2nd greatest question

Originally posted by @josephw
[bThank you for your permission, but it's not necessary, because it's not my opinion.[/b]

Yes, it is. That's all it is. Really.

Originally posted by @josephw
[b]"You are entitled to your opinion..."

Thank you for your permission, but it's not necessary, because it's not my opinion.

Information(creator) + matter(energy) = life(organized biological material) Observable, objectively existing, independent of an opinion.

Not a perfect formula illustration, but it gets the point across.[/b]

Your premise that God exists is an opinion. (And not a very persuasive one).

Deal with it.

Originally posted by @josephw
Information(creator) + matter(energy) = life(organized biological material) Observable, objectively existing, independent of an opinion.

This is simply an assertion rooted in your superstitious thoughts and not, in any shape or form, something that is "independent of an opinion". Next, you'll be asserting that the afterlife/immortality that Christians tell themselves they will go on to after their stint on Earth is also "observable, objectively existing, independent of an opinion" as well. But it's not.

Originally posted by @apathist
Yes.

Is that a true statement then that "Everything true has to have a scientific explanation" ?

Because if it is then you cannot avoid circular reasoning. How can you demonstrate scientifically that everything true has to have a scientific explanation and not employ circular reasoning?

To do science you have to start with a philosophical assumption which itself is not proved by the scientific method. But don't be bothered. It only means that the science enterprise does have limits.

If science has limits is that a cause of human despair?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Personally I prefer that we are told how and why.

Yes, I see that.

Originally posted by @sonship
Is that a true statement then that "Everything true has to have a scientific explanation" ?

I never made the statement you quote, but yes, in my opinion reality will submit to scientific explanations.

To do science you have to start with a philosophical assumption which itself is not proved by the scientific method. But don't be bothered. It only means that the science enterprise does have limits.
The 'scientific method' is a lie we tell children. This allows them to realize they will be able to grasp understanding even as it becomes more complicated and so more difficult to do so. Science isn't meant to prove science, it is meant to understand reality. The reason it works so well (and has grown beyond mere physics) is because it doesn't care what you or I believe. It just gives explanations and if the explanations do not work, we toss them!

If science has limits is that a cause of human despair?
What are you trying to say?

Science isn't static, haven't you figured that out? Human despair gets grandfathered in, though.

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes, it is. That's all it is. Really.

It's just your opinion that it's my opinion, but it's not my opinion, it's an observable fact, the universe was created.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your premise that God exists is an opinion. (And not a very persuasive one).

Deal with it.

You can keep saying that all day, but it won't change the truth.

God is. Deal with it.

Originally posted by @apathist
I never made the statement you quote, but yes, in my opinion reality will submit to scientific explanations.

[b]To do science you have to start with a philosophical assumption which itself is not proved by the scientific method. But don't be bothered. It only means that the science enterprise does have limits.
The 'scientific method' is a lie we t ...[text shortened]... Science isn't static, haven't you figured that out? Human despair gets grandfathered in, though.[/b]

"The 'scientific method' is a lie we tell children."

Nachash speak

Originally posted by @josephw
It's just your opinion that it's my opinion, but it's not my opinion, it's an observable fact, the universe was created.

You have your opinion. And I have mine. What you are asserting and what I am saying about your assertion are both mere opinions.

Originally posted by @fmf
You have your opinion. And I have mine. What you are asserting and what I am saying about your assertion are both mere opinions.

I have many opinions, but the assertion that the universe displays evidence of a creator isn't an opinion. It's an observable fact.

It is only your opinion that that is an opinion. It's not you opinion though that the universe exists is it? Of course not. You can see it. It's an observable fact that the universe exists.

Open your eyes. Look a little closer. It's also an observable fact that the universe was created.

Originally posted by @josephw
I have many opinions, but the assertion that the universe displays evidence of a creator isn't an opinion. It's an observable fact.

It is your personal opinion that "it's an observable fact".

Originally posted by @apathist
Yes, I see that.

To be told by people close to the events in question. I think that is preferred over people
who don't know all of the ins and outs yet want to speak as if they do.

Originally posted by @fmf
It is your personal opinion that "it's an observable fact".

It is only your opinion that it is my opinion. It's not your opinion though that the universe exists is it? Of course not. You can see it. It's an observable fact that the universe exists.

Originally posted by @josephw
It is only your opinion that it is my opinion. It's not your opinion though that the universe exists is it? Of course not. You can see it. It's an observable fact that the universe exists.

We both look at an apple on the ground and agree it is an observable fact that the apple exists. How the apple got there however is not an observable fact, if neither of us were there to witness its arrival.