That is the accuracy of a given field of science is it's ability to employ appropriate tools to answer its specific questions

Hi friends

It is for this reason that I started the thread named "one cannot pull a nail with a hammer". Science could be almost accurate while dealing with in-animates but it could be baffled while dealing with animates (having physical body) or human beings who move about with souls or spirits within (they have, physical body + soul or spirit); they are controlled by different set of principles, in part dealing with Science and in part with Spiritual principles; totally out of the reach of the Scientists. Hitherto I have mentioned only the created things; animates, inanimates and the human beings. The Creator has nothing of the above; no physical bodies and no spirits; He is totally attributive; exclusive of the things created; unless He tell us anything about Him, we cannot know anything about Him.

If you like to; you will never be able to form the steps suggested as pre-requisites of the Scientific Method; hence the Scientists, whose knowledge has evolved over a period of time ,far from being absolute; have therefore naturally zero accuracy for it. The Scientists simply have no ability to employ appropriate tools to answer these specific questions.

a field is accurate if the methodology employed, etc, are relevant to the hypothesis being tested

They simply cannot have any methodology to be employed to know of the Creator.

Thanks

So, to cut to the chase, i think you are claiming "science doesn't know everything, therefore allah."

First of all, as we are repeatedly told that god lives in some inaccessible realm, science can have no say of the existance or non-existance of a god/s. What science can do is examine claims made by religions. In almost all cases those claims, those claims can be shown to be false.

This is surely just another repetition of the Argument From Ignorance fallacy. How about thinking up a new approach?

paarsurrey wrote:They simply cannot have any methodology to be employed to know of the Creator.

Thanks

Therefore no methodology, no Creator. Problem solved!

trubble76 wrote:So, to cut to the chase, i think you are claiming "science doesn't know everything, therefore allah."

First of all, as we are repeatedly told that god lives in some inaccessible realm, science can have no say of the existance or non-existance of a god/s. What science can do is examine claims made by religions. In almost all cases those claims, those claims can be shown to be false.

This is surely just another repetition of the Argument From Ignorance fallacy. How about thinking up a new approach?

That was my thought from the moment I read the OP. The claim "X, therefore there is a deity" is not an argument. All it is is an attempt to wedge the supernatural into a gap in human knowledge - a gap that research is probably trying to fill as I type.

When science does take a look at the claims made by various religions, those claims fail to stand up. Evidence for the existence of deities is profoundly weak at best as holy books, feelings, and appeals to authority are not evidence (which as far as I tell, those things seem to be the majority of the argument for religion).

Paarsurrey, you talk about a soul, when there is no evidence for such a construct. In fact, all the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

If paarsurrey continues with spiritual, soul, etc. then I will have to move this thread to General Debunking.

paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends

It is for this reason that I started the thread named "one cannot pull a nail with a hammer". ...

So when are you going to start another thread to explain your reason for this thread?

trubble76 wrote:
First of all, as we are repeatedly told that god lives in some inaccessible realm, science can have no say of the existance or non-existance of a god/s.

What science can do is examine claims made by religions. In almost all cases those claims, those claims can be shown to be false.

How about thinking up a new approach?

Hi friend "trubble76"

Only those claims would be proved wrong which fall withing the realm of Science; not any who are beyond their reach.

I don't mind anyone suggesting a new approach.

Thanks

William.Young wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends

It is for this reason that I started the thread named "one cannot pull a nail with a hammer". ...

So when are you going to start another thread to explain your reason for this thread?

QFT

Why don't you suggest something that actually exists that is beyond the reach of science? I can't wait. I see this asserted all the time, and never once has this been justified in any way, shape or form.

Alan B wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:They simply cannot have any methodology to be employed to know of the Creator.

Thanks

Therefore no methodology, no Creator. Problem solved!

Hi friend "Alan B"

For problems for which there is no specific methodology with Science; those problems are solved by a Real Religion; hence there is a Creator; problems solved!

Thanks

Which problems would those be, and what problems has religion ever solved, besides the problem of who to fight/persecute/bomb/subjugate next?

hackenslash wrote:Which problems

Ethical, moral and spiritual.

I have no ethical or moral problems, and in fact, religion causes at least as many ethical and moral problems as it solves, if indeed it solves anything at all. Further, you cannot demonstrate that 'spiritual' has any basis in reality. Try again.

Do you really believe that morality has anything to do with religion? Do you think that morality comes from god?

paarsurrey wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
First of all, as we are repeatedly told that god lives in some inaccessible realm, science can have no say of the existance or non-existance of a god/s.

What science can do is examine claims made by religions. In almost all cases those claims, those claims can be shown to be false.

How about thinking up a new approach?

Hi friend "trubble76"

Only those claims would be proved wrong which fall withing the realm of Science; not any who are beyond their reach.

I don't mind anyone suggesting a new approach.

Thanks

And so your made up god retreats further and further from our theatre of existence. If a being exerts some force in the world, that force can be detected and measured. If your god is trying to save us, why does he put so much effort into making it look like he doesn't care, doesn't interfere and doesn't exist? A simpler and more rational explanation is that he doesn't exist at all. This conclusion also happens to match the world we see around us.

Let me turn the situation around; if i tell you that god came to me last night and told me that islam was the worst religion ever, that i should inform muslims of this, that i should try to save their souls. I assume you would ask me why you should believe such a bizarre claim. I would answer that God said so, you don't want to argue with God, do you? If that wasn't enough evidence for you, He predicted that you wouldn't believe me, and you don't, so He was right, therefore i am right. Want more proof? He said that special feeling you get when you first see your child, that shows you He is real.
This is the basis upon which you try to force other people to believe as you do. Will you abandon your false beliefs, so that the Holy Path Of Trubbism can save your soul?

paarsurrey wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Which problems

Ethical, moral and spiritual.

Ethical and moral problems can be solved without religion. Do you think there were no ethics or morals before some rules were supposedly handed down from on high? Human beings could not live together in groups without some agreement of how to act and how to treat each other - and humans were living together in groups of all sorts of sizes a long time before god or allah were on the scene.

Spiritual problems are a case of a well person being convinced by a quack that they are sick and that the quack is the only one with the cure.

trubble76 wrote:

And so your made up god retreats further and further from our theatre of existence.

Hi friend "trubble76"

He is not made-up by me. He existed and will exist from eternity to etenity. He has a permanant abode long before Science was evolved and the Philosophy (not the Science) gave birth to the Scientific Method. I think you understand it.

Thanks

You really can't stop preaching, can you?

paarsurrey wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

And so your made up god retreats further and further from our theatre of existence.

Hi friend "trubble76"

He is not made-up by me. He existed and will exist from eternity to etenity. He has a permanant abode long before Science was evolved and the Philosophy (not the Science) gave birth to the Scientific Method. I think you understand it.

Thanks

I understand that you are preaching. Either back up your assertions, or do not make them.
I don't know how many times i have to tell you I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING FUCKING PREACHED TO. You idolise a man that had sex with children. Islam is digusting, as is christianty and the rest. You are in NO position to preach to me.

Oh, and i never said that you made god up, just that god was made up.

trubble76 wrote:Oh, and i never said that you made god up, just that god was made up.

I'm being nasty here, but given your demands it's only fair: can you back this up?

Luis Dias wrote:

trubble76 wrote:Oh, and i never said that you made god up, just that god was made up.

I'm being nasty here, but given your demands it's only fair: can you back this up?

Hehe, fair call

I should have written "...your (almost certainly) made up god..."

It just gets boring always writing things like (almost certainly) so i tend to "round-up"