Martinez19:
SMH. You could be write a piece without being distorted. I could understand what you were trying to say even though your writings were quite disjointed. I also noted your misunderstanding of gravity.

1) The earth doesn't move because of God. Scientists are clear on why the earth moves. The earth moves because of gravity. According to the theory of relativity, space and time are combined in a single physical continuum called spacetime. When matter or energy is present in spacetime, it curves, stretchs and distorts spacetime causing objects or energy much smaller than it to move around it either in elliptical or circular orbit or bend slightly as it passes. Any of these would depend on the velocity of the object.

If you observe very well, you would see, in space, that smaller bodies revolves or bend around objects much larger than them and they would continue to do so in what seems like "forever" due to the very very very negligible energy loss caused by an object moving in spacetime. This energy loss is so negligible that it would take planet earth 10 billion years to spiral into the sun - - - - hmmm intelligent design with humans in mind (and before you start shouting rapture, sin and curse, know that this is simply due to every loss nothing more, nothing less). So mister butterflyleo, the perpetual movement of the earth around the sun is not due to your sweet sky daddy but gravitation.

You can only be correct if your spacetime is material enough to occasion such phenomena.

BTW, who believes spacetime should not also believe gravitation; for he sees space as a fabric that larger masses depress to tilt smaller masses to themselves.

But the question is:
Why do these lesser masses never roll on to the surface of the heavier ones?

Gggg102:


whose attributes and nature are determined by subjective reasoning without any scientific way of proving.

A figment of the imagination created in his mind.

budaatum:

An uncaused immovable scientific spirit.

It's like butterflyleo has run away from the thread

The uncaused cause "gibberish"(it is not even an argument) is at least 800 years old!!! It came about at a time when humans did not even use toilet roll and thought that if you put your pant in the kitchen for 21 days, it will turn into a rat!!! For a man in the 21st Century to be holding on to this [/b]d.ung[b] so desperately, and claiming that it is an evidence of his imaginary friend, is proof that there is a direct correlation between religion and Zombiefication!!!

Martinez19:
SMH. You could be write a piece without being distorted. I could understand what you were trying to say even though your writings were quite disjointed. I also noted your misunderstanding of gravity.

1) The earth doesn't move because of God. Scientists are clear on why the earth moves. The earth moves because of gravity. According to the theory of relativity, space and time are combined in a single physical continuum called spacetime. When matter or energy is present in spacetime, it curves, stretchs and distorts spacetime causing objects or energy much smaller than it to move around it either in elliptical or circular orbit or bend slightly as it passes. Any of these would depend on the velocity of the object.

If you observe very well, you would see, in space, that smaller bodies revolves or bend around objects much larger than them and they would continue to do so in what seems like "forever" due to the very very very negligible energy loss caused by an object moving in spacetime. This energy loss is so negligible that it would take planet earth 10 billion years to spiral into the sun - - - - hmmm intelligent design with humans in mind (and before you start shouting rapture, sin and curse, know that this is simply due to every loss nothing more, nothing less). So mister butterflyleo, the perpetual movement of the earth around the sun is not due to your sweet sky daddy but gravitation.

The truth is you have no proof of all these scientific explanations, hypotheses and ideologies you just shared but you "chose" to believe. Or have you been to Space? Do you know the alignment of our planet in the milky way?
No sir, you chose to believe.

Yet you won't believe the most basic concept, that Every creation was created by a creator. How difficult is that?

pressplay411:


The truth is you have no proof of all these scientific explanations, hypotheses and ideologies you just shared but you "chose" to believe. Or have you been to Space? Do you know the alignment of our planet in the milky way?
No sir, you chose to believe.

Yet you won't believe the most basic concept, that Every creation was created by a creator. How difficult is that?

if you know what science is all about, you would not have typed what you typed.

Martinez19:
if you know what science is all about, you would not have typed what you typed.

And what's science all about?

pressplay411:


And what's science all about?

Science is about truth and objective reality. Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science.

Martinez19:
Science is about truth and objective reality. Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science.

The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.

An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment.

Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective.

So this cannot be said to be a good position for "truth" as you infer. There are still so much out there that are true and yet have no scientific evidence backing them up yet science cannot deny their existence.

cc vaxx am i right?

Butterflyleo:


The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.

