The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2016, 01:51 AM
The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum. He's previously claimed the “Law of Cause and Effect” is the same as the scientific method. Major fail! In our latest crossing of swords where he's claiming that the current prevailing cosmological theory is an atheist myth I asked him if he recalled what the scientific method was and how he thought it supported his claims. His response was this.

Quote:Science is ‘knowledge’ which is obtained through seeking and finding adequate causes of all natural occurrences.
The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws. Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.

A natural, first cause of the universe is definitely not subject to the scientific method and, even more importantly, is in direct violation of established, natural laws. This disqualifies ALL proposed natural, origins scenarios from the scientific arena. They are based only on an unjustifiable and preconceived belief in naturalism, which is a religious/metaphysical/ideological position, not a scientific one.
So atheism has no legitimate claim to be anything to do with science, empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Even worse, atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded.
Theism acknowledges that scientific principles and natural laws definitlvely rule out a natural origin of the universe, and therefore the 'cause' of the universe cannot possibly be a natural one. A respect of science and natural law demands that we all acknowledge that as a fact. Anyone who doesn't cannot claim to respect science.

So according to him. Science has no remit to explain the origin of the universe. Methodological naturalism is atheistic and therefore religious and therefore not science.

But of course his take on science is the right one............despite his having a problem understanding the scientific method.

Facepalm

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
09-06-2016, 02:14 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote:Even worse, atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded.

Since he confidently asserts this he can of course back up his words? What exactly do we dispute about science or natural laws? Or is he trying to slip in God as a natural law? Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
09-06-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum. He's previously claimed the “Law of Cause and Effect” is the same as the scientific method. Major fail! In our latest crossing of swords where he's claiming that the current prevailing cosmological theory is an atheist myth I asked him if he recalled what the scientific method was and how he thought it supported his claims. His response was this.

Quote:Science is ‘knowledge’ which is obtained through seeking and finding adequate causes of all natural occurrences.
The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws. Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.

A natural, first cause of the universe is definitely not subject to the scientific method and, even more importantly, is in direct violation of established, natural laws. This disqualifies ALL proposed natural, origins scenarios from the scientific arena. They are based only on an unjustifiable and preconceived belief in naturalism, which is a religious/metaphysical/ideological position, not a scientific one.
So atheism has no legitimate claim to be anything to do with science, empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Even worse, atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded.
Theism acknowledges that scientific principles and natural laws definitlvely rule out a natural origin of the universe, and therefore the 'cause' of the universe cannot possibly be a natural one. A respect of science and natural law demands that we all acknowledge that as a fact. Anyone who doesn't cannot claim to respect science.

So according to him. Science has no remit to explain the origin of the universe. Methodological naturalism is atheistic and therefore religious and therefore not science.

But of course his take on science is the right one............despite his having a problem understanding the scientific method.

Facepalm

If the universe is defined properly as the sum total of what exists, then it becomes obvious that asking what caused the universe commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is an invalid question and should be dismissed. If one does not start with what exists then the only other alternative to existence as a starting point is non-existence. This is precisely what the theist does, he begins with non-existence. Science is the systematic application of reason to identifying what exists, entities, their attributes and their actions (causality) . It can not identify what does not exist such as gods, fairies, magic and the like.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like true scotsman's post
09-06-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum.

[Image: 2766.jpg]

Currently true. Many scientists shrug off "multiverse" as straight sci-fi, but it's like the only horse in the race. At the present level of scientific understanding, the nuts and bolts of creation may forever be beyond the scientific method.

At the same time, though; what exactly is gravity? Just because our understanding is incomplete in a specific area it is no logical reason to discard our general understanding; especially for an hypothesis that is patently absurd.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
09-06-2016, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2016 01:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(09-06-2016 01:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I periodically take a pop at a rather obnoxious creationist in another forum. He's previously claimed the “Law of Cause and Effect” is the same as the scientific method. Major fail! In our latest crossing of swords where he's claiming that the current prevailing cosmological theory is an atheist myth I asked him if he recalled what the scientific method was and how he thought it supported his claims. His response was this.

Quote:Science is ‘knowledge’ which is obtained through seeking and finding adequate causes of all natural occurrences.
The accepted (scientific) method of seeking and finding causes is observation, testing, repeatable experimentation carried out within the framework of established, natural laws. Anything that is not subject to the scientific method, or is in violation of natural laws, is beyond the remit of science.

A natural, first cause of the universe is definitely not subject to the scientific method and, even more importantly, is in direct violation of established, natural laws. This disqualifies ALL proposed natural, origins scenarios from the scientific arena. They are based only on an unjustifiable and preconceived belief in naturalism, which is a religious/metaphysical/ideological position, not a scientific one.
So atheism has no legitimate claim to be anything to do with science, empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Even worse, atheist naturalism (like the pagan naturalism which spawned it) is actually anti-science, because it disputes natural laws on which modern science and the scientific method is founded.
Theism acknowledges that scientific principles and natural laws definitlvely rule out a natural origin of the universe, and therefore the 'cause' of the universe cannot possibly be a natural one. A respect of science and natural law demands that we all acknowledge that as a fact. Anyone who doesn't cannot claim to respect science.

So according to him. Science has no remit to explain the origin of the universe. Methodological naturalism is atheistic and therefore religious and therefore not science.

But of course his take on science is the right one............despite his having a problem understanding the scientific method.

Facepalm

Same old basic fail.

Quote:is in direct violation of established, natural laws.

The application of what appears to be "natural law" IN THIS UNIVERSE, to what would have been external to, or apart from it, is a monumental fail.

Science and atheism are not really related. His god is a 'god of the gaps' and he NEEDS an answer this morning.

Also, 95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Making ANY generalizations on the basis of 5 % knowledge of this universe is premature.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2016, 05:40 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
My bonkers creationist is now claiming something quite different.....and even stranger.

Quote:We can never directly discover the origin of the universe through science. All we can do is to rule out anything that violates natural laws or scientific principles and then apply simple logic to reach conclusions.
Science rules out ALL NATURAL, origin scenarios as impossible because they ALL violate the law of cause and effect (which is the basic principle behind ALL scientific enquiry), and several other natural laws.

So science rules out all natural origin scenarios? Where did he dream that one up from? Naturally I've asked him to provide citations. It'll be interesting to find out what - if anything - he responds with. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
i just had to share that every time I read the OP in this thread I think it says

"I periodically take a poop"

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
10-06-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
WE have another thread for that Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
10-06-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(10-06-2016 07:05 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  i just had to share that every time I read the OP in this thread I think it says

"I periodically take a poop"

Believe me I'd like to be able to fling poop at the idiot creationist! Big Grin

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
10-06-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(10-06-2016 07:09 AM)skyking Wrote:  WE have another thread for that Big Grin

Of course we do. Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: