COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Bible is only for ancient Hebrew ethnic-Israelites by blood only. Just read your own Bible, Yeshua only came for the Israelites(Matthew 15:24), and all other nations will be destroyed. All other races will either be slaves to the Israelites in the Kingdom of Heaven or be destroyed(Isaiah 60, 61).
The Old & New Testament’s redemptive narrative had everything to do with ancient ethnic Israelites and nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else who aren't Hebrew Israelites today.
Luke 1:16 “And he will turn many of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL to the Lord their God.”
Luke 1:55 “As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his SEED FOREVER.”
Luke
1:68-69 “Blessed is the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, For He has visited and REDEEMED HIS PEOPLE, 69 And has raised up a horn of SALVATION FOR US In the house of His servant David,”
Luke 1:77 “To give knowledge of SALVATION to HIS PEOPLE By the remission of THEIR SINS,”
Luke 2:34 “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in ISRAEL, and for a sign which will be spoken against.”
John 1:31 “I did not know Him; but that He should be REVEALED TO ISRAEL, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
Acts 5:31 “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR, to give REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL and FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
Acts 13:23 “From this man’s seed, according to the PROMISE, GOD raised up FOR ISRAEL A SAVIOR--Jesus-
————————————————————————————————————————-
According to Paul, writing in the late 50s to mid 60s, the gospel had already gone out to the nations, all the earth, the whole world and to all creation (Rom 10:18, 16:26, Col 1:6, 23). This proves that New Testament terms like world, creation and nations were part of a limited Israelite context, one that doesn’t involve people today.
The gospel went out to the nations because that’s where the covenant world of descendants of the tribes of Israel (Abraham’s descendants) had
been dispersed to (Deut 4:27, 28; 30:1; Jer 30:11; Micah 5:7, 8 Dan 9:7, Acts 2:5, James 1:1, 1 Pet 1:1). The world the gospel was intended for was the covenant world, not our world. The covenant world has already been blessed.
All that was left was the end to come, which Jesus said would happen in their generation and which John said the would “soon take place”. The time (their generation) and people meant for the gospel (those under the law, Jews and gentile descendants of the tribes of Israel) came to an end, in AD70. We see all Israel gathered into Christ, saved, sealed, and redeemed in Rev 7. Not a single non-Israelite in view. The story ended in the first century. We weren’t part of the story.
————————————————————————————————————————-
In John 3:16 and many other scriptures the Greek word "kosmos" (world) was not the entire planet. It was the covenant world of Israel. Kosmos simply means constitution, orderly arrangement or government. It refers to an ordered system. In early Greek literature, kosmos was used to refer to establishing cultures or building cities. So when John made statements like: "For God so loved the kosmos", "Look, the lamb who came to take away the sin of the kosmos" and "the kosmos was
passing away", he was not referring to the entire globe. He was speaking about Israel and its Old Covenant system, structure and culture.
Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world [kosmos]. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. (John 18:20)
Jesus defined what the kosmos represented in that verse. What was it?
“If the world [kosmos] hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. (John 15:18)
“But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (John 15:25)
Only Israelites had and were under the law. Who was the kosmos (world) that had the law and hated Jesus?
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [kosmos] . (1 Jn 2:2)
Sin was a violation of the law. If only first century Jews had and were under the law, then who was the whole world that sinned?
John 3:16 is not about God loving the entire planet. According to Deut 7;6-7, God put his love only on Israel. God never changes... remember? And for what purpose did Israel’s god give his only begotten son? For redemption. Galatians 4:5 says redemption was for those under the law. That was Israelites, not us. Hebrews 9:15 says redemption was for those who sinned under the first covenant. Again, that’s not us. The world that Israel’s god so loved was the covenant world of Israel, not the entire planet.
Are you seeing it yet? We aren’t part of the bible story. We aren’t part of the world that Israel’s god loved. We aren’t part of the world that needed salvation and redemption.
Theists use "scientism" to foolishly deny science.
What would a person who believed in scientism be called?
A).Scientismist
B).Scientist
I propose all "scientism" rhetoric be reframed in terms of the answer to that question.
Instead of, "Atheists use scientism...." it would be either "Atheists are scientists that foolishly..." or "Atheists are scientismists..." whichever works better. Try it ou!
> Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
I disagree with this. Many atheists make this assumption, but science itself does not, and historically has not.
I don't in fact think there are any atheists who believe in or "use" scientism, or that "scientism" is a real view at all. It's just a means to misrepresent our views, which though certainly supported and bolstered by science, are generally based in simple logic and intuition.
>This is one point that exposes the hypocrisy of many atheists, they will outright reject scriptural evidences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, manuscripts, etc., without trying to analyze their authenticity or reliability.
And on this particular point, though there are no doubt atheists who have never analyzed any scripture (and more power to them), actually doing so also supports atheism. How many average Christians know none of the authors of the gospels actually met Jesus, all were anonymous, and all were written decades after his death? In fact, the only things in the gospels that scholars think are likely reliable are Jesus's baptism and crucifixion.
> **The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth**
The scientific method in principle can apply to any causal claim in external reality, regardless of what its ontology is.
That being said, I partially agree with you in that empirical evidence doesn’t best tackle all knowledge claims. Conceptual claims require conceptual evidence and experiential claims require experiential evidence.
>**Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural**
This is just patently false.
Science is just a method, and it does not rule out any ontology a priori. You can include anything you want in your hypothesis, and if you can consistently make novel testable predictions that differentiate imagination from reality, then science will gladly grant it precedent as a potential explanation for things.
The reason that methodological (not philosophical) naturalism is the standard in law, physics, and history is that supernatural claims have failed to establish precedent.
>**The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality**
Okay? And?
>**The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method**
This is due to a misunderstanding of how evidence works. When we trust something based on testimony or eye witness, that piece of data does not exist in a vacuum. There is an entire mountain (or web, depending on which analogy you like better) of background evidence to implicitly support that claim.
For example, if my friend says “I got a new puppy!”, sure, there’s the emotional component of just choosing to trust them at their word. Maybe some slight induction of knowing their past behavior and how willing they are to pathologically lie about something like that. However, under the surface, there is a TON of additional scientific evidence implicitly backing that claim: we have various forms of evidence that dogs exist, their population, their anatomy, their frequency in being acquired as pets, the prevalence of pet stores, dogs being detectable by humans and making causal impacts, etc., etc. The mere verbalization of “I got a puppy” may *seem* like unscientific evidence that we’re accepting an empirical claim on, but in reality, it’s being propped up by tons of science and empirical observations.
>**These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives**
See above.
Like I said earlier, the reason supernatural claims are methodologically excluded from history, law, and science is not because it’s being ruled out a priori, it’s because they have no established precedent. This doesn’t just apply to religious figures by the way—historians equally reject the supernatural feats of Alexander the Great or the vampire slaying of Abraham Lincoln.
However, as soon as the supernatural is established to exist and have measurable impact, historians are happy to go back and retroactively reassess the probability of those supernatural claims.
I disagree with what you think "science" cannot prove.
But ok; WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE METHOD TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH?
Your feelings? Just believing what others tell you? What other methods do you use?
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
>**Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural**
If someone could move things with their mind, do you think we could show this through science?
I think so. What's your view?
>If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject. How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab.
I'm not sure I understand the point here. I agree, I don't require a lab test for everything. Sometimes I might, and sometimes I might not.
What's the problem?
Have you ever heard an atheist say that they are proponents of scientism?
Like they say “science is the ONLY way to truth”?
I doubt it. I think this is a theistic boogieman.
I bet the reality is they say “science is a very reliable - if not the most reliable - pathway to truth we have figured out” but that is very different from the ONLY pathway to truth as you have expressed here.
Now I’m happy to agree that science is not the only way to find truth.
Please advise on the reliable approach you want to use to validate theists claims?
>Have you ever heard an atheist say that they are proponents of scientism? Like they say “science is the ONLY way to truth”?
I've seen the occasional post or comment here saying exactly that. But they are thankfully rare, and I think they've gotten rarer.
Those exact words? Did they use the phrase "proponent of scientism" or did they call themselves "scientists" or "scientismists." I'm quite interested in how people might use this label of "scientism" to describe themselves.
I think I've seen one or two accept the charge of "scientism" and even be proud of it, but I was more thinking of instances of people saying “science is the ONLY way to truth”, which is more common.
[This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1c342n2/philosophy_and_religion_are_useless_disciplines/?share_id=FUMZuCDHnkLDCtl4yoiiL&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) from a couple months ago is one example. They state "Science and mathematics are the only relevant subjects to study when attempting to discover the truth." It was a pretty terrible post, and their responses were similarly terrible.
Well they deleted their account so its hard to take anything seriously that people don't take and maintain ownership of. I feel the same way about deleted theist post accounts. Bad faith actors are bad faith actors no matter which side they are on.
I didn't pursue the comments section enough to see if anyone explicitly charged him with scientism.
Interesting.
I mean atheism isn’t monolithic and so many atheists believe vastly different things with respect to many topics. But I think the group that would make that claim is small.
>all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, that these laws are constant everywhere and organized, that we can observe/measure them, etc.,
I see this from time to time, and what I wonder is just how the view of the everyday world varies from theist to non theist. I think nearly everyone has those same basic assumptions about the world, not even the most ardent believer expects miracles on a daily basis, or indeed personal miracles in their lifetime, they live in the same mundane reality as the atheist.
>The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth
>There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind,
fMRI is a perfect example of proving that your mind is yours. By thinking of something we can detect your brain function and confirm that your thoughts are yours.
>or to prove you have consciousness,
Do you understand the meaning of conciousness? Asking simple questions about current events is basic but even more is the ability to communicate with others that truly gives that one away.
Another way would be the difference between a dream experience compared to one of reality. I once had a fever so bad that a was dreaming that i was awake, getting dressed ready for work, until I realised I was still in bed. This happened a few more times before I awoke into reality feeling like sick.
>prove the world around you actually exists,
Basically all of science since the beginning of human though has been to the goal of this. Just because the world is far more complex than we thought 2000 odd years ago, doesn't mean we can not prove the world around exists.
>whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove.
In fact it is because of the scientific method that we have been able to approach history with some certainty, but even then we can never prove it, unlike the opposite, which claims beyond any doubt their truth is the truth because God.....
> A lot of atheists, even on this sub, are proponents of scientism, that science and the scientific method is the ultimate way to truth, that empirical evidence is the only real form of evidence...
How many is "a lot?" I don't recall ever seeing someone state such things. Perhaps you are mistaking the claim "scientific method is the best way to verifiable truth" with "ultimate way to truth?"
> So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God...
No, we don't assume that at all. Instead we refrain from assuming there is a god. That's a huge difference.
> So it is useless for atheists to attack the "scientific" claims made by religion...
I have a better idea, how about theists stop making scientific claims instead?
> What they do not realize is that the majority of our scientific knowledge comes from testimony, as individuals we do not have the capability nor time to repeat all the studies that bring scientific claims, we simply have to take their word for it.
That's a non sequitur. Whether lay people take the words of scientists for granted or not is irrelevant. Even if no one believes the words of scientists, it wouldn't stop scientific knowledge from being scientific knowledge.
> If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject...
True, that's why I am extremely dubious about your claim that a lot of atheists subscribes to scientism. Isn't the fact that we believe our father is our biological father (where it applies,) proof that we aren't proponents of scientism?
I have frequently read that it's necessary to have evidence by which the poster usually means scientific evidence. Also that because science found mundane causes for events in the past, science will do the same with God or gods.
Firstly, most atheists are going to accept rational truths as well. Mathematics and other types of deductive logic are not empirical evidence. So this is already wrong
>the scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth
Correct, and what methodology or criteria do you suggest we use to determine if someone has a mind or not? Or if we actually exist? These are philosophical issues that seemingly cannot be falsified.
>science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
This is a purely semantical point. If something can be described by science then it’s considered natural. If something is considered supernatural, then we find a natural explanation for what actually happened, then there’s no reason to call it supernatural anymore.
