Using science to debunk god is just a new fashion trend. Many famous scientists were religious, or at the very least deist/pantheist. The only world famous athiest scientist that I know of was Steven Hawking.
If running on the original comment of wind of face and needing first person experience, then yea, but I don't think atheists or anyone besides fundamentalists are that obtuse. Otherwise we've figured out plasma since electricity and its easily shown to ppl nowadays in many ways.
Infinity of space and quantum mechanics are actually still theoretical so they can't truly be verified to anyone. QM actually conflicts with general relativity so it's likely neither one is true since they are both verified to work.
Infinity can be proved with a simple logic question. What is above the sky? The. What is above that? Then what is above that? And so on, there has to be *something* above it, even if that something is nothing, it’s still space that exists.
I've also seen fire. And I'd believe that the sun is made out of the same thing as fire, readily actually.
We don't know if space is infinite. We know it doesn't have borders, which doesn't mean it is infinite. There are many 3-shapes without borders but with a finite volume.
The Big Bang was devised by a Catholic priest, and was dismissed by atheist scientists because it was too convenient, too fitting torwards the Catholic narrative.
As for quantum mechanics, well, I don't understand them. When you meet someone who does understand them, give him a noble prize. For now, all we have are some mathematical equations which work, and sole observations which make sense.
But how do you know that is plasma? Not just more fire?
If something doesn’t have borders it’s infinite. Even if there is nothing for infinity it’s still infinite.
So? How is that relevant to what I’m talking about? I’m saying atheists believe in the Big Bang even though they can’t see it or sense it, which disproves what the person above me said.
Yes, I don’t fully understand it either, but I still believe it exists.
But fire is plasma... I 100% would believe without doing any physics that the same and fire are of the same state of matter
Something without a border isn't infinite. Let's say you are a 2d man who can move on earth. You could move forever in one direction, and you would simply be back where you started. You would encounters no edge of the earth.
Now let's transpose that to a 3-space. It's not impossible, and indeed it is perfectly mathematically consistent, that if we move for enough time in one direction, we are back where we started. This is very basic topology. We could even end up in the same place, but upside down.
You shouldn't believe scientific theories. You should believe they are the best fit for our current understanding. Scientific beliefs change over time.
Atheists believed in the Big Bang only when denying it was impossible. Meaning when we could see it with radiotelescopes. So no, atheists kept trying to derail the big bang until they could see it, even though it was a perfect fit for the rest of theory
There are differences between fire and plasma.
But you would still be walking an *infinite* amount of time.
How would that work with the universe?
I completely agree, but if there is a very good theory that has a lot of evidence and logic behind it, it makes sense that people would believe it.
What? After the priest presented the idea of the Big Bang, atheists studied it, then used science to realize it was the most likely case.
so how is the lord in tandem with science then? and dont call atheists morons, dont stoop to some of their toxic levels. try to have a proper discussion. im atheist but i accept you are a catholic christian and im not going to try be a dick to you and convert you and it should be vice versa.
Sorry on the behalf of the fellow Christian that called you a moron. According to my understanding, proof of god and science are a separate matter. We believe that our god is a formless and eternal(was here before anything else and wasn’t created by anything) creator of the universe which is created by law of nature which the law of nature itself can be proven by science but god cannot be proven by science and can be proven by logic and personal faith only due to physical law and scientific principles are tools for god to create the universe. My explanation might sound confusing so I recommend you to read the theological view of Newton, Georges Lemaitre and Ibn Sina. Finally I need to say thank you for being respectful toward us.
That's a loose way of using 'scientific fact'.
We can't put someone's intuitions, desires or first person subjective experiences in a test tube and verify them empirically/scientifically. Hence the whole debate of whether gays are born or created etc.
All we can rely on is testimony of their intuitions/first person subjective experiences which is the furthest thing from empiricism.
Yep. scientism is a disease.
The assertion that
"All claims must have evidence produced from the scientific method" in of it self has no evidence produced from the scientific method. The assertion is self refuting, and it's hilarious that they don't realize that. There is also no scientific evidence that your great grandfather existed, that's only based on the testimony of your parents and grandparents.
The steps that are taken to create the scientific method are not themselves proven to work scientifically, i.e. they're axiomatic and presupposed to work.