An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment.

Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective.

So this cannot be said to be a good position for "truth" as you infer. There are still so much out there that are true and yet have no scientific evidence backing them up yet science cannot deny their existence.

cc vaxx am i right?

Consider the two sets.
A: all things that are true.
B: all things that are scientific facts.

B is a subset of A. B is increasing in capacity (or evolving) and the limit of such capacity is A. Therefore we can conclude that all scientific facts are objective reality but not all objective reality are yet scientific facts. Nature has wired to our subjective experience to be in tone with objective reality as long as it doesn't compromise our survival.

Understood.

Martinez19:

Consider the two sets.
A: all things that are true.
B: all things that are scientific facts.

B is a subset of A. B is increasing in capacity (or evolving) and the limit of such capacity is A. Therefore we can conclude that all scientific facts are objective reality but not all objective reality are yet scientific facts. Nature has wired to our subjective experience to be in tone with objective reality as long as it doesn't compromise our survival.

Understood.

You need to read my comment again for clarity. Its obvious you did not understand it.
Mostly science now is seeking to support a preconceived hypothesis or argument, and is simply pursuing "empirical" evidence to support that position.

That is subjectivity and not objectivity.

Understood?

Butterflyleo:


The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.

An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment.

Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective.

So this cannot be said to be a good position for "truth" as you infer. There are still so much out there that are true and yet have no scientific evidence backing them up yet science cannot deny their existence.

cc vaxx am i right?

vaxx, is he right?

Martinez19:
Science is about truth and objective reality. Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science.

So what happens to phenomena that science hasn't been able to prove? Does that make them unreal? Or is that incapacity and inadequacy of science?

I mean what's your explanation for Deja vu, Sleep paralysis, Hailey's comet, astrology, miracles etc. The fact that science doesn't give explanations for them doesn't make them unreal, but Science is yet to understand them.
EM waves weren't discovered/explained until about 150 years ago by Heinrich Hertz. Does that mean they were unreal before then? Now we harness it in our technology from phones to drones because we now know and understand better.

Hence for starters, God is beyond science. And His choice of indiscoverability doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but rather, science is inadequate to prove His existence.

Martinez19:

Nature has wired to our subjective experience to be in tone with objective reality as long as it doesn't compromise our survival.

Understood.

No, not understood. Elaborate please.

How is subjective experience wired to be in tone with objective reality?

[quote author=Martinez19 post=67052634]

Science is about truth and objective reality.

Science is our attempt to “capture” the truth in a form that can be shared and tested and discussed and propagated from one person to another. We write it down, we talk about it, we use it to build more science, etc. and this become objective. which means All that involves the use of relative things that cannot be made non-relative or absolute. So science cannot “contain” the truth in his openness, it can only make an attempt to represent some aspect of it..

Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science.

this is false, science does not deals with proof, I can tell you that right this second, I sat beside a pretty damsel at elengunshi beach talking to one of the oloshos, If anyone come to elegunshi now, they would see the two of us, and go away knowing that we were really at the beach.

The proof that we were in the beach was the fact that they saw us!

There’s all sorts of things that we bandy around as facts — for instance, that England won the football world cup in 1966 or real Madrid won yesterday match. hope you watch it? if i ask you to prove it, you may show me video or photos supporting your claim. and it will have to be a kind of obstinate fo anyone to disagree that real Madrid won yesterday match, nobody doubt that Nigeria was in a big mess under general sanni abacha at least i remember though i was younger then.

But in the scientific realm? Doubt abounds.

None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people having sex with your own eyes! though it counts

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about. And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world. I cannot prove to you that electrons exist.
No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, prove that things will always fall down when you drop them, prove that energy is conserved, prove that dark matter exists, prove that quantum physics is real. you know why Because that it is not what science is about.

Proof can only exist when there is no doubt, and there is always doubt. You could be a brain in a vat, living in a crazy simulation. You could be hallucinating everything. as ellon musk put it. so science only gather evidence, but evidence will never be 100% perfect,there’s always the chance that everything you scientifically verified might needs further explanation or even turns out to be false — but the evidence allows us to make current-best-evidence-guesses

pressplay411:

Hence for starters, God is beyond science. And His choice of indiscoverability doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but rather, science is inadequate to prove His existence.