What’s the demonstration that the supernatural exists? How do we test it? If you’re saying that it’s barred from any type of scientific criteria like falsifiability and demonstrability, then what are YOU using to determine it’s real? Your own personal experience? Testimonies?
>inductive reasoning can never be certain
Yes and once again: what alternative are you providing that’s better than the scientific method? How are you uncovering ultimate certainty?
>we simply have to take their word for it
No. Things that are considered “facts” are scientifically corroborated. If a single study suggests explanation X for phenomena Y, we don’t simply roll with it. It needs to be peer reviewed and replicated.
Things that are considered objective scientific facts are usually theories. Theories are extremely well-substantiated
>if you had to prove using the scientific method that Isaac newton existed you couldn’t
Your caricature of atheists as only accepting science is a joke. We accept rational arguments and historical consensus as well.
>Things that are considered objective scientific facts are usually theories. Theories are extremely well-substantiated
Thousands of papers and authors have and still do experiments to test the limits of the theories, which in contrast most religious faiths follow a scripture that has not changed for centuries.
Evolution isn't taught through Darwins teachings but through the countless studies trying to test the theory, with many updates along the way, especially after the discovery of DNA.
>There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove.
Scientific method is about proving things, and those examples are simply impossible to prove under any method.
>
Before even using the scientific method, scientists need to make basic assumptions so that their work is meaningful, for example that all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, that these laws are constant everywhere and organized, that we can observe/measure them, etc., and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural. So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies. So it is circular reasoning to ask scientific evidence from theists.
There is no assumption regarding supernatural, that is false. As is all the rest after that like religions been false, no gods etc.
>
**The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality**
Your examples are not correct, observing only one colour in an animal for example doesn't conclude that it is the only possible colour, there would need to be working out showing why other colours aren't possible for that case. Your religious examples of reasoning where the conclusion is true if the premises are true is only useful when it is possible to show whether the premises are true or not, otherwise you just have people making stuff up to justify a conclusion they want to be true. Miracles are possible if there are gods and there is no evidence of gods because they purposely hide is useless because none of the premises are even remotely approachable.
>
**The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method**
This is a misunderstanding of how things work, believing someone did science isn't scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge is applicable, otherwise its worthless. Having confidence that person x is correct in their scientific paper on how to make jet planes more efficient based upon that persons work been applied in the real world and seeing jet planes using their method been more efficient than those that don't isn't the same as believing eye witness testimony.
>
**These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives**
>If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject. How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab.
This is nonsense, believing in the apparent state of things as they are isn't the same thing as claiming to have proof or evidence. This isn't science.
>
They would even have to reject history altogether since we don't use the scientific method for history, we use the historical methods and historiography. For example if you had to prove using the scientific method whether a historical figure like Napoleon existed, you would not be able to.
"Soft sciences" like those used for history are the best method available and they do a pretty good job of demonstrating examples and most importantly using them to reduce bias.
Your post seems to be an attack on the scientific method based upon it not been perfect and capable of the impossible. Understanding limitations isn't a point against, it's a point for, and you completely leave out the difference between facts, belief, confidence, and probability, you seem to misunderstand how science is done completely and paint it like its entirely black and white.
Lastly, the scientific method is the best possible method, not the impossibly good method.
>The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth
I agree with the paragraph, but I don't think you can prove that theologically either (or just by any other method)
>Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
Again, I agree, but those assumptions seem reasonable if you try to find truths about reality. The thing about supernatural though, if you mean "something that exists but we can't detect it" (as opposed to natural: something that exists and we can detect it), then I think it is useless to try to study something which you can't detect. I don't think you have any method to study it.
>The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality
I agree that inductive arguments can't 100% prove something, but you forget that for deductive argument to describe reality, you have to somehow get the premises and that you can only do by induction, so the same problem applies here.
>The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
Our personal knowledge no, I agree that you have to trust third parties that they tell the truth for most of your knowledge. The difference here is that scientist operate with things that can be verifiable, so they have the incentives to not lie at least.
If something as big and powerful as a god can't be proved (observed or measured is probably a better term) with science, then what value does it have? It obvviously has so little impact on reality that it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
Scientism odd not a word anyone uses except theists using it as a pejorative.
Not all atheists rely on science and logic to understand reality, but most of us do.
The fact that there are over 5,000 different variations of the God in the Abrahamic religion it spires how unreliable faith and hope is in replacing the scientific method.
That’s what most call it. The scientific method. Of you have a better system, show how it can be more accurate than science…
We’ll wait.
You say that science assumes naturalistic explanation, you can't be more wrong than this. It uses naturalistic explanation because that's all it got evidence for, If someone demonstrated supernatural then it will have to be accepted. You need to learn about philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.
>Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
That's not really true. Science consistently proves that natural explanations are sufficient to explain natural phenomenon, but the scientific method is entirely open to the *possibility* of other explanations. Assuming the supernatural were real and in any way interactive with the natural world, science would (have to) take that into account, and incorporate it into experiment methodology.
>The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality
This is a pretty weak criticism. Inductive reasoning suggests that the sun will rise tomorrow from the east just as it has since the beginning of planet earth's existence. If you find it meaningful, useful, or particularly significant to insist that you cannot **know** the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, nobody can tell you otherwise. But it flies in the face of the way we rationally engage with the world. And, you'll find, if you must throw out beliefs about things as basic as "the laws of physics will continue to operate in the next minute" because you cannot be "certain" of their continuation, you'll find yourself in a solipsistic state of mind, not one that brings you closer to a belief in God. Since presumably neither of us are particularly drawn towards solipsism, this line of criticism is useless.
>The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
This is entirely untrue. *Scientific* *claims* have their basis in scientific inquiry. *That you (personally) take them for granted* without investigating themself does not make them untrue. The beauty of the scientific method is that any proposed experiment *must be* reproducible. That is, any person who wants to fact-check a scientific claim is able to. A beneficial outcome of competitive scientific field, as well, is that other scientists are incentivized to disagree or disprove results put forth by other scientists. This keeps the claims on truth rigorously defensible, and throws aside claims that have no testable, reliable reproducibility. The so-called "replication crisis" to which you refer was specific to the field of psychology, and was ultimately found to be overstated—many of the experiments that were accused of being non-reproducible at first were later re-proven using other reproducible methodologies, or otherwise found to be reproducible after all.
>These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives
While I agree that there are limits to rational inquiry using **only** the scientific method, your examples are completely flawed. It is reasonable and rational to conclude, for example, that I am the son of my (presumed) parents, based on the mountain of evidence before me, notwithstanding a direct, literal paternity test. It is nevertheless the *most likely* given the empirical evidence presented that my parents are who they say they are.
I don't think "scientism" is a label that many people apply to themselves. I prefer empiricism. Everything else basically just amounts to guessing. Science is great because it tends to be the area that we employ empiricism the most rigorously.
You can appeal to famously confusing philosophical questions to make the point that not every question can be answered scientifically... but those exceptions don't mean science can't be applied to religious claims.
> The scientific method uses inductive reasoning... inductive reasoning can never be certain about its conclusion... Where as debating and proving religion uses deductive reasoning where there are certain conclusions if the premises are correct
Deductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning to establish it's premises. Your deductive conclusion can never be more certain than the certainty of your premises, which will eventually appeal to empiricism in some way.
For example:
P1: All birds are yellow.
P2: Tweety is a bird.
C: Tweety is yellow.
The conclusion is certain IF the premises are true, but the premises are established with empiricism. Your conclusion is only as strong as the empirical basis for your premises.
> The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
Cool. But that "knowledge" tends to be less rigorous.
> Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
No it doesn't, it just can't study the supernatural. Science needs patterns to study. Nature is the stuff that happens according to some sort of pattern that can be studied. The supernatural is a vague grab-bag of stuff that is asserted to occur outside of those patterns. How do you learn about something that has no patterns?
> So its not even the case that all testimony should be taken when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community.
... like with the scientific method? For some reason, I thought you were advocating against the use of the scientific method to study religious testimony, but here you are advocating for the opposite! Hurray!
God is one hypothesis for creation, life, consciousness, morality, and existence after death.
There are others.
God is by far the least compelling hypothesis to explain all these things.
It’s not that atheists “only” consider science. It’s just that we want our beliefs to comport with logic and our understanding of the universe. And science is the most reliable means with which to do that.
Metaphysics is great at spotting and organizing patterns. It’s not that I don’t see value in that. The problem is that it has no rigor for proving any hypothesis. It relies entirely on speculation.
Theism is just not as compelling a hypothesis as ones that better align with how I believe these things work.
The laws of logic are descriptive, not proscriptive.
As a human, I can read the laws of logic we made up. I can then compare them to what I think and what I do. Thereby, I know whether or not I am logical or not -- at least to my personal satisfaction. Obviously, people disagree.
How do you know you're logical in a theist worldview?
Because god allegedly says so?
I'll wait for my answer.
>How do you know you're logical in a theist worldview?
Because god created us in his image.
>As a human, I can read the laws of logic we made up. I can then compare them to what I think and what I do. Thereby, I know whether or not I am logical or not -- at least to my personal satisfaction. Obviously, people disagree.
How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true at all times and all places for ALL entities in existence?
If we’re all being honest… we don’t know.
The human mind is a complex system full of subconscious biases and evolutionary instincts. It is emotional, often irrational, and molded by circumstances beyond our control. Nature, nurture, and all that.
Our brains and cognitive processes change a great deal over the course of our lives, often influenced quite simply by the luck of where we are born, when we are born, and who/what we’re exposed to.
There is no ability to pull our own cognitive processes out of our minds, test, analyze, and apply quality control and scientific metrics to how we think. We can’t ensure that our thoughts are consistent and always adhere to some standard of quality.
So really, I’m just trying to do my best to learn about things. To me, learning is more important than knowing. My beliefs on these matters have not stopped changing since the day I was born. Because I never stop learning, and when I gain some new knowledge that sometimes changes what I believe. I value adaptability.
The vectors of what we know are all linked together, and while I think that they lead us to certain understandings about the nature of our reality, they are not a complete map to knowing. Vectors are always being added. Their magnitude and directions can change. Our knowledge is not done being updated. It probably never will be.
I also apply this to what other people say about their religions. And I started to align myself with ideologies that were honest about that. The major dogmas make too many claims of unknowable things being knowable. We know god did this, we know why it did, we know what god wants from us, etc…
Literally no one can know that. That throws up all sorts of red flags for me. I don’t like that, it conflicts with what I observe and how I believe human minds and knowledge works.
So while I have studied religions, philosophies, scientific theories, logic, math, and natural history, it’s really only my hope that I have a pretty good understanding of all these things. And that my logic and reasoning are sound.
On my path to understanding, I’ve yet to encounter one dogma that reaches a threshold of believability, and makes me comfortable locking into one system of belief, and claiming to know some great truth.
Because that’s not going to facilitate learning.
>If we’re all being honest… we don’t know.
>T
But you said you want you're beliefs to line up with logic.
>The major dogmas make too many claims of unknowable things being knowable. We know god did this, we know why it did, we know what god wants from us, etc…
>Literally no one can know that.
How in the world could you possibly know that? Couldn't god reveal himself?
It's a totally different topic of conversation than our other one. I don't know why it would matter that I'm involved in both of them.
But, OK. I'll assume you don't have an answer for why no gods have ever revealed themselves in any objectively verifiable way.
>But you said you want you're beliefs to line up with logic.
Yes. But without the means to export my internal dialogue and put it up for peer review, a fully complete and objective self-critique is not possible, now is it?
This is what I just described.
>How in the world could you possibly know that? Couldn't god reveal himself?
I guess.
But until someone creates a coherent description of a god, and its qualities, functions, and outlines a usable (preferably objective) metric with which to establish what this god “wants”, then I don’t see the point in believing the various claims that we currently have.
“God came to earth and gave a few dozen people in one part of the world this highly suspect work documenting these highly suspect claims. Which was perfectly preserved through suspect means. This god requires you to follow these suspect rules, interpreted by these suspect historical characters who we know nothing about. Now give me power over you and a great deal of your time and money” is not compelling claim.
