relatively speaking new invention. Sorry to be pedantic, just wanted to make that clear.

PDN wrote: »

I don't see why you keep stumbling over this rather straightforward point.

Well probably because you still haven't actually answered the question

You have just said science has its uses, but haven't explained what they are or why the other methodologies that can also accurate determine things about, for example the existence and properties of God without scientific test, aren't just as good.

I would also point out your posts seem to be getting increasingly hostel. By all means don't answer if you don't want to. I've no interest in another argument with you.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

1. Do you believe it is morally wrong to torture babies to death for fun?

Depends on what you mean by morally wrong, whether you are talking about subjective or objective morality. I think it is morally wrong to torture babies, though I don't claim that this is some how in line with some knowable universal morality.

PDN wrote: »

If so, did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion?

No

PDN wrote: »

If you didn't use the scientific method to reach that conclusion, then what's the point of science at all?

The point of science is to provide a robust methodology to assess the accuracy of claims about the true nature of reality that attempts to remove as much as it can biases and other cognitive deceptions innate in humans from the process of assessing these claims.

Since above I'm not making a claim about the true nature of reality (ie I'm not making an objective claim about objective morality) the issue of whether I believe it is immoral to torture babies is not applicable. This is what I meant earlier about different domains.

You can say the same thing about God if you like, that "God exists and is the God of the Bible" or "Jesus was the son of God and salvation to heaven requires faith in him" etc are not claims about the true nature of reality but as I mentioned earlier I don't agree and really if you genuinely believe that then there isn't a whole lot else to discuss.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by morally wrong, whether you are talking about subjective or objective morality. I think it is morally wrong to torture babies, though I don't claim that this is some how in line with some knowable universal morality.
...
The point of science is to provide a robust methodology to assess the accuracy of claims about the true nature of reality that attempts to remove as much as it can biases and other cognitive deceptions innate in humans from the process of assessing these claims.

Since above I'm not making a claim about the true nature of reality (ie I'm not making an objective claim about objective morality) the issue of whether I believe it is immoral to torture babies is not applicable. This is what I meant earlier about different domains.

You can say the same thing about God if you like, that "God exists and is the God of the Bible" or "Jesus was the son of God and salvation to heaven requires faith in him" etc are not claims about the true nature of reality but as I mentioned earlier I don't agree and really if you genuinely believe that then there isn't a whole lot else to discuss.

So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment? It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours? Is that it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment?

What do you mean "really" wrong? I don't believe there is a universal morality, I believe morality is a product of the human brain and is an opinion of a person based on their internal ethical machinery, for want of a better term. And yes, science was involved in that assessment.

PDN wrote: »

It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours?

I never understand what people mean when they say something like that? Valid to who, or to what standard? It is certainly true that it is their moral position.

Fanny Cradock

What area of science do you work in, WK?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What area of science do you work in, WK?

Computers, though how much of a science that is is debatable.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

For example, if I read an article in a magazine that purports to present a truth (be it the National Enquirer or the New Scientist) then I assess it by asking questions. Does this magazine have a good track record? What do people that I know and trust say about it? Have other 'truths' presented from this source proved useful or not? Does the person communicating this 'truth' to me appear to have a bias or an agenda? These are all part of how we screen and assess information.

Isn't that what those of a scientific naturalistic disposition like myself do to assess rationally how to discern the truth, yet how come we come to different conclusions I wonder?

PDN wrote: »

Not really. Because it still seems incredibly naive (I'm being charitable in choosing that term) to think that someone's method of assessing a revelation in the Bible should somehow do away with the need for science.

Well actually no it isn't naive. Going by the definition of what you call "revelation" it completely negates the need for science as a method for discovering the truth about the universe.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well actually no it isn't naive. Going by the definition of what you call "revelation" it completely negates the need for science as a method for discovering the truth about the universe.

How so?

I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

How so?

I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).

If you already have the truth in one book science is redundant. You already have the answer as you guys claim, thus why need any other method? God did suffices for all questions. No?

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Because, while science is not a useful tool for testing art, morality or love - it is a useful tool for measuring certain things.

Ah, I want to flag you on that, because it's bold claim and from my understanding of science not really true. All of the above are a result of the deterministic behavior of the brain which as a field of research is about to be blown right open. Given enough information I can tell you exactly in a causal chain why I'm bothering to debate with someone who believes in two obviously contradictory methods for finding the truth about the universe.

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah, I want to flag you on that, because it's bold claim and from my understanding of science not really true. All of the above are a result of the deterministic behavior of the brain which as a field of research is about to be blown right open. Given enough information I can tell you exactly in a causal chain why I'm bothering to debate with someone who believes in two obviously contradictory methods for finding the truth about the universe.

There's a subtle but salient point that should be made. Science can tell us why we like art, and why we adopt the moral principles we do, but the actual standards themselves cannot be scientifically determined. I fully accept that Darwinian evolution is, on some level, responsible for my morality, but I would not turn to a science textbook to help me unravel a complex ethical dilemma. Similarly, artists rely on insight and talent to generate art, and aren't going to be applying for SFI grants any time soon.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

There's a subtle but salient point that should be made. Science can tell us why we like art, and why we adopt the moral principles we do, but the actual standards themselves cannot be scientifically determined. I fully accept that Darwinian evolution is, on some level, responsible for my morality, but I would not turn to a science textbook to help me unravel a complex ethical dilemma. Similarly, artists rely on insight and talent to generate art, and aren't going to be applying for SFI grants any time soon.

You haven't outlined one scenario there that couldn't be explained scientifically. An artists insights and talent and solutions to ethical dilemma's are as explainable as any other ability or behaviour. Your in for a hell of a shock if you think they aren't my friend.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

How so?

I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

The two highlighted bits have the same purpose, assessing the accuracy of claims about reality. b and d are the same things, claims about the true nature of existence. As we established a claim like "God exists and has the nature of the Christian God as described accurately in the Bible" is not that much different from a claim like "A body on Earth fall to Earth at a consistent acceleration of 9.8m/s/s due to the warping effects of gravity"

These are both claims about the true nature of reality. They are not a claim like "Jim Carey is the best actor in the world" or "Teaching children religion is morally wrong" Appealing to a different domain is not applicable because questions about whether God exists are not any different to questions about what atoms are really like. They are not in different domains (as I think you agreed above)

God either exists or he doesn't. The claim that he does is either true or false, and is true or false independent to subjective opinion. I think we both agree that God exists for me is a some what nonsensical expression, where as we might accept a statement like Well I think Carey is great

The Bible makes claims about reality, as does a someone studying atoms (an unconfirmed claim about something in science is called an "hypothesis")

You, some how, established that the claims in the Bible (or what ever religious source) were accurate. You used some methodology to establish this, you didn't just wake up one morning and randomly decide that out of all religious claims (or all claims for that matter) Christianity was the accurate one, or that all the people claiming to speak for God you were randomly going to believe Jesus was the true one. Or maybe you did, I don't know. If you did, if you had no methodology to assess this, then the question isn't for you.

PDN wrote: »

You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).

I'm not arguing you shouldn't do something. I'm asking why, if you can establish the truth of some claims using methodology A (how ever you figured out Christianity is true over say Hinduism or Atheism) why do you think some people (scientists mostly) think it is necessary to use methodology (science) to establish the accuracy of claims about reality. You didn't use science yet you are still perfectly happy with these claims.

Surely what ever methodology you used to establish that the Bible is accurate about its claims about reality is enough? What more does science do, and is this necessary?

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You haven't outlined one scenario there that couldn't be explained scientifically. An artists insights and talent and solutions to ethical dilemma's are as explainable as any other ability or behaviour. Your in for a hell of a shock if you think they aren't my friend.

How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former. Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.

user1842

Morbert wrote: »

How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former. Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.

This is an impossible argument. A Scientist cannot argue without proof and a Theologian cannot argue with proof.

Morbert

dmclean1842 wrote: »

This is an impossible argument. A Scientist cannot argue without proof and a Theologian cannot argue with proof.

What? I can't relate that sentence to my post either. I have noticed an unfortunate trend on these boards of people responding to my posts with only vaguely related points.

dcmraad

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I cannot agree with this. Science in my opinion is slowly replacing Religion and eventually will be able to explain God. The more we explore science the more we explain Religion.

