Limits of Science

Originally posted by @wildgrass
He's testing hypotheses. Not conditions. We don't know the conditions.

The hypothesis assumes conditions. You are playing word games.

Originally posted by @eladar
It has to do with what science can yell us and what it cannot.

It has to do with truth and the limits at which we can know things.

Given assumptions we can then say something had to happen. Yet faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.

This is why it is important to question and not simply believe what you are told.

What do you think we have been told which we should not believe?

Originally posted by @eladar
This is why it is important to question and not simply believe what you are told.

Literally the entire purpose of science is to ask and, more importantly, answer questions.

Its simpler than you think. The only questions that science cannot answer are those that are not testable. That's the limitation.

Originally posted by @moonbus
What do you think we have been told which we should not believe?

That in order to arrive at fact, we must assume that God does not exist.

If it can be explained by natural laws, then we know that a miracle did not take place.

We must assume that everything is a result of the natural universe.

Although this is true for anything we can do, therefore is useful for us, this does not prove God does not exist.

Originally posted by @eladar
That in order to arrive at fact, we must assume that God does not exist.

Rubbish. We make no such assumption. No such assumption required to analyze the evidence and make whatever conclusions can be rationally made from the evidence. There being a god or no god has absolutely nothing to do with it. How does believing there are NO gods help with working out what are the natural laws that give rise to rain and rainbows? Our scientific conclusions reached of what are the natural laws will be identical whether we are all theists or atheists; makes absolutely no difference whatsoever because whether there exists gods here is totally irrelevant to scientific analysis as scientific analysis only deals with what we can observe, such as natural law.

Originally posted by @humy
Rubbish. We make no such assumption. No such assumption required to analyze the evidence and make whatever conclusions can be rationally made from the evidence. There being a god or no god has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Rubbish?

I've had one person in this forum claim that the fossil record proves the Genesis account of creation has been proven false.

If you are willing to admit that there it is possible that there was no big bang and that it is possible that the creation account in Genesis could be true, then I will accept your rubbish.

That is as long as you don't turn around and claim but it should not be considered true.

Originally posted by @eladar
Rubbish?

I've had one person in this forum claim that the fossil record proves the Genesis account of creation has been proven false.

only YOUR Genesis account. NOT some other Genesis account consistent with the evidence. And NOT that there is NO gods.
So you ARE talking rubbish. We don't assume NO god or gods exist when scientifically analyzing evidence and nor do we ever need to.

Originally posted by @humy
only YOUR Genesis account. And NOT that there is no gods.
So you ARE talking rubbish. We don't assume NO god or gods exist when scientifically analyzing evidence.

There you go with faulty assumptions.

But that's ok, maybe your intellect is such that you are unable to see past your own beliefs.

Originally posted by @eladar
There you go with faulty assumptions.

So it is a faulty assumption that there necessarily exists NO god or gods?
Apparently you cannot read.
I just said "We don't assume NO god or gods exist when scientifically analyzing evidence".
If that is a "faulty assumption" then what you are saying is that I SHOULD assume NO god or gods exist when scientifically analyzing evidence.

Originally posted by @humy
So it is a faulty assumption that there necessarily exists NO god or gods?
Apparently you cannot read.
I just said "We don't assume NO god or gods exist when scientifically analyzing evidence"

That's not what I said, but you may not be bright enough to figure that out.

Originally posted by @eladar
That's not what I said,.

"There you go with faulty assumptions. "
-your quote.

Originally posted by @humy
"There you go with faulty assumptions. "
-your quote.

Yep, now read what I quoted.

Originally posted by @eladar
Yep, now read what I quoted.

"There you go with faulty assumptions. "

Originally posted by @humy
"There you go with faulty assumptions. "

Exactly what you are capable of understanding, very little.

Originally posted by @eladar
Exactly what you are capable of understanding, .

I understand you have scored an own goal plain for every reader to see; making out someone else other than you cannot read while showing you don't yourself. This is what you get from belittling everyone just for not agreeing with your religious beliefs; you belittle only to belittle yourself.