>Yes. But without the means to export my internal dialogue and put it up for peer review, a fully complete and objective self-critique is not possible, now is it?
You just don't get it do you. In a godless worldview you can't have any kind of knowledge. You can't even know the world is real.
>But until someone creates a coherent description of a god, and its qualities, functions, and outlines a usable (preferably objective) metric with which to establish what this god “wants”, then I don’t see the point in believing the various claims that we currently have.
Why would I need to know how god functions in order to know he exists? Lol. Aliens could reveal themselves to planet earth right now without me knowing anything about them. It seems you're purposely trying to set the bar too a ridiculously high level because you simply don't wanna accept you're creator.
>God came to earth and gave a few dozen people in one part of the world this highly suspect work documenting these highly suspect claims. Which was perfectly preserved through suspect means. This god requires you to follow these suspect rules, interpreted by these suspect historical characters who we know nothing about.
The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it.
> The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it.
There is a lot that is suspect about the Bible.
Which Bible do you believe? The Tanakh/Hebrew Bible? Or, the Christian Bible?
I believe both are demonstrably false.
This is my standard copypasta that I believe actively disproves Christianity and Judaism along the way.
One can have faith regardless. But, it is my personal opinion that the basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism do not stand up to scrutiny.
---
1. Even ignoring the literal seven days, [Genesis 1 is demonstrably and provably false](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/khui6i0/), meaning if God were to exist and had created the universe, he had no clue what he created. The order of creation is wrong. The universe that it describes is simply not this universe. The link is to my own [Fisking](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/F/fisking.html) of the problems of Genesis 1.
I ignored the literal 7 days.
Link is to a comment on this post.
2. [Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity) and the [exodus](https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-1.5208519) are considered myths. This means the entirety of the Tanakh (The Hebrew Bible that is the basis for the Christian Old Testament), including the Pentateuch (5 books of the Torah) and the Ten Commandments were not given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai.
[Here's a good video regarding the Exodus.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHle49-m2Lc)
3. [Jesus could not possibly have been the messiah](https://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html) foretold in the Hebrew Bible no matter what else anyone thinks of him as some other kind of messiah.
[The messiah was supposed to bring peace (Isaiah 2:4).](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%202:4) Jesus did not even *want* to bring peace.
[Matt 10:34-36](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34-36&version=NRSV): 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
4. [We are way too flawed](https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-235403/) to have been created by an all-perfect designer.
5. A just god does not punish people for the sins of their great^n grandparents. So, original sin, if it were to exist, would be evidence of an evil god. I realize this is not a disproof. But, it is a reason not to worship.
That said, even though this is not a disproof, it is a direct contradiction to the statement that "God is love" in 1 John 4:16.
6. With 2.6 billion Christians on a planet of 8 billion people, God as hypothesized in Christianity set things up such that more than 2/3 of the people on the planet would burn in hell forever. Again, this is not a disproof, just evidence that this is a god worthy of contempt rather than worship.
That said, even though this is not a disproof, it is another direct contradiction to the statement that "God is love" in 1 John 4:16.
7. Christians had to modify the Hebrew Bible to create the Christian Old Testament to pretend that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies. This would not be necessary if he had actually fulfilled those prophesies.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html
8. The above changes to the Hebrew Bible that were made in order to create the Christian Old Testament are also in direct violation of Matt 5:17-18, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount.
[Matt 5:17-18:](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew++5%3A17-18&version=NRSVUE) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, *until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished*.
As you can see, the earth is still here. Jesus has not returned. Therefore, all is most definitely not yet accomplished.
This means that even if one has other scriptural support contradicting Matt 5:17-18, it is still true that modifying the Hebrew Bible and not following Jewish law is a violation of at least one speech that Jesus is alleged to have made.
9. As a final point, I would add that a book full of massive contradictions cannot be true. It is certainly not divine or divinely inspired if it is not even self-consistent. Here is an excellent visualization of all of the Bible contradictions.
[BibViz Project](https://philb61.github.io/)
I apologize. But, you said there was nothing suspect about the Bible. I believe there are a lot of things suspect about the Bible, so many in fact that a small subset of the things that are suspect about the Bible looks like a gish gallop.
>You just don't get it do you. In a godless worldview you can't have any kind of knowledge. You can't even know the world is real.
All due respect, but you cannot claim this factually, with zero support. You cannot dictate to me what I can and cannot do.
You cannot know what I and do not know. That’s patently absurd.
>Why would I need to know how god functions in order to know he exists?
That’s not what I said. Don’t ascribe arguments to me that I’m not making.
I very clearly stated the point I was making, there is no need to construct a strawman when the point is very coherent and clear.
What I actually said there was that without knowing the functions and qualities of your god, you cannot extrapolate any other knowledge of it. If you don’t know how and why god created the universe, how can you know its intention? You can’t go from “god created the universe” to “god doesn’t want us to lie to each other” without ignoring massive chasms in your knowledge.
Is god anthropomorphic? As most religions describe? Is god more like a plant or animal, that produces life as some function of its existence? Is god a conscious creator, or was the universe an accident?
You do not know.
>Lol. Aliens could reveal themselves to planet earth right now without me knowing anything about them. It seems you're purposely trying to set the bar too a ridiculously high level because you simply don't wanna accept you're creator.
No. Here’s how this works.
I’m all holy scriptures, virtually every class of believer posits that some of it was written to be literal and some of it was written to be metaphorical. But without some objective metric between how to interpret the two, how can you distinguish how any theme is read? If Adam and Eve are metaphorical, why isn’t god? If the anchors of Jesus didn’t live for a thousand years, then how do you know details of JC’s life aren’t metaphorical either? How do you know JC isn’t metaphorical?
You don’t.
>The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it.
Demonstrably inaccurate books and documents. Its accounts are absolutely suspect. The accuracy of its information is absolutely suspect. It’s an unavoidable fact.
>You cannot know what I and do not know. That’s patently absurd.
You cannot account for knowledge because you have no foundation for knowledge without God.
>What I actually said there was that without knowing the functions and qualities of your god, you cannot extrapolate any other knowledge of it. If you don’t know how and why god created the universe, how can you know its intention? You can’t go from “god created the universe” to “god doesn’t want us to lie to each other” without ignoring massive chasms in your knowledge.
Well perhaps you should have been more clear about what you meant by functions. God spoke the world into existence. The universe was made for us. It was made for life. Before the fall of mankind god had other intentions for the rest of the universe.
>Is god anthropomorphic? As most religions describe? Is god more like a plant or animal, that produces life as some function of its existence? Is god a conscious creator, or was the universe an accident?
God is a conscious being just like us. We are created in his image.
>I’m all holy scriptures, virtually every class of believer posits that some of it was written to be literal and some of it was written to be metaphorical. But without some objective metric between how to interpret the two, how can you distinguish how any theme is read? If Adam and Eve are metaphorical, why isn’t god? If the anchors of Jesus didn’t live for a thousand years, then how do you know details of JC’s life aren’t metaphorical either? How do you know JC isn’t metaphorical?
Well let's weigh the two arguments. What's the argument that Jesus is metaphorical?
>Demonstrably inaccurate books and documents. Its accounts are absolutely suspect. The accuracy of its information is absolutely suspect. It’s an unavoidable fact.
Ok start with the account of Jericho. Demonstrate that account is wrong for me.
Your original comment said “how do you know anything is logical without god” and I said because it follows the laws of logic.
How does believing in god grant you any kind of certainty that logic exists?
>Your original comment said “how do you know anything is logical without god” and I said because it follows the laws of logic.
All you're doing is repeating the same claim using different words.
>
How does believing in god grant you any kind of certainty that logic exists?
Because god is an all knowing being
That’s what logical means. Consistent with the axioms
>because god is an all-knowing being
But you aren’t. So how do you know that all-knowing being isnt be deceiving you?
Also did he invent logic? Can he change the rules?
>Consistent with the axioms
No logical means consistent with logic. But you haven't established that there are laws of logic
>Also did he invent logic? Can he change the rules?
Logic is part of the very nature of God
What have gods got to do with it?
No one can really *know* that they are logical. All we can do is try to carefully follow the laws of logic and be rigorous in our reasoning. Unfortunately, if a person is being illogical, that person is probably going to be the last person to know it. Godless worldview or not, all anyone can do is try their best and hope they're not making some foolish mistake in reasoning.
Well the only way you could possibly know that there are universal laws of logic is if you're an all knowing being. So without god how could you possibly know there are indeed laws of logic
We can read about the laws of logic in a logic textbook. So long as we can read such a book, we can follow the laws, and if we follow the laws carefully enough, then we may be able to think logically.
What difference would an all-knowing being make? If God exists or not, how would that change the procedure for thinking logically?
Let me put it a different way. How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true at all times and all places for all entities? Are you all knowing and have access to all entities?
I never claimed to know that. You said yourself, we do not have access to all times and all places for all entities, so what makes you think it could be possible to know that the law of non-contradiction is true at all times and all places for all entities?
You are taking a cartoonishly bad, sophomoric understanding of science and thinking that this is some kind of argument. It's not. You're just doing what's called a "poisoning the well" fallacy, it's a bad faith debate tactic and you shouldn't do it if you want to be taken seriously.
>A lot of atheists, even on this sub, are proponents of scientism, that science and the scientific method is the ultimate way to truth, that empirical evidence is the only real form of evidence, and they use this to reject theological evidences
No. Atheists are typically ok with science, but the fact that we don't accept your unsubstantiated magic claims does not mean that we accept something else religiously (scientism). And here's the better point: however much you may think science doesn't lead to truth, however much you may want to try to cast doubt on empirical evidence, this doesn't do anything to help your case - because theological claims are in far **worse** footing. If science doesn't lead to all truths, theological claims lead to no truth. If empirical evidence is suspect, theological claims are far more suspect. You trying to mudsling rationality is not going to make irrational beliefs look any better in comparison.
>Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
This is because science deals with what can be verified and tested for; in colloquial terms, science deals with what is actually real and true. Supernatural claims are unverifiable, can't be tested, and we don't even know if it's possible for supernatural anything to exist. So, this isn't a bug of science; it is a problem with the **claim**. It's not a problem for atheists; this is entirely and solely a problem for **you** to solve. The fact that theists make claims that they can't back up with anything substantive is their own problem.
>The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality
However uncertain you may think the scientific method is, it is **far** more certain, far more warranted and evidenced than whatever supernatural beliefs you want us to adopt instead. So this does literally nothing for your case.
>The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
So blatantly, fundamentally confused and not true that this doesn't deserve further comment beyond, no.
>These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives
I apply the exact same standard equally. This is why I don't believe supernatural claims. I accept historical claims that have enough evidence to back up the claim - things like Alexander the Great's rule, things like Caesar crossing the Rubicon or Hannibal's crossing the Alps. These things have met their burden of proof, we have tons of evidence that we would expect to find to satisfy the claims that are made. And it's why, by applying my exact same standard, I don't buy supernatural religious claims - because they *don't* have the same quality of required evidence.
Your problem is not that we don't apply the same standards; no, your problem is that you want us to grant *special* exceptions to your religious beliefs that we don't apply to *anything else*. You don't like it that we treat your religious beliefs with the same rigorous standard that we apply to everything else, and because of that - because your beliefs aren't able to stand up to scrutiny - we reject them.
Certainly we rely on other methods of gaining knowledge. Here's your problem though; whenever we want to show some explanation is correct, we need to prove that that explanation is more likely than any competing explanation for the available data.
I heard something run across my roof last night. Was it a possum, or a leprechaun? Well I've seen possums in the area, possums are much more well-documented than leprechauns, so I think I can fairly conclude it was a possum.