So, is it your opinion that the title of this thread, Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived, is false?

pressplay411:


So what happens to phenomena that science hasn't been able to prove? Does that make them unreal? Or is that incapacity and inadequacy of science?

I mean what's your explanation for Deja vu, Sleep paralysis, Hailey's comet, astrology, miracles etc. The fact that science doesn't give explanations for them doesn't make them unreal, but Science is yet to understand them.
EM waves weren't discovered/explained until about 150 years ago by Heinrich Hertz. Does that mean they were unreal before then? Now we harness it in our technology from phones to drones because we now know and understand better.

Hence for starters, God is beyond science. And His choice of indiscoverability doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but rather, science is inadequate to prove His existence.

THUMBS UP

budaatum:

So, is it your opinion that the title of this thread, Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived, is false?

I agree with you on it. but the op is a good writeup wordy of brain cracking

Butterflyleo:


The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.

An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment.

Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting t[b]he results are usually very subjective.
[/b]
So this cannot be said to be a good position for "truth" as you infer. There are still so much out there that are true and yet have no scientific evidence backing them up yet science cannot deny their existence.

cc vaxx am i right?

this is what is dragging science progress, not having consensus agreement. the fact of science should be objective.

i love the first point, the one i colored.

budaatum:

So, is it your opinion that the title of this thread, Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived, is false?

These words below I used just today on another thread.

Science cannot prove God but can infer this to those who examine the evidence sincerely.

And if you truly went through the OP. It specifically speaks on inference based on the points in the OP.

budaatum:

vaxx, is he right?

i answer something similar like this in your former thread where i use global warming as an example. check up

vaxx:
this is what is dragging science progress, not having consensus agreement. the fact of science should be objective.

i love the first point, the one i colored.

Exactly! And because there is no general concensus, it then cannot be a pointer to truth because it falsifies itself.

Butterflyleo:


These words below I used just today on another thread.

Science cannot prove God but can infer this to those who examine the evidence sincerely.

And if you truly went through the OP. It specifically speaks on inference based on the points in the OP.

"Sincerity", is a subjective element and has nothing to do with science, is my opinion.

Below is a view on science from vaxx. Could you let me know if in your opinion, it means the same as what you wrote?

vaxx:
Science is interested in answering questions and acquiring knowledge concerning the observable universe and this cannot be done subjectively as it will contradict scientific methodology even if the researcher has a good intention.the goals of scientific research are: description, prediction, and explanation/understanding. some individual had controlling and application to the list of the goals. All these cannot be subjective, it must be objective for the goals to be achieve .

Vaxx, note that this specific discussion relates to science!

budaatum:

"Sincerity", is a subjective element and has nothing to do with science, is my opinion.

Below is a view on science from vaxx. Could you let me know if in your opinion, it means the same as what you wrote?


Vaxx, note that this specific discussion relates to science!

I captured this in my earlier post so let me repeat.

The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers.

An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment.

Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective

In order to elaborate on this I now said

Mostly science now is seeking to support a preconceived hypothesis or argument, and is simply pursuing "empirical" evidence to support that position.

That is subjectivity and not objectivity.

What vaxx said was simply echoing this comment of mine. And yes sincerity is subjective and that is what science has been doing " ideologically".

vaxx:
i answer something similar like this in your former thread where i use global warming as an example. check up

vaxx:
this idea is what is stopping or hurting the progress of science, An example of this can be found with global warming or climate change. Some scientists believe that the modern weather we have is the result of normal fluctuations in patterns, others believe that human activities have changed the Earth's weather patterns. even Donald trump employ his own scientist to formulate theories that suit his own interest, he declare global warming is not true. No consensus agreement.

Which was in response to the following:

budaatum:
The subjective view is not encouraged in science as it cannot objectively be verified or falsified (tested, you would say). That is not to say that in all spheres of life, you discard subjective truth (for which I give two opinions below).

A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.

To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person(s) making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others.

Some even claim that the objective view of the scientist is still tainted with subjectivity as the scientist is speaking from their own perspective.

No! What objective evidence is there for or against gods? Would the god-believers and non-god-believers therefore agree that they have no knowledge to share? I don't think so. Just look at the number of threads set up on either side for sharing the subjective opinion for and against gods.