This is what happened in the past and in my opinion is happening now, we just cannot see it.

To use Religion to explain Science make no sense as Science in my opinion is the refined accurate evolution of Religion.

Religion started in superstition, it should be a belief kept to yourself as it lacks common sense, and it should never be involved in the education of children.

PDN wrote: »

For example, if I read an article in a magazine that purports to present a truth (be it the National Enquirer or the New Scientist) then I assess it by asking questions. Does this magazine have a good track record? What do people that I know and trust say about it? Have other 'truths' presented from this source proved useful or not? Does the person communicating this 'truth' to me appear to have a bias or an agenda? These are all part of how we screen and assess information.

why are you christian then?

PDN wrote: »

And I can't use science to determine whether many scientific revelations are true or not.

If an article in New Scientist claims that a particular star is 640 million light years away, I personally do not have the knowledge or tools to assess whether that is true or not. I have to ask the kind of questions I outlined above to decide whether I think the claim in New Scientist is true.

So you do not fly, or use a computer then.

PDN wrote: »

I would if everything was revealed to me from a sufficiently reliable source.

You believe the bible is a sufficiently reliable source, your judgement is already flawed.

PDN wrote: »

If it was you then I would reject it out of hand. If it was someone who died on a cross for me and then was raised from the dead, and claimed to be God, then I would be more inclined to listen.

WOW, do you seriously believe this nonsense, what frightens me is that you can vote, and you have followers.

PDN wrote: »

So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment? It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours? Is that it?

How many biblical passages can you quote to support gods love for vengence and murdering babies.

user1842

Morbert wrote: »

What? I can't relate that sentence to my post either. I have noticed an unfortunate trend on these boards of people responding to my posts with only vaguely related points.

The posts here from the scientific point of view all describe that you need to prove your argument and that you cannot just say the God exists without having a fundamental rational behind your belief.

However the religious side state that no such rational need to exist and that faith alone is all that is necessary for belief.

A scientist can never understand this. If they did they would no longer be a scientist.

To go back to the point of the post. In my opinion you cant have it both ways. You either believe that God can explain everything or nothing. Picking and choosing what science to except based on nothing but whimsical evidence is nonsense.

My opinion anyway

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former.

Why can't science be used to determine the standards or we should act going forward especially if future decisions are based on past experiences and learnings? The standards we have aren't arbitrary they're there for understandable and scientifically determinable reasons.

Morbert wrote: »

Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.

Well actually artists mostly don't and I don't think they need to, but that's certainly not to say that they can't understand their choices using science(in fact it's the only way) and use science to recognise and augment his behaviour.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

What? I can't relate that sentence to my post either. I have noticed an unfortunate trend on these boards of people responding to my posts with only vaguely related points.

Is that Boards.ie in general?

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why can't science be used to determine the standards or we should act going forward especially if future decisions are based on past experiences and learnings?

For the same reason it doesn't determine mathematical axioms or theorems. Standards are abstract, non-physical things. Once we have these standards, science can tell us when we should implement them. Sam Harris recently brought out a book "The Moral Landscape" discussing such cases. But the standards themselves most be adopted without any empirical evidence. A toy example would be whether or not it would be moral to destroy the earth. Is the destruction of all life morally good or bad?

Well actually artists mostly don't and I don't think they need to, but that's certainly not to say that he can't understand his choices using science(in fact it's the only way) and use science to recognise and augment his behaviour.

If an artist augments his behaviour to pander to current theories of behavioural psychology then, in my humble opinion, they are not practising art.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If you already have the truth in one book science is redundant. You already have the answer as you guys claim, thus why need any other method? God did suffices for all questions. No?

No, not at all.

The Bible does not contain all truth on all subjects. It doesn't even contain all the truth on one subject. The Bible contains as much of the truth about our relationship with God as we need to know in order to be saved, and to encourage us to explore our relationship with Him further.

So, if I ask the question "How can I build an aircraft?" I am exploring a realm on which the Bible is silent. It does not purport to answer that question. No Christian I've ever met would ever suggest that "God did" is an answer to that question. To suggest that they would is really to construct a strawman of truly galactic proportions.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is that Boards.ie in general?