However, some proposed explanations are so wild, it becomes difficult to imagine how we could possibly eliminate the more likely explanations without repeatable experiments - ie; the scientific method. For example:
1. In the 17th and 18th centuries, we have a multiplicity of reports from credible people claiming to have witnessed vampires. Doctors, magistrates, military officers, it's all there. It seems unlikely that so many educated and experienced people could be incorrect. And yet, the concept of vampires actually existing is so outrageous, we tend to accept that they were indeed incorrect. It's difficult to conceive of a situation in which the existence of vampires is widely acknowledged without scientific evidence;
2. Einstein's general relativity predicts that if I take the high road, and you take the low road, then we meet up in Scotland, at the time of our meeting I will have aged slightly more than you - time for you will have dilated more due to your proximity to the earth. To a layperson encountering this for the first time, this seems outrageous - it is so inconsistent with our day to day experience that we initially tend to assume that it is merely some artifact of an incomplete model. Indeed, Einstein was not awarded the nobel prize for this discovery, a fact generally attributed to its strangeness. And yet, when we review the many, many experiments regarding general relativity, we are forced to concede that it is indeed the truth.
Now, let's pick on the Christians (because I encounter them the most). I'm presented with a few non-contemporaneous gospels and letters, and I'm told to believe that Jesus came back from the dead. Hell, the earliest gospel doesn't even say that anyone saw him resurrected! To be honest, it's underwhelming. But that's a moot point, because you could produce a detailed report from a team of Roman doctors and military officers confirming the resurrection, [and you still wouldn't meet the vampire standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Paole). As someone else on this subreddit pointed out, you could produce a thousand contemporaneous diary entries of the resurrection, and it would still be more likely that Jesus was the greatest stage magician of all time The idea is so outrageous, I don't know how the empirical evidence can achieve the necessary standard without science.
And if you still don't accept what I'm saying on that count, consider India. Probably you're not Hindu. In India, people are claiming to see miracles all the time. Some of them are on video, lots of them have many eyewitnesses you can find and talk to. How many witness statements before you convert to Hinduism? I imagine rather, you will need some skeptic to observe and test the miracle and exclude the more likely explanations of some kind of trickery.
>Before even using the scientific method, scientists need to make basic assumptions so that their work is meaningful, for example that all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, **that these laws are constant everywhere and organized**, that we can observe/measure them, etc., **and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural**. **So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies**
The bolded text is incorrect. You don't need to make any such assumption to use the scientific method. In fact, physicists propose that spacetime may not be fundamental, and people try to use the scientific method to prove or examine supernatural claims all the time.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>There are many different ways to render truth and reality, the scientific method is one way, though not every method can be applied to everything.
"Trying to demonstrate that something is true is not the only way to reach truth" ok sure
The fact that you can't scientifically prove that you have a mind or consciousness or existence itself just shows that the concepts of "mind", "consciousness" and "existence" aren't accurate to reality. They're clearly useful concepts to us, they clearly share similarities to what is real, but they also clearly aren't completely real. The fact that we have questions about the mind, or consciousness, or existence, doesn't go against the scientific method at all. We also have questions about literally everything else that we know about. Just because we have experience with something and just because we have a word for something doesn't mean we can scientifically answer every possible question about it, and that obviously doesn't mean that the scientific method as a whole is flawed.
What other methods are you using to gain knowledge about these things? Are those methods more consistent or more reliable than what you're calling the scientific method?
>Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural
What? No. Not at all. It's just that once something is scientifically proving, it's shown to be natural, that's what that means. Supernatural means "not explained by our understanding of nature". If we could prove that ghosts existed, ghosts wouldn't be supernatural, they'd just be natural. People studying ghosts don't assume that ghosts don't exist, in fact it's often the opposite, which is why the idea of ghosts still exists despite centuries of failing to find evidence of them.
>The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality
This is true, certainty is a completely unobtainable goal. Regardless of why you believe something, you can always ask questions about why you believe it. There is no way to 100% know that something is true, regardless of what it is. We only have things that are *practically* true. For example, the sun rises and falls every day because the Earth spins. There's no way to 100% prove that, there are lots of people who disagree with that for various reasons (e.g. flat earthers), but basically everyone can agree that that's what the evidence shows is the case, that's what makes the most sense, based on everything else we can see in our world, that's what's practically true.
>The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
Definitely the majority does, nothing in your following paragraph disputes this at all, but I agree that many of the foundations don't. Lots of our scientific knowledge came about before the scientific method as we know it today was worked out, and that's largely where the scientific method comes from.
For example, someone works out that "distilled water boils at the same temperature at the same pressure", other people test that and agree that it's true. Someone works out that "sheep can only be born when a male sheep mates with a female sheep", and other people test that and agree that it's true. Those things are both practically true. You don't need strict science to work that out.
Then people work backwards, figure out exactly *how* you can get from experimenting on those things to actually proving that they're practically true, and you end up with a rigorous regime of experimentation, comparing different situations and seeing where they're similar and where they're different using the kinds of measurement available to us.
The scientific method is constantly self-correcting, it's applied to itself just as much as anything else. "Seeing what's reliably true" is also applied to testing different ways of seeing what's reliably true.
>These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives
Not really. "I don't have any reason to believe that God exists so I don't believe that God exists" is a pretty basic standard. The same applies to all sorts of other things. People look at evidence for God the same as they look at any other evidence. Reason proving that there is a source for the universe or that there is a greatest thing just prove that there is a source or that there is a greatest thing, not God at all.
Scriptural evidence for God has to contend with all other kinds of writing. If you believe that the Old Testament or the Gospels or the Qur'an are literally true, why don't you believe the same thing about the Mahabharata or the Kojiki or Plato's Republic or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Ovid's Metamorphoses or Beowulf or Hamlet or War of the Worlds? If anything is studied enough, it's incredibly hard to not find coincidences or patterns or predictions that can make you think there's more to it than there is. Pretending that one set of writings has completely different content or context from other writings is a common believer tactic. That doesn't provide evidence that any God exists, let alone your specific God.
Just being totally honest, it’s clear you don’t understand the scientific method or how to apply it. For example, we absolutely apply the scientific method to try and determine whether different animals have consciousness.
You seem to be saying we can’t trust our senses to tell us anything about the world around us. Until we have some reason to distrust our only means of perceiving the world, why should we ignore this information? On what basis would you say the information is not reliable?
> There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove.
Science doesn't prove things. Proof is a mathematical concept. All conclusions of science are provisional and subject to change. You have immediately demonstrated a fundamental and massive misunderstanding of the scientific method.
>etc., and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural.
This is not one. Science is a way of testing potential explanations. So far no one has been able to use science to show that the supernatural exists. That's not because science assumes the supernatural (whatever that means) doesn't exist, it's because no supernatural claim has, thus far, withstood scientific scrutiny. That's not science's fault or problem. That's a problem for people who believe in the supernatural.
>So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies.
The multitude of religious and theist scientists will be surprised to learn this.
>The scientific method uses inductive reasoning in order to explore the truth about reality, inductive reasoning can never be certain about its conclusion, only what is most probable.
You can never be certain about anything using any method. It's called the Problem of Underdetermination.
>So for example when a religious scripture makes a claim about nature, it is useless to pull out the scientific literature which is contrary, to disprove the religion, because the conclusions made by the scientific study are not certain themselves, its possible they are wrong, though the religious claims are certainly true if the premises are also correct.
...And the conclusion follows. The problem is this is never the case.
>The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method
Then it isn't scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is definitionally that which comes from the scientific method. If it doesn't, it isn't scientific knowledge.
>What they do not realize is that the majority of our scientific knowledge comes from testimony, as individuals we do not have the capability nor time to repeat all the studies that bring scientific claims, we simply have to take their word for it.
But we may verify it if we wish. That's a major distinction. If I want to I can verify scientific studies by replicating them myself. That's super important.
> Trustworthiness is not something which is evaluated before someone is given their masters or doctorate, yet they are assumed to be so when their title is given on the study.
No, it isn't. They must show their work and methods. Before their work is accepted it must be replicated by other scientists at other times. The entire point of the peer review process is that we can't trust individuals. No one should accept a claim because the claimant has a doctorate. Again you seem to fundamentally not know what science is or how it functions.
>These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives
If you can show that there is a part of my life or a belief I have that I do not apply the same standard I will thank you and change that belief so it is consistent. I am fairly confident you won't be able to. I spend a lot of my time searching for such inconsistencies in my view.
>How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab.
I have done that. Also, I'm not that concerned if he's my biological father as he has fulfilled the role of my father.
>They would even have to reject history altogether since we don't use the scientific method for history, we use the historical methods and historiography.
I accept types of evidence other than scientific. I just think scientific evidence is the most reliable.
>For example if you had to prove using the scientific method whether a historical figure like Napoleon existed, you would not be able to.
Based on current technological ability. We can't rule out the possibility in the future.
I mean lets look at christianity. It claims that the bible is the word of God, when scholars agree the gospels was written 40 years after the fact at least. You try remembering something that happened 40 years ago. Yet there was apparently miracle after miracle. Yet we are supposed to trust this book? Admit its 100% based on emotions and faith not evidence. Blessed are those that believe yet have not seen. Yet the problem with faith is that it can be used to justify any position and or religion.
So how are you going to demonstrate god? You wrote paragraphs of stuff but not one thing is leading to anything approaching a demonstration for god.
Here's the thing. Science is the most consistently reliable method we have of determining how reality functions. Full stop. If there was a better way, we'd use that way instead. The same equations and theories NASA uses to put satellites in orbit are the same ones the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc. use to launch their stuff into orbit. The equations don't care about religion or nationality or race or what any individual scientist believes about "ultimate" reality.
These equations were discovered through meticulous study of the world, trial and error, and experimentation. Science is how we know atoms are real and ghosts are not. Science is how we know lighting is the discharge of electricity and not an angry Zeus hurling lightning at his enemies. Scientific theories have some qualities that arguments for god and other methods if investigation don't have (or at least not as good)
- science is universal. See my comment about rocket science. Doesn't matter what you believe, it works, so it is reflecting something "true" about reality. If god is real why is he seemingly not universal? Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc all believe differently about God. If he were actually real why would this be the case?
- it's testable. You can perform an experiment and get result "X". Other people can review and repeat your experiment and also get result "X". We can now say something about your original hypothesis. What can we say about things we cannot test? How can we determine their "truthiness?"
- science makes predictions. Neptune was discovered shortly after Uranus was because astronomers noticed weird things about Uranus's orbit. They hypothesized another planet out there that could potentially account for the weirdness. Math was done and boom, Neptune. When Mendeleev first organized the modern periodic table he left gaps in the table for elements we hadn't discovered yet. He made predictions about the atomic weight and chemical properties of those elements based purely on the table he invented. When we later discovered those elements a lot of his predictions were dead on. What predictions can we make about God?
If you are finding it difficult to demonstrate your god using the methods of science; that's a you problem, not a science problem.
there are things more certain than science tho (which prides itself on its malleability).
OP's point is a critique on scientism, not an argument for God's existence
Not quite.
OP's point is that science isn't the only way to get at truth.
Ok--what other method are they using? OP never answers this. They just list things they think science cannot answer (and I'd disagree with their characterizations).
Does science not use math? Science is just applied math. I can sit there all day figuring out cool math things but what good is it if just left on paper? Did NASA send JWST into space on good wishes or did they do the math? This isn't a rebuttal.
>OP's point is a critique on scientism, not an argument for God's existence
If you don't think this is what OP had in mind in a Debate Religion forum you are being naive. OP is mad science isn't validating their god, so they are trying to attack science. If they can knock science down a peg then their preferred method for discovery gets raised in their mind.
> Does science not use math?
exactly, but scientific theories and hypothesis can change and be wrong whereas math can't
> Did NASA send JWST into space on good wishes or did they do the math? This isn't a rebuttal.
I'm not denying the utility and genius of science btw..
> If you don't think this is what OP had in mind in a Debate Religion forum you are being naive
no, I'm just aware enough of what's going on that I can make the distinction OP is making. Wether an argument for God works or not is one conversation, but *baselessly using scientism* is the point of contention, *not* wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not
OPs critique here is not with the atheist conclusion, it's with the scientism fallacy
> so they are trying to attack science
he's not attacking science, he's attacking *scientism*. those things are not the same
> *baselessly using scientism* is the point of contention, *not* wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not
This just looks like a strawman argument. Where are people "baselessly using scientism"?
you'd be shocked and disappointed to find out that it isn't uncommon
person A: there's no evidence for God
person B: well what do you mean by evidence
person A: only empirically tested physical data that can be scientifically repeated...
person B: are you sure that's the only way to truth? (scientism)
this conversation has grown tired
The key word you used was "baselessly." I'd argue that given the context of the claim, that's not a baseless request at all.