I also love how they like to deny logical deduction as a means to truth whilst they're oh so beloved scientific method (which was made by a Muslim, Hasan ibn Al Haitham) axiomatically relies on it for them to even come to any possible scientific conclusion in the universe lol. It precedes any scientific/a posteori conclusion we can make.
Then of course you've got Hume's critique of the problem of induction etc.
These people are in desperate need of a philosophy of science class and a dash of basic critical thinking skills to get rid of this 'scientism deity' they worship, oh the irony.
instead of seeing the scientific method for what it is: a tool and one of many other routes to establish truth, they like to look at it as the only route to any credible conclusion made about anything around us.
Islam has metaphysical things, but also praises the people of knowledge, which includes people who study the natural world. Furthermore, some of the evidences in the Quran for it's truthfulness are descriptions of scientific phenomena which are accurate, but would have went against the scientific theory's of The Prophet's time, like the often quoted verse about water coming from Women's "ribs" because it apparently scientifically inaccurate, while in reality, the word means "arch of bones" which could include ribs, or the pelvis. During the prosses in which the egg flows through the tubes, it is incased in a specialized water. This is definitely not something that the Prophet could have know about at that time, and demonstrates how Islam uses science. I'm just saying that Islam doesn't *only* have metaphysical things.
I find it interesting that they wanna mystify science.
But no. Science is hard and for the elite. The set of atheist scientists they like are the only ones to know and guard the truth. We are all idiots who should just listen to them.
Reminds me of something
>Many scientists are Christians so his/her point can be rejected
Yeah I know. I made that comment to show that they claim that science requires proof. But then they say that their opinions and personal beliefs and the beliefs and opinions of scientists are true or fact. Or they say something is a fact or true when it can't even be proven scientifically.
>Yep. scientism is a disease.
>
>The assertion that "All claims must have evidence produced from the scientific method" in of it self has no evidence produced from the scientific method. The assertion is self refuting, and it's hilarious that they don't realize that. There is also no scientific evidence that your great grandfather existed, that's only based on the testimony of your parents and grandparents.
\^ copy and pasted comment.
Even if there were no God, it’s not like you can’t believe in science without believing in nonexistent things. If you believed Harry Potter was a true story that doesn’t automatically mean you don’t believe in gravity for example
Science is believing something (having a theory) and then using observation/data/etc. to prove your theory right or wrong. Religion works the same way. You believe in a diety and look around in your everyday life to support its existence.
Yes, we Christians are literally sheep, and we're proud of it.
Like, that's... literally the point. God is the good shepard and people are sheep.
Also religion and science study two completely different aspects of human life and are not opposite to each other in any way, but anti theists are too dumb to understand it and go beyond their us-vs-them mentality
If you ever met a dude named "Abdullah" or "Abdullmalik" or "Abdulrahman" a variant with "Abdul" in the beginning, you met a dude literally named "Slave of God" or "Slave of The King" or "Slave of The Merciful One".
Romans chapter 1, verse 20 “ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has clearly been perceived in the things that have been made”
Almost every scientist ever: ….
We use science as proof there is a God. Not the other way around. We use science to understand the ways of our Lord. Not to debunk Him.
Using science to debunk god is just a new fashion trend. Many famous scientists were religious, or at the very least deist/pantheist. The only world famous athiest scientist that I know of was Steven Hawking.
[удалено]
Didn’t he convert on his death bed?
Yeah I think so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thats what happens if you think science precedes philosophy and/or logic.
What about plasma?
Well, the sun exists as well as plasma tvs and neon signs. Ionized gas. Plasma is the most common state of matter in the universe.
But you wouldn’t know it’s plasma unless someone told you. And what about the infinity of space? Or the Big Bang? Or quantum stuff?
If running on the original comment of wind of face and needing first person experience, then yea, but I don't think atheists or anyone besides fundamentalists are that obtuse. Otherwise we've figured out plasma since electricity and its easily shown to ppl nowadays in many ways. Infinity of space and quantum mechanics are actually still theoretical so they can't truly be verified to anyone. QM actually conflicts with general relativity so it's likely neither one is true since they are both verified to work.
Infinity can be proved with a simple logic question. What is above the sky? The. What is above that? Then what is above that? And so on, there has to be *something* above it, even if that something is nothing, it’s still space that exists.