Butter, is the bit in bold not what you have suggested?

budaatum:



Which was in response to the following:

kudos

budaatum:



Which was in response to the following:


Butter, is the bit in bold not what you have suggested?

Yes and that was you speaking albeit unknowingly in support of the fact that science has been tainted by individual scientific subjectivity when such should be far away from science for it to be actually truly scientific.

This is why there will always be opposing sides to scientific research. One person wants to prove his own preconceived hypothesis while another wants to do same with their own so its in a sense a scientific cheat even before conclusions are derived.

This then makes scientists to provide parameters that would prove their hypothesis and even when their hypothesis fails to be proven, they keep tweaking the parameters until it is met. This does not then speak of actual truth but a rather false position gotten through subjective manipulation.

budaatum:

So, is it your opinion that the title of this thread, Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived, is false?

God has chosen to be indiscoverable. Proof of hHs existence is not just in the singularity of his manifestation but in everything around us, seen and unseen. It is your "choice" however to decide to acknowledge Him.

OP went to a great length to speak the language of science, Proof and Evidence which he did justice too. But it all still comes down to choice. The concept of divergent logic itself proves the existence of a creator.
The complexity of the creation in itself is all the proofs you could ever ask for. You have a Giant Sun suspended in the air, Stars, Moon, Oceans, etc.

Butterflyleo:
Yes and that was you speaking albeit unknowingly in support of the fact that science has been tainted by individual scientific subjectivity when such should be far away from science for it to be actually truly scientific.

Butter, how can I possibly have such a detailed discussion on the same issue with vaxx for so long and then post the exact same thing here, which corresponds with what you wrote, which is why I reposted it, and then be accused by you of doing so unknowingly? I demand an apology please. You see disagreement where none exists!

kovah, can you see how people build up imaginary realities in their heads?

Butterflyleo:
This is why there will always be opposing sides to scientific research. One person wants to prove his own preconceived hypothesis while another wants to do same with their own so its in a sense a scientific cheat even before conclusions are derived.

And as vaxx and I rightly pointed out, such subjectivity should be eliminated as much as possible or don't call it scientific. It should not be license to stoop to their level.

Butterflyleo:
This then makes scientists to provide parameters that would prove their hypothesis and even when their hypothesis fails to be proven, they keep tweaking the parameters until it is met. This does not then speak of actual truth but a rather false position gotten through subjective manipulation.

When people do what you describe here sensible people call them crackpots.

If they tweak parameters and build a bridge on such premises, the bridge will fall down, and if they did the same when building a rocket to go to Mars they will end up in the Atlantic ocean!

vaxx:
I agree with you on it. but the op is a good writeup wordy of brain cracking

It was very worthy of consideration, but alas, op was doing what you accused me of, arguing unnecessarily to prove a point, while refusing to consider anyone else's opinion or view on the matter, or he would have admitted he had not scientifically proven anything of the sort. But go back and check how many times he was told but refused to acknowledge the fact while continously asking that his position be refuted even though it was pointed out to him in the very first few responses that his premises were wrong!

I guess we now know what some do when they claim to be scientific!

vaxx:
this is what is dragging science progress, not having consensus agreement. the fact of science should be objective.

i love the first point, the one i colored.

Science cannot be by consent if no objective evidence is provided to justify that consent! That is why scientific experiments, at least, require peer reviews to ascertain repeatability, verifiability , falsifiability, and most important of all, objectivity.

No one in their right sense can argue that a one litre jug filled with a carefully measured out half a litre of water is not half full and half empty.

budaatum:

Butter, how can I possibly have such a detailed discussion on the same issue with vaxx for so long and then post the exact same thing here, which corresponds with what you wrote, which is why I reposted it, and then be accused by you of doing so unknowingly? I demand an apology please. You see disagreement where none exists!

kovah, can you see how people build up imaginary realities in their heads?


And as vaxx and I rightly pointed out, such subjectivity should be eliminated as much as possible or don't call it scientific. It should not be license to stoop to their level.


When people do what you describe here sensible people call them crackpots.

If they tweak parameters and build a bridge on such premises, the bridge will fall down, and if they did the same when building a rocket to go to Mars they will end up in the Atlantic ocean!

making sense of our realities in d scientific way and hoping it will not b subjective to our reality is not possible