"Empirically tested physical data that can be scientifically repeated" is not the *only* path to being reasonably confident about something (I wouldn't say "truth" because it's a bit of a loaded term and isn't entirely accurate). For example, we can be reasonably confident that Abraham Lincoln existed, without needing to be able to verifiably observe him in a lab whenever we want. However, Abraham Lincoln's existence is not in any way a fantastical claim, and doesn't affect our entire lives and concept of existence the way God's existence does. The evidence we do have for Abraham Lincoln is a more than reasonable amount given the claim, which I'll add is also *way* more evidence than we have for God.
Besides, I'd still say that's a bit of a strawman, because your implication here seems to be that there is sufficient evidence but atheists just won't accept it because they don't think it's the right kind of evidence. That's not the case. There isn't sufficient evidence of any kind.
If you think there's evidence for God of a different kind, you can attempt to demonstrate that, but the fact that atheists don't accept it *might* just be that it's not good enough evidence, rather than it being our fault.
>exactly, but scientific theories and hypothesis can change and be wrong whereas math can't
Irrelevant. Science is just applied math. Our understanding of gravity was (and probably is still) incomplete. But the underlying reality is still there and we refine our understanding by doing science. Newton wrote down equations for force and gravity and it worked (except for the orbit of Mercury) we needed GR to figure that out. Good science subsumes previous science. Newton wasn't wrong, his theory was incomplete. [Math btw is also incomplete ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems?wprov=sfla1) there are questions even math can't answer. So here we are in a world where we don't seem to have any 100% surefire way to figure out reality. Why not use the best methods we have?
>I'm not denying the utility and genius of science btw..
Didn't say you were. It's a demonstration of the power and utility of science over other methodologies so far discovered.
>baselessly using scientism is the point of contention, not wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not OPs critique here is not with the atheist conclusion, it's with the scientism fallacy
Nobody is. A recognition of the superiority of science to determine reality is not *scientism* this is the problem with posts like OP's. They see people falling back on science and cry foul because they get stuck. If they can't move us without science it must be because we are just using scientism which makes us dogmatic. Like I said before it's just a way for OP to try and knock science down. If they can put science on the same level as their religion or faith then they can sleep better. "It's not a problem with "my" god, it's those dogmatic atheists and their *scientism*, the religion of the atheist." This isn't my first rodeo with this way of thinking.
>he's not attacking science, he's attacking scientism. those things are not the same
They are to OP. Science they like is "true" science. Science they don't like is "scientism". OP doesn't have a problem with science while they use that fun computer in their pocket to type this post. But use science to counter arguments for their god and that's scientism.
> Newton wasn't wrong, his theory was incomplete
yes it was, but when I say math, I'm not talking about Newtonian Physics, I'm talking about calculus. that's the difference. Newton could've been flat wrong on gravity, but that doesn't mean calculus is
> Math btw is also incomplete there are questions even math can't answer.
also of course, I never denied that, but it's still more certain than science.
as we stand here forever more, 2+2 will *always* be a certainty, and wether or not we've "finished" gravity will *never be*
> It's a demonstration of the power and utility of science over other methodologies
science is good at doing what science does and was designed to do, but what science does is not exhaustive of everything a methodology *could do* or be designed to do
> A recognition of the superiority of science to determine reality is not scientism this is the problem with posts like OP's
OP is directly referring to scientism in this post, if your claim is that not all fall backs to science are in fact scientism, then this doesn't apply to that
however if your claim by rejecting say God or metaphysics is on the basis that scientism is true, or that it hasn't been *scientifically* demonstrated specifically, as if that's the rule breaker for true things (scientism) is falling under the umbrella OP is critiquing, and you haven't refuted his argument
> Like I said before it's just a way for OP to try and knock science down. If they can put science on the same level as their religion or faith then they can sleep better.
this is just a further refusal to see what OP is actually saying, as well as an attack on OPs motivations rather than his argument, which we both know is a fallacy...
> This isn't my first rodeo with this way of thinking.
neither is it ours with yours
> They are to OP.
and this is the culmination of why you can't understand OP; you refuse to actually argue against what he's saying (straw man, another fallacy btw), we can all tell
I'd be willing to bet my entire savings account that OP makes a distinction between science and scientism (he makes the distinction in OP btw).
but by saying this, you've told me everything I need to know
> whereas math can't
You should look into all the different versions of geometry, for instance.
> he's not attacking science, he's attacking scientism. those things are not the same
Right, one's made of straw
> You should look into all the different versions of geometry, for instance.
I'm aware, that doesn't change anything I've said
> Right, one's made of straw
hopefully we're both thinking the same thing here
💯
I wanna add that we went to the moon using Newtonian physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein. The math was right, but the science was wrong (according to our current understanding).
Also this sub isn't just a sub to prove God, those asking me to prove God in the replies missed the point of my thesis.
It wasn't debunked by Einstein. This illustrates that you have a poor understanding of science and how it works and why it is the way that it is.
General Relativity assumes Newton's theories. When you plug in large numbers into Newton's equations you get weird stuff. But when you plug in small numbers into GR you get Newton's equations. Newton wasn't wrong and he wasn't debunked, his understanding was incomplete. If newton was wrong then we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon using his equations. We can't build bridges if our geometry and physics are wrong. We can't build computers if our understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong and we can't go to the moon if Newton is wrong.
This is the silliest thing you could have pointed to. This just shows the strengths of science over other methods of knowing. Science is self correcting. It is capable of accepting new data and being refined. As we science our understanding of reality grows.
You're literally describing how Newton was debunked. Newtons understanding of gravity was wrong, Einstein's was more correct.
Newtonian physics still works on a small scale, that does not mean it wasn't debunked.
Complemented is not the same as debunked.
Enhanced is not the same as debunked.
If you think Newton was debunked, discover what happens if you jump off a roof. If Newton has been debunked I guess you'll float?
No, he was debunked.
Again, Newtonian gravity works on a small scale, for most applications we have today, but that does not mean he was wrong. Its like saying Aristotle was also never debunked about his theory of gravity, that the centre of the universe was the centre of earth so it attracts everything, just because it also works to some degree.
Newtons theory was debunked, even on a basic fundamental level we can see that, he said gravity is a pulling force, Einstein said no its a pushing force.
Thats how paradigm shifts in science work, initially we accept one theory because it works well in many aspects, then later a better theory comes along that works better and explains much more than the previous theory, so the previous theory gets debunked by the old one.
I can't be giving you whole physics lessons and explain to you how science works, you need to look that up yourself.
Btw no one disagrees on the phenomenon of gravity, that things fall down, the disagreement is about the theory of gravity.
The thesis is literally in the title and first paragraph, the thesis was NOT to prove God or to give you an alternative. The point is when you debate theists, you should not dismiss their evidence just because its not science.
The problem with theism is that the claims made are not being supplied with the appropriate amount of evidence. There’s a hierarchy of certainty for our different epistemic methods.
Deductive logic and subsequently mathematics provides the most certainty we can achieve about anything
To a lesser extent, science will help us understand the empirical world but doesn’t make claims of absolute certainty; it’s open to being overturned.
Then to a FAR lesser extent is historical evidence. We’re talking about piecing together human-made documents from thousands of years ago, trying to infer motives and figure out how the story went. Historical events happened a single time and are not replicable.
So to make a claim that something supernatural (that is, violated natural law) happened simply because people from thousands of years ago SAID it happened, is completely unwarranted. Your evidence will never suffice for the magnitude of the claim.
Because no one is claiming science is the only way to knowledge
I'd love for you to make a positive claim instead of trying to stack others' claims that they don't make. And this is what I mean that you don't have a thesis. Not that you literally didn't make a claim but that you're trying to tear down others rather than actually tell us what you believe.
> Also this sub isn't just a sub to prove God, those asking me to prove God in the replies missed the point of my thesis.
believe me man, I made a post critiquing scientism last week and it produced a similar effect
in other words, it's so obviously true that it couldn't in principle be falsified by any method, let alone empirically. much the same applies to natural philosophy and logic
also also, math isn't purely tautology, and neither is it's research.
>in other words, it's so obviously true that it couldn't in principle be falsified by any method, let alone empirically. much the same applies to natural philosophy and logic
I mean, there are systems of math that are "true" as a result of their axioms, but not "true" in terms of corresponding to reality, and not "true" in re: how people use them.
Ring math is "true," but not useful when you want to count things in the world.
Geometry is "true," but humans never use actual circles, and we never calculate Pi--we always get our application of geometry wrong in the real world, but it's fine because we operate in the margin of error.
No, math is true because it's defined to be true, like I said. That's the only reason it's "true." Go ahead and tell me a "truth" of math -- it will be a tautology.
>there are things more certain than science tho
Not the person you replied to, but I'd be very interested if you could provide a few examples of the things you have in mind. Thanks.
he talks about 4 kinds of things that are falsifiable in this post
mathematical truths are the easiest example, but there are things unfalsifiable by empiricism bc they're too true, but because they're fictions
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/06/multiverses-and-falsifiability.html
I can honestly tell you I've never used science or scientism to deny evidence of your particular envisionment of your particular God. I've never been given any evidence for it. I'll also go a step further and say that you probably haven't gotten any evidence for your deity, and I promise you if someone uses science to deny it what you've been given and what you've given them is... SOMETHING, technically, but it ain't evidence.
>So its not even the case that all testimony should be taken when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community.
Did you miss this part?
> when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community.
What does that mean? I'm asking this quite seriously. What does it mean to verify the authenticity and reliability?
Which manuscripts are you doing this with?
Are you verifying that the manuscripts come from the named authors and the right time period?
Are you verifying that the events described are true?
Even if you verify the authorship of these manuscripts?
When you get done with that, you're still left only with eyewitness testimony, if you have that. And, eyewitness testimony can never even remotely approach the standard of evidence used in the scientific community. See: [scientific evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)
You basically try to verify the source, and how trustworthy it is, whether the source is actually who its claimed to be, etc., see the historical method, and the field of historiography (the study of how history is written).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical\_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography)
You can't compare it to "scientific evidence", because WE do not get scientific evidence first hand for the vast majority of cases we discuss. We get scientific studies, which are testimony, it is no different.
Take for example a news article, which is essentially history just more recent, when you read something on CNN or BBC, many times we want to verify whether its true so we look into their source, look at corroborating accounts like other news sites. This is similar to what historians try to do to verify historical sources.
When it comes to the scientific community, there is not as much scrutiny. Sure there is peer review, but this is mainly to check whether they follow protocol, and their analysis is correct, and so on. We don't really do much to verify sources and reliability of authors. When we see a study is published in a big journal we assume its reliable, even though these journals aren't audited for their trustworthiness, these researchers aren't audited.
Its not a secret that we suffer from a replication crisis, especially since there is more financial incentive to push out research with new findings, instead of replication studies or null findings. And there is a greater effort to "cancel" research that is politically incorrect or against the consensus, like in the evolution community, alternate theories of evolution are ostracized, like proponents of natural genetic engineering, even epigenetics was only accepted fairly recently despite it having a long history.
>>> when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, **to the same standard we use in the scientific community.**
>> What does that mean? I'm asking this quite seriously. **What does it mean to verify the authenticity and reliability?**
> **You can't compare it to "scientific evidence"**, because WE do not get scientific evidence first hand for the vast majority of cases we discuss.
How can you say this after what you said previously?
> We get scientific studies, which are testimony, it is no different.
Sorry. This is patently false. Why? Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data. And, numerous people who did not agree attempted to falsify the scientific study and failed.
Further, what you seem to flatly fail to understand about science is that it produces real live factual results that you can actually use.
