Kickle said:

I'm making no claims to the length of time it will take. Merely that if you think we've finally discovered a way to figure it all out, that's probably a mistake.

---

I don't think that science has ever claimed that. Religion did however.

Fraggin said:

First define what God is.

---

Kickle said:

whoops!
This thread*

---

Kickle said:

whoops!
This thread*

---

I don't think I remember seeing anyone in this thread saying that, though I must admit I skipped some posts.
Anyways, personally I don't think I could say I know whether or not we will find out everything though science, simply because it is completely unknown what will happen and how things will evolve. What I do know though is that science seems to be the most efficient in the pursuit of knowledge.

guruu said:

One of the fundamental pillars of science is that things can always be disproved.  All our current models are based on the evidence we have now.  If new evidence comes to light, theories and models will change.

---

Fraggin said:

I think the question is what powers the mechanics of existence? What force causes our cells to continue to divide? What makes us question, learn, grow and evolve? What differs between a rock and a human mind?

---

Liquid Time said:

Fraggin said:

I think the question is what powers the mechanics of existence? What force causes our cells to continue to divide? What makes us question, learn, grow and evolve? What differs between a rock and a human mind?

---

All of those questions can be answered philosophically (and most of them scientifically) without any concept of God. 

This thread is about atheism, which is the lack of belief in God.  What you're addressing has to do with physics, cytology, neuropsychology, and epistemology.

---

Kickle said:

Can the method of science itself be disproven?
And if it can, can science itself be used to do so?

---

Kickle said:

That no belief is the only correct belief.
That "Science is always science." while "God is a fad."

That if we pursue this route, we've finally got it right.

---

Quote:

YES, yes it can, and it has.  Many, many times.

---

Quote:

I never said it was the ONLY correct belief.  In fact, I clearly said it wasn't a belief at all.  I think you should take a course in logic to be honest, to understand negatives and double negatives, and all that good stuff.

Religion can't be said be to be true though because it can't be proven.  Notice how I don't say religion is not true.  These are completely different statements with different premises.

---

Kickle said:

When? Examples please

---

Quote:

If it isn't the only correct belief, how can it prevail? What exactly is it fighting against? This brings me back to my first post in this thread.

I'm simply saying what I'm hearing. I'm not trying to use logic in any way shape or form, merely reflection. If I'm incorrectly understanding what you're saying, that is one thing. A thing that requires no further education in a classroom, and only further dialogue."

How is "God is a fad" saying "God may exist?"

---

Ferris said:

Fraggin said:

First define what God is.

---

Not the best definition, but: a supreme being that does not manifest itself to us (evidently).

---

Liquid Time said:

Fraggin said:

First define what God is.

---

Any definition of God that isn't supernatural in some respect is completely worthless.

I'd even go one step further and say that any concept of a God that isn't a personal diety, who intervenes in the affairs of humans, is also completely worthless.  Even if you want to say God exists as the laws of physics like Einstein would say...then what the fuck is the point of calling it God?  In other words, if everything is God, then what ISN'T God?

See this is what I mean by theism slowly becoming less traditionalist or dogmatic.  The more science explains our universe, the more conflicting religious beliefs we have to take away.  Compare the Puritans' beliefs of the 17th century to your suggestion that God is simply whatever the fuck we want it to be.  And again, notice how barely anyone takes the Bible literally anymore...it's all picking and choosing, slowly backing into a corner faced with the truth science offers.

I would say all of these trends are evidence enough that religion (theism, not necessarily all philosophy) is dying out and atheism will prevail.

---

I can grant you that in some sense appreciation of that sort of "god" is fairly worthless, in a pragmatic sense... but yeah - in some sense figuring out a lot of what hard science does could be called worthless too... just perhaps viewed as more concrete or comphrehensive, nonetheless it seems to have epistemlogical superiority a lot because it is easily conveyed with a causal chain of reasoning... and is quite the hobby. There are some good rationalist arguments for the necessity of an ultimate being (dont get all freaked out by that notion!)... Maybe delving into these thoughts gets those astute scientists all pissy because really I don't think we will ever know how/why concretely anything exists - it just does and you were thrust into it - GOOD DAY!

Quote:

I see this graph a lot, and it seems people forget that the Dark Ages were brought about by pagan barbarians conquering the Christian Romans.

---