I was specifically thinking of my posts in abortion threads and in "Bible and science" threads.

PDN

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Ok did God create the earth in 6 days? The bible says he did.

Moderating Instruction
Your interpretation of the Bible says he did. And if you want to discuss that further you take it to the Creationism thread.

Any attempt to derail this thread into a Creationism blind alley will result in infractions and/or bans. Do not attempt to backseat mod this or debate it inthread.

dcmraad

PDN wrote: »

No, not at all.

The Bible does not contain all truth on all subjects. It doesn't even contain all the truth on one subject. The Bible contains as much of the truth about our relationship with God as we need to know in order to be saved, and to encourage us to explore our relationship with Him further.

So, if I ask the question "How can I build an aircraft?" I am exploring a realm on which the Bible is silent. It does not purport to answer that question. No Christian I've ever met would ever suggest that "God did" is an answer to that question. To suggest that they would is really to construct a strawman of truly galactic proportions.

We can (as rational people) ask the question, without needing to regress to 3,000 years ago when we were ignorant uneducated peasants, waiting for a control structure to tell us what to do.

The bible is a collection of stories, re written over vast amounts of time by unknown peoples, and translated in a similar fashion as to require completely new bits to be made up and inserted at will.

The idea that omnipotent deities would need devotion, persecution, pain, and death from us to exist is farsical as a belief.

Zombrex

dcmraad wrote: »

The idea that omnipotent deities would need devotion, persecution, pain, and death from us to exist is farsical as a belief.

That may be but it is utterly irrelevant to the question of this thread. Please try not to derail the thread.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

A toy example would be whether or not it would be moral to destroy the earth. Is the destruction of all life morally good or bad?

Depends on what kind of being you are, motivations, and goals you have. It's a fairly arbitrary answer depending on perspective. It would be bad for me to destroy all life or the earth because of my dependencies also because I know I'd be denying someone some experience, which I think to an extent has value to me but again for purely arbitrary reasons.

PDN

dcmraad wrote: »

The idea that omnipotent deities would need devotion, persecution, pain, and death from us to exist is farsical as a belief.

I agree, that would indeed be a farcical belief. However, since that is nothing close to what Christians believe it is irrelevant to this thread, or indeed to this forum.

Time for you to stop trolling.

dcmraad

PDN wrote: »

I agree, that would indeed be a farcical belief. However, since that is nothing close to what Christians believe it is irrelevant to this thread, or indeed to this forum.

Time for you to stop trolling.

That is exactly what most religious believe and you are being disingenuous.


Everything is a troll against you.

Fanny Cradock

dcmraad wrote: »

That is exactly what most religious believe and you are being disingenuous.


Everything is a troll against you.

Given that we are in the Christianity forum it really is neither here nor there what other religions believe - at least what they believe according to you. If you aren't trolling then you are misrepresenting Christianity and ignoring anybody who attempts to enlighten you.

Back on topic, please. Off topic posts will be deleted.

dcmraad

PDN wrote: »

Science can tell us little or nothing about God, sin, or salvation. Therefore, as Christians, we are grateful that we can learn about these things through revelation from God.

And how does god reveal them?

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can determine accurate knowledge about something you can't even observe or measure, surely it would be easier to, using the same methodology, find out accurate information about things we can observe and measure?

god reveals something to us, but he repeatedly does it using our own interpretation of what we think he meant to say, I think you are happier
that what you believe can never be proven.

Festus

God invented science and gave it to us as a necessity to invent new things.

if that cannot be understood this thread is pointless.



[31] dixitque Moses ad filios Israhel ecce vocavit Dominus ex nomine Beselehel filium Uri filii Hur de tribu Iuda [32] implevitque eum spiritu Dei sapientiae et intellegentiae et scientiae omni doctrina [33] ad excogitandum et faciendum opus in auro et argento et aere sculpendisque lapidibus et opere carpentario quicquid fabre adinveniri potest [34] dedit in corde eius Hooliab quoque filium Achisamech de tribu Dan [35] ambos erudivit sapientia ut faciant opera abietarii polymitarii ac plumarii de hyacintho et purpura coccoque bis tincto et bysso et texant omnia ac nova quaeque repperiant

PDN

dcmraad wrote: »

And how does god reveal them

Primarily through Scripture.