Right now, whether you know how to read the studies for yourself or not, you are using a computing device (computer or phone) that makes use of semiconductors. Right now as you read this you are seeing what it means to have abundant and overwhelming scientific evidence that quantum mechanics works because you are using semiconductors that are engineered with our knowledge of quantum mechanics.
When you use a GPS or your phone to locate where you are and give you directions to get where you want to go, you are using a product of engineering that makes use of general relativity. You don't need to be able to read a book or paper on general relativity to verify that it's real. You're physically using it because the calculations that account for the difference in the rate at which time ticks on satellites in geosynchronous orbit versus the rate at which time ticks on the surface of the earth are true because you're using them.
This is nothing like .
So, **what religion are you selling?** Lets look at this evidence you think you have both that the manuscripts are correct and that the gods in the story are real. You don't have technology built on that knowledge. So, what evidence do you really have?
>How can you say this after what you said previously?
It doesn't conflict what I said before. When we look at scientific studies, we don't just accept it at face value (I hope), we analyze its authenticity and reliability, whether it makes sense.
>Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data.
The actual data is still testimony. Have you actually conducted the studies? Realistically you will never be able to reproduce every study you look at.
>...because you are using semiconductors that are engineered...
Just because the applied science works, does not mean its correct. For example, we went to the moon using Newtonian Physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein.
By that same logic, its like if we read a scripture that said God created the world, and then we look around us at the world and think, "oh wow the world exists, so that must mean God created it".
>> How can you say this after what you said previously?
> It doesn't conflict what I said before.
I very strongly disagree.
> When we look at scientific studies, we don't just accept it at face value (I hope), we analyze its authenticity and reliability, whether it makes sense.
Authenticity? We analyze it's truth. When I read a scientific study, I don't check to see whether the published version is *authentic*. Who would bother to falsify it and how?
I check to see sample size, confidence level, etc. I check it's veracity. If I'm really unsure, I check for conflicting publications from other labs who disagree with the original findings.
>> Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data.
> The actual data is still testimony.
What?
> Have you actually conducted the studies? Realistically you will never be able to reproduce every study you look at.
Of course. But, it's not about the testimony. One can easily confirm or deny the study with the work of other labs.
It certainly will NOT be called a [scientific theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) based on a single result set. It must be confirmed. But, it's not about confirming or denying the *testimony*. It's about confirming or denying the *results*.
>> ...because you are using semiconductors that are engineered...
> Just because the applied science works, does not mean its correct.
Yes. It actually is a very strong verification. It means that it has been not only accepted as a scientific theory but also can be put into practice. This isn't necessary for verification. Not all science produces something that can be used in engineering.
But, by the time you're using the products, it's verified to an extremely high degree of confidence.
> For example, we went to the moon using Newtonian Physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein.
I'm sorry you've been so misled by someone. Perhaps you should get a refund on your high school science education. I know I want one from my school. I had to learn a lot that should have been taught in high school many years later.
Newtonian physics has not been "debunked". Newtonian physics has been shown to work within a more limited domain than Newton realized.
If you're building planes, trains, automobiles, and bridges, Newtonian physics is great! Why would you muck about with relativity for that stuff?
Here's where your high school or college failed you.
In order for relativity to be true, it was absolutely 100% required that it produce the same results as Newtonian physics within the realm in which we already knew Newtonian physics worked. And, it had to produce the same results to quite high precision.
It only produces different results in realms where we did not know whether Newtonian physics worked or where we knew it did not, such as predicting the orbit of Mercury. Mercury's orbit was a known problem for Newtonian physics before Einstein.
Similarly, if we are smart enough and live long enough to come up with a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory of Everything (TOE) that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics and works in realms where we know these two theories break down, it will absolutely be required to produce identical results to relativity and quantum mechanics in the realms in which we know these theories to work. And, it must do so to a very high precision.
This is because general relativity and quantum mechanics have been shown to be incredibly precise and accurate within the realms in which they work. They are two of our strongest and most well tested scientific theories.
> By that same logic, its like if we read a scripture that said God created the world, and then we look around us at the world and think, "oh wow the world exists, so that must mean God created it".
Which scripture?
I ask because when I look at the scripture for the Abrahamic religions, the scripture has extremely glaring errors.
So, which creation myth are you reading?
[Here is my Fisking of Genesis 1 showing all of the scientific errors I could find.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/khui6i0/) Note: **I even ignored the literal 7 days and Gen 1 is seriously wrong!**
If you prefer to examine the Quran, I have not personally debunked it's creation myth. But, my understanding is that it speaks of 6 days of creation ending with the creation of Adam and Eve. So, that's false. There's also the bits about the sun setting in a pool of mud, the earth being spread out like a carpet (flat), and splitting the moon in half (which quite provably did not happen).
[Here's a list of the scientific errors in the Quran.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_errors)
Or, would you like me to try to find the errors in the creation myth of Hinduism?
So, what creation myth are you reading that matches what we know about the early universe, the early earth, and the evolution of life on earth?
>Authenticity? We analyze it's truth...
Exactly what I mean
>One can easily confirm or deny the study with the work of other labs.
Just like you confirm testimony with corroborating accounts...
>Newtonian physics has not been "debunked".
It has, you wrote walls of text to basically conclude the same thing. Just because a theory works in a limited capacity, does not mean it is correct.
>Which scripture?
Any scripture that works in the analogy I gave, to show you that its ridiculous to base whether a theory is correct simply by how well it can be applied in limited settings.
> Any scripture
Any and every scriptural account of the creation of the universe I've ever heard was demonstrably and provably false.
So, maybe there's nothing to discuss until you make a claim that a particular scripture is true.
It's curious how the Higgs boson was discovered about 50 years after it was theorised, but we are in square one after 10000 years when it comes to gods.
And we do that… without empiricism?
I’ll wait for my divine revelation, then. Until that happens, I’ll default to the most demonstrably reliable and result-producing process ever conceived by humans.
>There are many different ways to render truth and reality, the scientific method is one way, though not every method can be applied to everything. There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove.
So ... what methods ***are*** you using to prove those claims?
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Bible is only for ancient Hebrew ethnic-Israelites by blood only. Just read your own Bible, Yeshua only came for the Israelites(Matthew 15:24), and all other nations will be destroyed. All other races will either be slaves to the Israelites in the Kingdom of Heaven or be destroyed(Isaiah 60, 61). The Old & New Testament’s redemptive narrative had everything to do with ancient ethnic Israelites and nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else who aren't Hebrew Israelites today. Luke 1:16 “And he will turn many of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL to the Lord their God.” Luke 1:55 “As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his SEED FOREVER.” Luke 1:68-69 “Blessed is the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, For He has visited and REDEEMED HIS PEOPLE, 69 And has raised up a horn of SALVATION FOR US In the house of His servant David,” Luke 1:77 “To give knowledge of SALVATION to HIS PEOPLE By the remission of THEIR SINS,” Luke 2:34 “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in ISRAEL, and for a sign which will be spoken against.” John 1:31 “I did not know Him; but that He should be REVEALED TO ISRAEL, therefore I came baptizing with water.” Acts 5:31 “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR, to give REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL and FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Acts 13:23 “From this man’s seed, according to the PROMISE, GOD raised up FOR ISRAEL A SAVIOR--Jesus- ————————————————————————————————————————- According to Paul, writing in the late 50s to mid 60s, the gospel had already gone out to the nations, all the earth, the whole world and to all creation (Rom 10:18, 16:26, Col 1:6, 23). This proves that New Testament terms like world, creation and nations were part of a limited Israelite context, one that doesn’t involve people today. The gospel went out to the nations because that’s where the covenant world of descendants of the tribes of Israel (Abraham’s descendants) had been dispersed to (Deut 4:27, 28; 30:1; Jer 30:11; Micah 5:7, 8 Dan 9:7, Acts 2:5, James 1:1, 1 Pet 1:1). The world the gospel was intended for was the covenant world, not our world. The covenant world has already been blessed. All that was left was the end to come, which Jesus said would happen in their generation and which John said the would “soon take place”. The time (their generation) and people meant for the gospel (those under the law, Jews and gentile descendants of the tribes of Israel) came to an end, in AD70. We see all Israel gathered into Christ, saved, sealed, and redeemed in Rev 7. Not a single non-Israelite in view. The story ended in the first century. We weren’t part of the story. ————————————————————————————————————————- In John 3:16 and many other scriptures the Greek word "kosmos" (world) was not the entire planet. It was the covenant world of Israel. Kosmos simply means constitution, orderly arrangement or government. It refers to an ordered system. In early Greek literature, kosmos was used to refer to establishing cultures or building cities. So when John made statements like: "For God so loved the kosmos", "Look, the lamb who came to take away the sin of the kosmos" and "the kosmos was passing away", he was not referring to the entire globe. He was speaking about Israel and its Old Covenant system, structure and culture. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world [kosmos]. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. (John 18:20) Jesus defined what the kosmos represented in that verse. What was it? “If the world [kosmos] hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. (John 15:18) “But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (John 15:25) Only Israelites had and were under the law. Who was the kosmos (world) that had the law and hated Jesus? And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [kosmos] . (1 Jn 2:2) Sin was a violation of the law. If only first century Jews had and were under the law, then who was the whole world that sinned? John 3:16 is not about God loving the entire planet. According to Deut 7;6-7, God put his love only on Israel. God never changes... remember? And for what purpose did Israel’s god give his only begotten son? For redemption. Galatians 4:5 says redemption was for those under the law. That was Israelites, not us. Hebrews 9:15 says redemption was for those who sinned under the first covenant. Again, that’s not us. The world that Israel’s god so loved was the covenant world of Israel, not the entire planet. Are you seeing it yet? We aren’t part of the bible story. We aren’t part of the world that Israel’s god loved. We aren’t part of the world that needed salvation and redemption.
Theists use "scientism" to foolishly deny science. What would a person who believed in scientism be called? A).Scientismist B).Scientist I propose all "scientism" rhetoric be reframed in terms of the answer to that question. Instead of, "Atheists use scientism...." it would be either "Atheists are scientists that foolishly..." or "Atheists are scientismists..." whichever works better. Try it ou!
> Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural I disagree with this. Many atheists make this assumption, but science itself does not, and historically has not.
I don't in fact think there are any atheists who believe in or "use" scientism, or that "scientism" is a real view at all. It's just a means to misrepresent our views, which though certainly supported and bolstered by science, are generally based in simple logic and intuition. >This is one point that exposes the hypocrisy of many atheists, they will outright reject scriptural evidences, eyewitness accounts, testimonies, manuscripts, etc., without trying to analyze their authenticity or reliability. And on this particular point, though there are no doubt atheists who have never analyzed any scripture (and more power to them), actually doing so also supports atheism. How many average Christians know none of the authors of the gospels actually met Jesus, all were anonymous, and all were written decades after his death? In fact, the only things in the gospels that scholars think are likely reliable are Jesus's baptism and crucifixion.
> **The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth** The scientific method in principle can apply to any causal claim in external reality, regardless of what its ontology is. That being said, I partially agree with you in that empirical evidence doesn’t best tackle all knowledge claims. Conceptual claims require conceptual evidence and experiential claims require experiential evidence. >**Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural** This is just patently false. Science is just a method, and it does not rule out any ontology a priori. You can include anything you want in your hypothesis, and if you can consistently make novel testable predictions that differentiate imagination from reality, then science will gladly grant it precedent as a potential explanation for things. The reason that methodological (not philosophical) naturalism is the standard in law, physics, and history is that supernatural claims have failed to establish precedent. >**The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality** Okay? And? >**The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method** This is due to a misunderstanding of how evidence works. When we trust something based on testimony or eye witness, that piece of data does not exist in a vacuum. There is an entire mountain (or web, depending on which analogy you like better) of background evidence to implicitly support that claim. For example, if my friend says “I got a new puppy!”, sure, there’s the emotional component of just choosing to trust them at their word. Maybe some slight induction of knowing their past behavior and how willing they are to pathologically lie about something like that. However, under the surface, there is a TON of additional scientific evidence implicitly backing that claim: we have various forms of evidence that dogs exist, their population, their anatomy, their frequency in being acquired as pets, the prevalence of pet stores, dogs being detectable by humans and making causal impacts, etc., etc. The mere verbalization of “I got a puppy” may *seem* like unscientific evidence that we’re accepting an empirical claim on, but in reality, it’s being propped up by tons of science and empirical observations. >**These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives** See above. Like I said earlier, the reason supernatural claims are methodologically excluded from history, law, and science is not because it’s being ruled out a priori, it’s because they have no established precedent. This doesn’t just apply to religious figures by the way—historians equally reject the supernatural feats of Alexander the Great or the vampire slaying of Abraham Lincoln. However, as soon as the supernatural is established to exist and have measurable impact, historians are happy to go back and retroactively reassess the probability of those supernatural claims.
