• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists, quit confusing the two.

Science is a realm of knowledge, but not the only such realm. But theology is to my knowledge just a realm of speculation. Once theology encroaches on knowledge, do let me know.

Correct. And neither does theology.

Actually, if you look at theology (as opposed to any one particular religion or specific set of religious beliefs), which includes the investigation and exploration of a diverse range of theological beliefs and understandings there is definitely a field of knowledge to consider. Some might consider it more relevent to a blended mix of sociology and psychology, but regardless, there is knowledge and understanding to be had in the academic evaluation and understanding of theological perspectives,...IMO.
 
Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.
The basis of the opinion voiced by the street atheism hasn't change for the past four hundred years and that envisioned forced God to include the content of Genesis 6:6 into the Bible. The atheists will never correct their view of the role of science. They've bestowed divine attributes to that method of investigation; they've turned science into their god and are subservient to the word of elevated clergy ala Richard Dawkins. Any legitimate scientist knows that science doesn't deliver the truth; just a method of investigation that is superior to the one existing before the Renaissance. "There is no scientific proof of God" is a fallacious statement of a higher order, which exists and thrives on the perpetual and irreversible ignorance only street atheism can babysit. Furthermore . . .
I got to go.
 
1. God exists, and he is non-physical.
2. A few thousand years ago, God caused the entire planet to be covered in a gigantic flood.

#1 is not a scientific claim. #2 is. Both of them are also theological claims. There is overlap.

I don't need science to tell me what is moral or ethical.

Nothing is outside the realm of science. If it seems to be, it's just because we haven't figured it out yet.

Every single sentence in this post is outside the realm of science.
 
Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

What you call "metaphysics", we call it "stuff we don't have a clear answer for yet". We just don't fill in the blanks with "Goddidit". We are patient enough to accept there's no answer for X phenomena yet. We even accept the premise we may never have the answer for such phenomena.

Everything that you know today, that you take for granted because it's so obviously true, once was considered unknown and mysterious, and thus, within the realm of the "metaphysical".

A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a "God" or from a Metaphysical force. If you were to travel back to the Medieval ages with an Ipad and show people a youtube video, they would run away screaming that there's a sorcerer that has trapped humans inside a small, thin tablet.

In a way, the mysteries of how nature works (The electromagnetical field, the gravitational forces, the time-space complexities, the phenomena at quantum level, etc) are like a very very advanced technology that is still beyond our comprehension to grasp. Nature holds a vastly complex mechanism that we are still trying to figure out and that even as mankind goes extinct we may never fully decipher. In a way, Nature is the highest, most advanced form of natural technology there is. Like the Ipad in Medieval times (and even this comparison doesn't do justice to how far ahead of us is the comprehension of Nature in its whole). And we are the peasants, using nothing else but our critical thinking, properly mixed with imagination and common sense, to slowly, decipher the great puzzle.

So obviously, there are many many enigmas yet to decipher. And those are the ones you call the "Supernatural". But, there are also, false conclusions about what actually happened, say, when someone witnesses a phenomena they didn't understand, or they misinterpreted. Those are the Myths, which also enter the realm of the Metaphysical. So the Metaphysical is merely a cultural phenomena of men telling other men tales about stuff they have no evidence of and/or no full knowledge of.
 
Last edited:
Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is inside of the realm of Science.

Fixed that for you. Science studies all of reality. Theology, as a human pursuit, is necessarily a subset of reality.


Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

And neither does theology. Theology just tells us the opinions of certain people on morality and ethics.

Atheism is about whether gods exist or not. That's an empirical, objective question about reality, not a subjective one.
 
I guess I must just be some kind of crazy bastard, but I look to the field of ethics to tell me what is ethical.
 
The OP is wrong.

Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science.
 
Actually, if you look at theology (as opposed to any one particular religion or specific set of religious beliefs), which includes the investigation and exploration of a diverse range of theological beliefs and understandings there is definitely a field of knowledge to consider.

It's definitely a field of knowledge - about humans and about literary and oral works created by humans. It contains no knowledge about anything not created by humans. That's why it's inside the realm of science, not outside it.
 
Reality has no divisions or departments. When we separate and classify, it is a human endeavor to better understand the world around us. It is important to remember, however, that this is a human structural tool, not a reflection of how things really are. Putting different labels on two conflicting realms of thought does not make them cease to conflict.
 
Last edited:
I really think some of the people in this thread need to brush up on the philosophy of scienceWP. Here's a simple exercise: If you were to explain why science is a valid method of investigation, you would have to use something other than science to prove your point (lest you engage in circular reasoning). Since you're not using science, what are you doing?
 
I really think some of the people in this thread need to brush up on the philosophy of scienceWP. Here's a simple exercise: If you were to explain why science is a valid method of investigation, you would have to use something other than science to prove your point (lest you engage in circular reasoning).

No, you don't. You just have to show that science comes up with accurate answers most of the time. Sure, you have to first agree that coming up with accurate answers is what makes a method of investigation valid, but that's just defining words.
 
It's definitely a field of knowledge - about humans and about literary and oral works created by humans. It contains no knowledge about anything not created by humans. That's why it's inside the realm of science, not outside it.

That better describes Religious Studies. Theology is the study of the Unknowable -- namely the intentions of divine beings. In other words, completely useless.
 
That better describes Religious Studies. Theology is the study of the Unknowable -- namely the intentions of divine beings.

But even that gives you some information about the people who came up with these beliefs.
 
I really think some of the people in this thread need to brush up on the philosophy of scienceWP. Here's a simple exercise: If you were to explain why science is a valid method of investigation, you would have to use something other than science to prove your point (lest you engage in circular reasoning). Since you're not using science, what are you doing?

I infect them with syphilis, then I wait to see what they do to get better.
 

Back
Top Bottom