Quote from: CoinCube on November 26, 2017, 02:39:51 AM

Quote from: Astargath on November 26, 2017, 12:39:27 AM

Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.

''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?

And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago.

Quote from: CoinCube on July 11, 2017, 03:17:35 AM

Quote from: Astargath on July 10, 2017, 10:25:26 PM

Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.

...
One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work".

Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?
https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foes

Quote from: John C. Murphy

There are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:

✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.

So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from?

Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendom
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/

Quote from: John C. Wright

The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.

The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.

To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:

The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by measuring, numbering, and weighing (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
Matter could act directly on matter in the common course of nature; and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.

They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:

Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of poking into things by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.

The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton.

Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/

Quote from: Bruce Charlton

Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.

The argument of this book in a single paragraph

Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional scientists no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern science are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all science needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.

Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?

Third, when I speak about science undercutting the believability in miracles and prayer, Christians will usually claim that science isn't so great. It cannot understand everything. Why do they have to do this? It may not be able to explain everything, but it has explained so much that a 15 century church person would probably lose his faith by merely being brought into our era. So many of his beliefs would be overturned at once.

Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. Thats right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future?

Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works.

Take prayer as just one example. The American Heart Journal (April 2006) reported on a scientific study of patients who had heart by-pass surgery who were separated into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didnt know it. Group 2 received no prayers and didnt know it (the control group). Group 3 received prayers and did know it. Groups 1 and 3 were prayed for by different congregations throughout America. The results were very clear. There was no difference between the patients who were prayed for and those who were not prayed for. Moreover, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not know they were being prayed for.

It's very interesting that Christians must downplay science. They always have. They always will. Sad, really.''

No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, if all the assumptions are true then flying unicorns exist therefore it's logical to believe in flying unicorns, well guess what, it's not, that's not how it works. If you want to believe in your god, go ahead but don't try to tell people that your belief is logical because it's not, you only believe in that specific god because you were taught that way, you haven't studied all religions and all gods to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.