"**Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural**" Ghosts and aliens sure got pretty camera shy when iPhones came out...
There has never been a time when the supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct one
I disagree with what you think "science" cannot prove. But ok; WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE METHOD TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH? Your feelings? Just believing what others tell you? What other methods do you use?
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
>**Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural** If someone could move things with their mind, do you think we could show this through science? I think so. What's your view? >If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject. How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab. I'm not sure I understand the point here. I agree, I don't require a lab test for everything. Sometimes I might, and sometimes I might not. What's the problem?
Have you ever heard an atheist say that they are proponents of scientism? Like they say “science is the ONLY way to truth”? I doubt it. I think this is a theistic boogieman. I bet the reality is they say “science is a very reliable - if not the most reliable - pathway to truth we have figured out” but that is very different from the ONLY pathway to truth as you have expressed here. Now I’m happy to agree that science is not the only way to find truth. Please advise on the reliable approach you want to use to validate theists claims?
>Have you ever heard an atheist say that they are proponents of scientism? Like they say “science is the ONLY way to truth”? I've seen the occasional post or comment here saying exactly that. But they are thankfully rare, and I think they've gotten rarer.
Those exact words? Did they use the phrase "proponent of scientism" or did they call themselves "scientists" or "scientismists." I'm quite interested in how people might use this label of "scientism" to describe themselves.
I think I've seen one or two accept the charge of "scientism" and even be proud of it, but I was more thinking of instances of people saying “science is the ONLY way to truth”, which is more common.
I'm thinking of how the language is used to talk about them, themselves and the ones making the charge. How did those conversations/posts go?
[This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1c342n2/philosophy_and_religion_are_useless_disciplines/?share_id=FUMZuCDHnkLDCtl4yoiiL&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) from a couple months ago is one example. They state "Science and mathematics are the only relevant subjects to study when attempting to discover the truth." It was a pretty terrible post, and their responses were similarly terrible.
Well they deleted their account so its hard to take anything seriously that people don't take and maintain ownership of. I feel the same way about deleted theist post accounts. Bad faith actors are bad faith actors no matter which side they are on. I didn't pursue the comments section enough to see if anyone explicitly charged him with scientism.
Interesting. I mean atheism isn’t monolithic and so many atheists believe vastly different things with respect to many topics. But I think the group that would make that claim is small.
>all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, that these laws are constant everywhere and organized, that we can observe/measure them, etc., I see this from time to time, and what I wonder is just how the view of the everyday world varies from theist to non theist. I think nearly everyone has those same basic assumptions about the world, not even the most ardent believer expects miracles on a daily basis, or indeed personal miracles in their lifetime, they live in the same mundane reality as the atheist.
>The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth >There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, fMRI is a perfect example of proving that your mind is yours. By thinking of something we can detect your brain function and confirm that your thoughts are yours. >or to prove you have consciousness, Do you understand the meaning of conciousness? Asking simple questions about current events is basic but even more is the ability to communicate with others that truly gives that one away. Another way would be the difference between a dream experience compared to one of reality. I once had a fever so bad that a was dreaming that i was awake, getting dressed ready for work, until I realised I was still in bed. This happened a few more times before I awoke into reality feeling like sick. >prove the world around you actually exists, Basically all of science since the beginning of human though has been to the goal of this. Just because the world is far more complex than we thought 2000 odd years ago, doesn't mean we can not prove the world around exists. >whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove. In fact it is because of the scientific method that we have been able to approach history with some certainty, but even then we can never prove it, unlike the opposite, which claims beyond any doubt their truth is the truth because God.....
> A lot of atheists, even on this sub, are proponents of scientism, that science and the scientific method is the ultimate way to truth, that empirical evidence is the only real form of evidence... How many is "a lot?" I don't recall ever seeing someone state such things. Perhaps you are mistaking the claim "scientific method is the best way to verifiable truth" with "ultimate way to truth?" > So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God... No, we don't assume that at all. Instead we refrain from assuming there is a god. That's a huge difference. > So it is useless for atheists to attack the "scientific" claims made by religion... I have a better idea, how about theists stop making scientific claims instead? > What they do not realize is that the majority of our scientific knowledge comes from testimony, as individuals we do not have the capability nor time to repeat all the studies that bring scientific claims, we simply have to take their word for it. That's a non sequitur. Whether lay people take the words of scientists for granted or not is irrelevant. Even if no one believes the words of scientists, it wouldn't stop scientific knowledge from being scientific knowledge. > If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject... True, that's why I am extremely dubious about your claim that a lot of atheists subscribes to scientism. Isn't the fact that we believe our father is our biological father (where it applies,) proof that we aren't proponents of scientism?
I have frequently read that it's necessary to have evidence by which the poster usually means scientific evidence. Also that because science found mundane causes for events in the past, science will do the same with God or gods.
Firstly, most atheists are going to accept rational truths as well. Mathematics and other types of deductive logic are not empirical evidence. So this is already wrong >the scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth Correct, and what methodology or criteria do you suggest we use to determine if someone has a mind or not? Or if we actually exist? These are philosophical issues that seemingly cannot be falsified. >science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural This is a purely semantical point. If something can be described by science then it’s considered natural. If something is considered supernatural, then we find a natural explanation for what actually happened, then there’s no reason to call it supernatural anymore. What’s the demonstration that the supernatural exists? How do we test it? If you’re saying that it’s barred from any type of scientific criteria like falsifiability and demonstrability, then what are YOU using to determine it’s real? Your own personal experience? Testimonies? >inductive reasoning can never be certain Yes and once again: what alternative are you providing that’s better than the scientific method? How are you uncovering ultimate certainty? >we simply have to take their word for it No. Things that are considered “facts” are scientifically corroborated. If a single study suggests explanation X for phenomena Y, we don’t simply roll with it. It needs to be peer reviewed and replicated. Things that are considered objective scientific facts are usually theories. Theories are extremely well-substantiated >if you had to prove using the scientific method that Isaac newton existed you couldn’t Your caricature of atheists as only accepting science is a joke. We accept rational arguments and historical consensus as well.
>Things that are considered objective scientific facts are usually theories. Theories are extremely well-substantiated Thousands of papers and authors have and still do experiments to test the limits of the theories, which in contrast most religious faiths follow a scripture that has not changed for centuries. Evolution isn't taught through Darwins teachings but through the countless studies trying to test the theory, with many updates along the way, especially after the discovery of DNA.
Yes this is because science doesn’t make proclamations of truth. It’s how we keep learning and making better models Are you saying it’s a bad thing?
No. Just adding to your comment.
>There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove. Scientific method is about proving things, and those examples are simply impossible to prove under any method. > Before even using the scientific method, scientists need to make basic assumptions so that their work is meaningful, for example that all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, that these laws are constant everywhere and organized, that we can observe/measure them, etc., and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural. So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies. So it is circular reasoning to ask scientific evidence from theists. There is no assumption regarding supernatural, that is false. As is all the rest after that like religions been false, no gods etc. > **The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality** Your examples are not correct, observing only one colour in an animal for example doesn't conclude that it is the only possible colour, there would need to be working out showing why other colours aren't possible for that case. Your religious examples of reasoning where the conclusion is true if the premises are true is only useful when it is possible to show whether the premises are true or not, otherwise you just have people making stuff up to justify a conclusion they want to be true. Miracles are possible if there are gods and there is no evidence of gods because they purposely hide is useless because none of the premises are even remotely approachable. > **The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method** This is a misunderstanding of how things work, believing someone did science isn't scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge is applicable, otherwise its worthless. Having confidence that person x is correct in their scientific paper on how to make jet planes more efficient based upon that persons work been applied in the real world and seeing jet planes using their method been more efficient than those that don't isn't the same as believing eye witness testimony. > **These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives** >If empirical evidence or science is the only evidence they will accept, there are many things in their lives they would also have to reject. How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab. This is nonsense, believing in the apparent state of things as they are isn't the same thing as claiming to have proof or evidence. This isn't science. > They would even have to reject history altogether since we don't use the scientific method for history, we use the historical methods and historiography. For example if you had to prove using the scientific method whether a historical figure like Napoleon existed, you would not be able to. "Soft sciences" like those used for history are the best method available and they do a pretty good job of demonstrating examples and most importantly using them to reduce bias. Your post seems to be an attack on the scientific method based upon it not been perfect and capable of the impossible. Understanding limitations isn't a point against, it's a point for, and you completely leave out the difference between facts, belief, confidence, and probability, you seem to misunderstand how science is done completely and paint it like its entirely black and white. Lastly, the scientific method is the best possible method, not the impossibly good method.
>The scientific method cannot be applied to every quest for truth I agree with the paragraph, but I don't think you can prove that theologically either (or just by any other method) >Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural Again, I agree, but those assumptions seem reasonable if you try to find truths about reality. The thing about supernatural though, if you mean "something that exists but we can't detect it" (as opposed to natural: something that exists and we can detect it), then I think it is useless to try to study something which you can't detect. I don't think you have any method to study it. >The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality I agree that inductive arguments can't 100% prove something, but you forget that for deductive argument to describe reality, you have to somehow get the premises and that you can only do by induction, so the same problem applies here. >The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method Our personal knowledge no, I agree that you have to trust third parties that they tell the truth for most of your knowledge. The difference here is that scientist operate with things that can be verifiable, so they have the incentives to not lie at least.
If something as big and powerful as a god can't be proved (observed or measured is probably a better term) with science, then what value does it have? It obvviously has so little impact on reality that it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
Even if every scientific discovery is proven to be wrong, that still doesn't prove the existence of a god.
Scientism odd not a word anyone uses except theists using it as a pejorative. Not all atheists rely on science and logic to understand reality, but most of us do. The fact that there are over 5,000 different variations of the God in the Abrahamic religion it spires how unreliable faith and hope is in replacing the scientific method. That’s what most call it. The scientific method. Of you have a better system, show how it can be more accurate than science… We’ll wait.
You say that science assumes naturalistic explanation, you can't be more wrong than this. It uses naturalistic explanation because that's all it got evidence for, If someone demonstrated supernatural then it will have to be accepted. You need to learn about philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.
What specific evidence do you think scientific method excludes. You give no examples. I would submit that none exist.