Btw, take this as a friendly warning from a moderator. Try to derail this thread one more time and I will kick your sorry ass out of the forum. I do hope that is clear enough for you.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

God invented science and gave it to us as a necessity to invent new things.

if that cannot be understood this thread is pointless.

Why is it a necessity for inventing things? What happens if you try inventing things with out science?

dcmraad

Snip!

Post deleted due to backseat modding.

dcmraad

So there we have it, science isn't necessary, god is necessary as that explains everything, its just a pity we cannot remove those from society that do not share our belief in god ... (like we use to be able to)

Turtwig

dcmraad wrote: »

I think you mean to say god did everything, any different points of view are irrelevent.

I don't think any Christian believes God did everything. Alot of stuff in this world is due to man's falling away from God. One question I want to ask, is if there was no fall from grace, do you guys think science would be necessary? I know extraordinarily hypothetical but the thrill of the chase is often more fun than the answer surely He wouldn't just cough up everything at once.:)

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think any Christian believes God did everything. Alot of stuff in this world is due to man's falling away from God. One question I want to ask, is if there was no fall from grace, do you guys think science would be necessary? I know extraordinarily hypothetical but the thrill of the chase is often more fun than the answer surely He wouldn't just cough up everything at once.:)

Have we even established that science is necessary?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is it a necessity for inventing things? What happens if you try inventing things with out science?

That's a very interesting question.

You actually end up with a situation like prevailed in China for centuries, where there were some great inventions (eg gunpowder, paper, a printing press etc) but little or no application of scientific method. I've read a number of studies where historians argue that in China principles that lay behind one invention were rarely applied to other problems.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have we even established that science is necessary?

Well the generally gist I got from you guys was that it was but then again I haven't read this entire thread.:o Surely I didn't get it that wrong?

Fanny Cradock

I'm just speaking for myself here. But I tend to think of necessity as being an absolute requirement. Can we actually say that about science?

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think any Christian believes God did everything. Alot of stuff in this world is due to man's falling away from God. One question I want to ask, is if there was no fall from grace, do you guys think science would be necessary?

But that's an incoherency. Don't Christians believe the creator is omnipotent? If so how could he not have done everything?
In fact.

Malty_T wrote: »

I know extraordinarily hypothetical but the thrill of the chase is often more fun than the answer surely He wouldn't just cough up everything at once.:)

Ah wait I see what you did there?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But that's an incoherency. Don't Christians believe the creator is omnipotent? If so how could he not have done everything?
In fact.

While we're in the mood for posting links try this one: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent

Omnipotence means that God is all powerful - not that He did everything.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

While we're in the mood for posting links try this one: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent

Omnipotence means that God is all powerful - not that He did everything.

Having unlimited authority means there is nothing done without aforementioned authority.

Fanny Cradock

And black is white, right? Not only are you arguing for the sake of it, you are also arguing against concepts you evidently haven't grasped.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And black is white, right?

No.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not only are you arguing for the sake of it, you are also arguing against concepts you evidently haven't grasped.

What? Omnipotence? It's fairly clear: "the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power". In fairness I should really be talking about the necessity of science sorry.

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What? Omnipotence? It's fairly clear: "the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power". In fairness I should really be talking about the necessity of science sorry.

Not just omniscience - which has already been explained to you by PDN - but the basics of Christian doctrine.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have we even established that science is necessary?

I'm glad someone actually finally raised that point.

Do you think science is actually necessary in the first place? I mean you believe God exists and is the Christian God and you didn't use science to establish that. Muslims who say that God wants Shi'a law don't say "and here is the scientific research to support this", but they still seem pretty confident of that statement.

Is science actually necessary?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm glad someone actually finally raised that point.

Do you think science is actually necessary in the first place? I mean you believe God exists and is the Christian God and you didn't use science to establish that. Muslims who say that God wants Shi'a law don't say "and here is the scientific research to support this", but they still seem pretty confident of that statement.

Is science actually necessary?

Necessary for what?

Science is not necessary to live happily on a desert island with a beautiful Fijian wife. But it is necessary if you want to get a man on the moon.