Has Science been

@KellyJay said
Denying God is no less grandiose and off topic, since we were speaking about saying the beginning of a process is meaningless to our understanding.

“Meaningless”

Almost there … “mindlessness” is next huh?

@KellyJay said
Denying God is no less grandiose and off topic, since we were speaking about saying the beginning of a process is meaningless to our understanding.

I don't think anyone is saying that understanding the beginning of a process is 'meaningless', within the context of scientific enquiry. I recall that someone once said on these forums that the rules of chess cannot be understood unless and until the origins of chess are known, which is complete nonsense. I don't know who invented chess, nor do you, but we could play a game of chess nonetheless, because we both know and play by the same rules. We don't need to know the beginning of something in order to understand it or know how it works, nevertheless our quest to understand the origins of all things are a part of scientific enquiry.

@Indonesia-Phil said
I don't think anyone is saying that understanding the beginning of a process is 'meaningless', within the context of scientific enquiry. I recall that someone once said on these forums that the rules of chess cannot be understood unless and until the origins of chess are known, which is complete nonsense. I don't know who invented chess, nor do you, but we could play a ...[text shortened]... ks, nevertheless our quest to understand the origins of all things are a part of scientific enquiry.

The rules of chess don’t require the understanding of the game’s origin, actually knowing the beginning adds next to nothing to the modern rules. A better comparison would be a very large complex mathematical problem but missing some of the details variables and trying to figure it out.

@KellyJay said
A better comparison would be a very large complex mathematical problem but missing some of the details variables and trying to figure it out.

You’ve just used an analogy which perfectly describes scientific enquiry.

@KellyJay said
Denying God is no less grandiose and off topic, since we were speaking about saying the beginning of a process is meaningless to our understanding.

A scientific explanation which requires God to make it work isn’t science. You can still believe in God if you want to, just don’t mix up religion and science, and all’s well with the world.

@moonbus said
A scientific explanation which requires God to make it work isn’t science. You can still believe in God if you want to, just don’t mix up religion and science, and all’s well with the world.

God, like love, right, and wrong, is out of science's wheelhouse, the immaterial and spiritual are typically beyond science as we cannot touch, measure, or weigh such things, so we are left with inductive reasoning, gathering a plethora of evidence to make calls that we cannot make due to first-hand knowledge.

@KellyJay said
God, like love, right, and wrong, is out of science's wheelhouse, the immaterial and spiritual are typically beyond science as we cannot touch, measure, or weigh such things, so we are left with inductive reasoning, gathering a plethora of evidence to make calls that we cannot make due to first-hand knowledge.

8 pages of this nonsense by you; are you ever going to get to the point, if you have one?

@KellyJay said
The rules of chess don’t require the understanding of the game’s origin, actually knowing the beginning adds next to nothing to the modern rules. A better comparison would be a very large complex mathematical problem but missing some of the details variables and trying to figure it out.

A better comparison to what?

@KellyJay said
God, like love, right, and wrong, is out of science's wheelhouse, the immaterial and spiritual are typically beyond science as we cannot touch, measure, or weigh such things, so we are left with inductive reasoning, gathering a plethora of evidence to make calls that we cannot make due to first-hand knowledge.

What 'first - hand knowledge' do you possess regarding the bible stories in which you believe without question?

@Indonesia-Phil said
A better comparison to what?

The game of chess.

@Indonesia-Phil said
What 'first - hand knowledge' do you possess regarding the bible stories in which you believe without question?

There are only two types of evidence eyewitness, and everything else. I have no more than the next guy, as you.

@KellyJay said
There are only two types of evidence eyewitness, and everything else. I have no more than the next guy, as you.

Surely there is only ONE type of eyewitness, I.E. the person who witnessed something first hand.

What is the other type?

@KellyJay said
The game of chess.

So according to your 'logic' a complex mathematical problem is a better comparison to the game of chess than the game of chess.

@Indonesia-Phil said
So according to your 'logic' a complex mathematical problem is a better comparison to the game of chess than the game of chess.

We were talking about ignoring the origin of the universe and life as if the beginning was unimportant, the game of chess was used as example of not knowing the beginning didn’t stop us from understanding the game. I disagreed and said it was closer to a problem where we had to calculate the for the answer while not knowing all the variables.

@KellyJay said
There are only two types of evidence eyewitness, and everything else. I have no more than the next guy, as you.

What are these “two types of eyewitnesses”?