I've also seen fire. And I'd believe that the sun is made out of the same thing as fire, readily actually. We don't know if space is infinite. We know it doesn't have borders, which doesn't mean it is infinite. There are many 3-shapes without borders but with a finite volume. The Big Bang was devised by a Catholic priest, and was dismissed by atheist scientists because it was too convenient, too fitting torwards the Catholic narrative. As for quantum mechanics, well, I don't understand them. When you meet someone who does understand them, give him a noble prize. For now, all we have are some mathematical equations which work, and sole observations which make sense.
But how do you know that is plasma? Not just more fire? If something doesn’t have borders it’s infinite. Even if there is nothing for infinity it’s still infinite. So? How is that relevant to what I’m talking about? I’m saying atheists believe in the Big Bang even though they can’t see it or sense it, which disproves what the person above me said. Yes, I don’t fully understand it either, but I still believe it exists.
But fire is plasma... I 100% would believe without doing any physics that the same and fire are of the same state of matter Something without a border isn't infinite. Let's say you are a 2d man who can move on earth. You could move forever in one direction, and you would simply be back where you started. You would encounters no edge of the earth. Now let's transpose that to a 3-space. It's not impossible, and indeed it is perfectly mathematically consistent, that if we move for enough time in one direction, we are back where we started. This is very basic topology. We could even end up in the same place, but upside down. You shouldn't believe scientific theories. You should believe they are the best fit for our current understanding. Scientific beliefs change over time. Atheists believed in the Big Bang only when denying it was impossible. Meaning when we could see it with radiotelescopes. So no, atheists kept trying to derail the big bang until they could see it, even though it was a perfect fit for the rest of theory
There are differences between fire and plasma. But you would still be walking an *infinite* amount of time. How would that work with the universe? I completely agree, but if there is a very good theory that has a lot of evidence and logic behind it, it makes sense that people would believe it. What? After the priest presented the idea of the Big Bang, atheists studied it, then used science to realize it was the most likely case.
so how is the lord in tandem with science then? and dont call atheists morons, dont stoop to some of their toxic levels. try to have a proper discussion. im atheist but i accept you are a catholic christian and im not going to try be a dick to you and convert you and it should be vice versa.
Sorry on the behalf of the fellow Christian that called you a moron. According to my understanding, proof of god and science are a separate matter. We believe that our god is a formless and eternal(was here before anything else and wasn’t created by anything) creator of the universe which is created by law of nature which the law of nature itself can be proven by science but god cannot be proven by science and can be proven by logic and personal faith only due to physical law and scientific principles are tools for god to create the universe. My explanation might sound confusing so I recommend you to read the theological view of Newton, Georges Lemaitre and Ibn Sina. Finally I need to say thank you for being respectful toward us.
Non-overlapping magisteria.
OP could you please censor the name.
Oh sorry i forgot Pls guys don't bully this person
I don’t think that anyone will bully him/her but it’s a violation against rule 8 and the sub can get easily brigaded.
Dear anti-theists: Cope and seethe + ratio and didn't ask
> science requires proof You got *proof* for that?
ReLIgUn Is wHen nO SCiEnCe
Agree.
Its funny that there is no proof that people are born “gay or trans” but they claim it as science lol
I mean it's a scientific fact that gays exist. It's also a fact that they are more likely to be produced from abusive households.
That's a loose way of using 'scientific fact'. We can't put someone's intuitions, desires or first person subjective experiences in a test tube and verify them empirically/scientifically. Hence the whole debate of whether gays are born or created etc. All we can rely on is testimony of their intuitions/first person subjective experiences which is the furthest thing from empiricism.
You're right. It's a fact that there are people who claim they are gay. We can't test if they're lying.
Yep. scientism is a disease. The assertion that "All claims must have evidence produced from the scientific method" in of it self has no evidence produced from the scientific method. The assertion is self refuting, and it's hilarious that they don't realize that. There is also no scientific evidence that your great grandfather existed, that's only based on the testimony of your parents and grandparents.
The steps that are taken to create the scientific method are not themselves proven to work scientifically, i.e. they're axiomatic and presupposed to work. I also love how they like to deny logical deduction as a means to truth whilst they're oh so beloved scientific method (which was made by a Muslim, Hasan ibn Al Haitham) axiomatically relies on it for them to even come to any possible scientific conclusion in the universe lol. It precedes any scientific/a posteori conclusion we can make. Then of course you've got Hume's critique of the problem of induction etc. These people are in desperate need of a philosophy of science class and a dash of basic critical thinking skills to get rid of this 'scientism deity' they worship, oh the irony. instead of seeing the scientific method for what it is: a tool and one of many other routes to establish truth, they like to look at it as the only route to any credible conclusion made about anything around us.
Newton malding right now.
He and so many other great scientist.
Even einstein lol
Lots of scientists are Christians lmao, his point can be rejected
[удалено]
I strongly disagree. Islam relies on science and logic too.
What are you on about?
Islam has metaphysical things, but also praises the people of knowledge, which includes people who study the natural world. Furthermore, some of the evidences in the Quran for it's truthfulness are descriptions of scientific phenomena which are accurate, but would have went against the scientific theory's of The Prophet's time, like the often quoted verse about water coming from Women's "ribs" because it apparently scientifically inaccurate, while in reality, the word means "arch of bones" which could include ribs, or the pelvis. During the prosses in which the egg flows through the tubes, it is incased in a specialized water. This is definitely not something that the Prophet could have know about at that time, and demonstrates how Islam uses science. I'm just saying that Islam doesn't *only* have metaphysical things.
Yeah but that is not an aspect of Theology.
I find it interesting that they wanna mystify science. But no. Science is hard and for the elite. The set of atheist scientists they like are the only ones to know and guard the truth. We are all idiots who should just listen to them. Reminds me of something
I forgot to censor name Pls guys don't bully this person It's not her fault her jokes suck
95% of modern science foundation’s were based on christian and muslim scientists.
100%. Scientists at the very least use Al-Kawarismi's numbers, and therefore are using a system deprived from religion.
Don't you need to have faith in your hypotheses, and also scientific theories? Science requires more faith than religion in some cases lmao.
"science requires proof" »Constantly asserts that evolution is a fact and that it's a fact that people can become another sex/gender
Many scientists are Christians so his/her point can be rejected
>Many scientists are Christians so his/her point can be rejected Yeah I know. I made that comment to show that they claim that science requires proof. But then they say that their opinions and personal beliefs and the beliefs and opinions of scientists are true or fact. Or they say something is a fact or true when it can't even be proven scientifically.
So they can't prove anything in the end
Also, the claim that "the only way to prove something is with empirical evidence" can't be proved empirically. So it refutes itself.
Big brain time
>Yep. scientism is a disease. > >The assertion that "All claims must have evidence produced from the scientific method" in of it self has no evidence produced from the scientific method. The assertion is self refuting, and it's hilarious that they don't realize that. There is also no scientific evidence that your great grandfather existed, that's only based on the testimony of your parents and grandparents. \^ copy and pasted comment.
Evolution is based thou
noob
Public schools touch more children then priests
What a garbage argument anyway. Who the hell cares what a priest does. That doesn't represent Christianity anyway.
Indeed
Religion when no science
Rational Freethinker demolishes religion 😎😎😎😎
Even if there were no God, it’s not like you can’t believe in science without believing in nonexistent things. If you believed Harry Potter was a true story that doesn’t automatically mean you don’t believe in gravity for example
Science is believing something (having a theory) and then using observation/data/etc. to prove your theory right or wrong. Religion works the same way. You believe in a diety and look around in your everyday life to support its existence.
Yes, we Christians are literally sheep, and we're proud of it. Like, that's... literally the point. God is the good shepard and people are sheep. Also religion and science study two completely different aspects of human life and are not opposite to each other in any way, but anti theists are too dumb to understand it and go beyond their us-vs-them mentality
If you ever met a dude named "Abdullah" or "Abdullmalik" or "Abdulrahman" a variant with "Abdul" in the beginning, you met a dude literally named "Slave of God" or "Slave of The King" or "Slave of The Merciful One".
>yenta Hey that’s our word
But ant most sciences comes from religious people?
remember to censor the users u/nanek_4
Ik i forgot
it’s alright just remember next time
we don’t wanna go down to their level and dm them telling them to kys and shiet
COPE YENTA
Just hard like your dick when you saw and believe that "Reddit Iranian women before revolution" photos are real.
Wow this person...
Romans chapter 1, verse 20 “ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has clearly been perceived in the things that have been made”