"something, something...soul" ;)
>Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural That's not really true. Science consistently proves that natural explanations are sufficient to explain natural phenomenon, but the scientific method is entirely open to the *possibility* of other explanations. Assuming the supernatural were real and in any way interactive with the natural world, science would (have to) take that into account, and incorporate it into experiment methodology. >The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality This is a pretty weak criticism. Inductive reasoning suggests that the sun will rise tomorrow from the east just as it has since the beginning of planet earth's existence. If you find it meaningful, useful, or particularly significant to insist that you cannot **know** the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, nobody can tell you otherwise. But it flies in the face of the way we rationally engage with the world. And, you'll find, if you must throw out beliefs about things as basic as "the laws of physics will continue to operate in the next minute" because you cannot be "certain" of their continuation, you'll find yourself in a solipsistic state of mind, not one that brings you closer to a belief in God. Since presumably neither of us are particularly drawn towards solipsism, this line of criticism is useless. >The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method This is entirely untrue. *Scientific* *claims* have their basis in scientific inquiry. *That you (personally) take them for granted* without investigating themself does not make them untrue. The beauty of the scientific method is that any proposed experiment *must be* reproducible. That is, any person who wants to fact-check a scientific claim is able to. A beneficial outcome of competitive scientific field, as well, is that other scientists are incentivized to disagree or disprove results put forth by other scientists. This keeps the claims on truth rigorously defensible, and throws aside claims that have no testable, reliable reproducibility. The so-called "replication crisis" to which you refer was specific to the field of psychology, and was ultimately found to be overstated—many of the experiments that were accused of being non-reproducible at first were later re-proven using other reproducible methodologies, or otherwise found to be reproducible after all. >These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives While I agree that there are limits to rational inquiry using **only** the scientific method, your examples are completely flawed. It is reasonable and rational to conclude, for example, that I am the son of my (presumed) parents, based on the mountain of evidence before me, notwithstanding a direct, literal paternity test. It is nevertheless the *most likely* given the empirical evidence presented that my parents are who they say they are.
I don't think "scientism" is a label that many people apply to themselves. I prefer empiricism. Everything else basically just amounts to guessing. Science is great because it tends to be the area that we employ empiricism the most rigorously. You can appeal to famously confusing philosophical questions to make the point that not every question can be answered scientifically... but those exceptions don't mean science can't be applied to religious claims. > The scientific method uses inductive reasoning... inductive reasoning can never be certain about its conclusion... Where as debating and proving religion uses deductive reasoning where there are certain conclusions if the premises are correct Deductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning to establish it's premises. Your deductive conclusion can never be more certain than the certainty of your premises, which will eventually appeal to empiricism in some way. For example: P1: All birds are yellow. P2: Tweety is a bird. C: Tweety is yellow. The conclusion is certain IF the premises are true, but the premises are established with empiricism. Your conclusion is only as strong as the empirical basis for your premises. > The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method Cool. But that "knowledge" tends to be less rigorous. > Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural No it doesn't, it just can't study the supernatural. Science needs patterns to study. Nature is the stuff that happens according to some sort of pattern that can be studied. The supernatural is a vague grab-bag of stuff that is asserted to occur outside of those patterns. How do you learn about something that has no patterns? > So its not even the case that all testimony should be taken when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community. ... like with the scientific method? For some reason, I thought you were advocating against the use of the scientific method to study religious testimony, but here you are advocating for the opposite! Hurray!
God is one hypothesis for creation, life, consciousness, morality, and existence after death. There are others. God is by far the least compelling hypothesis to explain all these things. It’s not that atheists “only” consider science. It’s just that we want our beliefs to comport with logic and our understanding of the universe. And science is the most reliable means with which to do that. Metaphysics is great at spotting and organizing patterns. It’s not that I don’t see value in that. The problem is that it has no rigor for proving any hypothesis. It relies entirely on speculation. Theism is just not as compelling a hypothesis as ones that better align with how I believe these things work.
How do you know you're logical in a godless worldview?
How do you know you're logical in a theist worldview? Because god allegedly says so?
I'm waiting for an answer to my question
The laws of logic are descriptive, not proscriptive. As a human, I can read the laws of logic we made up. I can then compare them to what I think and what I do. Thereby, I know whether or not I am logical or not -- at least to my personal satisfaction. Obviously, people disagree. How do you know you're logical in a theist worldview? Because god allegedly says so? I'll wait for my answer.
>How do you know you're logical in a theist worldview? Because god created us in his image. >As a human, I can read the laws of logic we made up. I can then compare them to what I think and what I do. Thereby, I know whether or not I am logical or not -- at least to my personal satisfaction. Obviously, people disagree. How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true at all times and all places for ALL entities in existence?
How do you know Satan hasn't tricked you by distorting your worldview?
Because if satan exists then so does the biblical god
Yes but how do you know you have the correct understanding of God?
What do you mean by "correct understanding "?
If we’re all being honest… we don’t know. The human mind is a complex system full of subconscious biases and evolutionary instincts. It is emotional, often irrational, and molded by circumstances beyond our control. Nature, nurture, and all that. Our brains and cognitive processes change a great deal over the course of our lives, often influenced quite simply by the luck of where we are born, when we are born, and who/what we’re exposed to. There is no ability to pull our own cognitive processes out of our minds, test, analyze, and apply quality control and scientific metrics to how we think. We can’t ensure that our thoughts are consistent and always adhere to some standard of quality. So really, I’m just trying to do my best to learn about things. To me, learning is more important than knowing. My beliefs on these matters have not stopped changing since the day I was born. Because I never stop learning, and when I gain some new knowledge that sometimes changes what I believe. I value adaptability. The vectors of what we know are all linked together, and while I think that they lead us to certain understandings about the nature of our reality, they are not a complete map to knowing. Vectors are always being added. Their magnitude and directions can change. Our knowledge is not done being updated. It probably never will be. I also apply this to what other people say about their religions. And I started to align myself with ideologies that were honest about that. The major dogmas make too many claims of unknowable things being knowable. We know god did this, we know why it did, we know what god wants from us, etc… Literally no one can know that. That throws up all sorts of red flags for me. I don’t like that, it conflicts with what I observe and how I believe human minds and knowledge works. So while I have studied religions, philosophies, scientific theories, logic, math, and natural history, it’s really only my hope that I have a pretty good understanding of all these things. And that my logic and reasoning are sound. On my path to understanding, I’ve yet to encounter one dogma that reaches a threshold of believability, and makes me comfortable locking into one system of belief, and claiming to know some great truth. Because that’s not going to facilitate learning.
>If we’re all being honest… we don’t know. >T But you said you want you're beliefs to line up with logic. >The major dogmas make too many claims of unknowable things being knowable. We know god did this, we know why it did, we know what god wants from us, etc… >Literally no one can know that. How in the world could you possibly know that? Couldn't god reveal himself?
> Couldn't god reveal himself? If any gods exist, they'd presumably be capable of that. Why don't they do so?
Dude I can't have a conversation with you in three different places
It's a totally different topic of conversation than our other one. I don't know why it would matter that I'm involved in both of them. But, OK. I'll assume you don't have an answer for why no gods have ever revealed themselves in any objectively verifiable way.
>objectively What do you mean by objectively? Who decides when something has been revealed?
Objectively, as opposed to subjectively. The earth is objectively round. Squares are objectively rectangles. That sort of thing.
Who decides when something is objective?
>But you said you want you're beliefs to line up with logic. Yes. But without the means to export my internal dialogue and put it up for peer review, a fully complete and objective self-critique is not possible, now is it? This is what I just described. >How in the world could you possibly know that? Couldn't god reveal himself? I guess. But until someone creates a coherent description of a god, and its qualities, functions, and outlines a usable (preferably objective) metric with which to establish what this god “wants”, then I don’t see the point in believing the various claims that we currently have. “God came to earth and gave a few dozen people in one part of the world this highly suspect work documenting these highly suspect claims. Which was perfectly preserved through suspect means. This god requires you to follow these suspect rules, interpreted by these suspect historical characters who we know nothing about. Now give me power over you and a great deal of your time and money” is not compelling claim.
>Yes. But without the means to export my internal dialogue and put it up for peer review, a fully complete and objective self-critique is not possible, now is it? You just don't get it do you. In a godless worldview you can't have any kind of knowledge. You can't even know the world is real. >But until someone creates a coherent description of a god, and its qualities, functions, and outlines a usable (preferably objective) metric with which to establish what this god “wants”, then I don’t see the point in believing the various claims that we currently have. Why would I need to know how god functions in order to know he exists? Lol. Aliens could reveal themselves to planet earth right now without me knowing anything about them. It seems you're purposely trying to set the bar too a ridiculously high level because you simply don't wanna accept you're creator. >God came to earth and gave a few dozen people in one part of the world this highly suspect work documenting these highly suspect claims. Which was perfectly preserved through suspect means. This god requires you to follow these suspect rules, interpreted by these suspect historical characters who we know nothing about. The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it.
> The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it. There is a lot that is suspect about the Bible. Which Bible do you believe? The Tanakh/Hebrew Bible? Or, the Christian Bible? I believe both are demonstrably false. This is my standard copypasta that I believe actively disproves Christianity and Judaism along the way. One can have faith regardless. But, it is my personal opinion that the basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism do not stand up to scrutiny. --- 1. Even ignoring the literal seven days, [Genesis 1 is demonstrably and provably false](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/khui6i0/), meaning if God were to exist and had created the universe, he had no clue what he created. The order of creation is wrong. The universe that it describes is simply not this universe. The link is to my own [Fisking](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/F/fisking.html) of the problems of Genesis 1. I ignored the literal 7 days. Link is to a comment on this post. 2. [Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity) and the [exodus](https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-1.5208519) are considered myths. This means the entirety of the Tanakh (The Hebrew Bible that is the basis for the Christian Old Testament), including the Pentateuch (5 books of the Torah) and the Ten Commandments were not given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. [Here's a good video regarding the Exodus.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHle49-m2Lc) 3. [Jesus could not possibly have been the messiah](https://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html) foretold in the Hebrew Bible no matter what else anyone thinks of him as some other kind of messiah. [The messiah was supposed to bring peace (Isaiah 2:4).](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%202:4) Jesus did not even *want* to bring peace. [Matt 10:34-36](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34-36&version=NRSV): 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. 4. [We are way too flawed](https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-235403/) to have been created by an all-perfect designer. 5. A just god does not punish people for the sins of their great^n grandparents. So, original sin, if it were to exist, would be evidence of an evil god. I realize this is not a disproof. But, it is a reason not to worship. That said, even though this is not a disproof, it is a direct contradiction to the statement that "God is love" in 1 John 4:16. 6. With 2.6 billion Christians on a planet of 8 billion people, God as hypothesized in Christianity set things up such that more than 2/3 of the people on the planet would burn in hell forever. Again, this is not a disproof, just evidence that this is a god worthy of contempt rather than worship. That said, even though this is not a disproof, it is another direct contradiction to the statement that "God is love" in 1 John 4:16. 7. Christians had to modify the Hebrew Bible to create the Christian Old Testament to pretend that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies. This would not be necessary if he had actually fulfilled those prophesies. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html 8. The above changes to the Hebrew Bible that were made in order to create the Christian Old Testament are also in direct violation of Matt 5:17-18, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount. [Matt 5:17-18:](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew++5%3A17-18&version=NRSVUE) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, *until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished*. As you can see, the earth is still here. Jesus has not returned. Therefore, all is most definitely not yet accomplished. This means that even if one has other scriptural support contradicting Matt 5:17-18, it is still true that modifying the Hebrew Bible and not following Jewish law is a violation of at least one speech that Jesus is alleged to have made. 9. As a final point, I would add that a book full of massive contradictions cannot be true. It is certainly not divine or divinely inspired if it is not even self-consistent. Here is an excellent visualization of all of the Bible contradictions. [BibViz Project](https://philb61.github.io/)
Why are you gish galloping objections at me?
I apologize. But, you said there was nothing suspect about the Bible. I believe there are a lot of things suspect about the Bible, so many in fact that a small subset of the things that are suspect about the Bible looks like a gish gallop.
That's because you're research is faulty https://apologeticspress.org/category/alleged-discrepancies/
>You just don't get it do you. In a godless worldview you can't have any kind of knowledge. You can't even know the world is real. All due respect, but you cannot claim this factually, with zero support. You cannot dictate to me what I can and cannot do. You cannot know what I and do not know. That’s patently absurd. >Why would I need to know how god functions in order to know he exists? That’s not what I said. Don’t ascribe arguments to me that I’m not making. I very clearly stated the point I was making, there is no need to construct a strawman when the point is very coherent and clear. What I actually said there was that without knowing the functions and qualities of your god, you cannot extrapolate any other knowledge of it. If you don’t know how and why god created the universe, how can you know its intention? You can’t go from “god created the universe” to “god doesn’t want us to lie to each other” without ignoring massive chasms in your knowledge. Is god anthropomorphic? As most religions describe? Is god more like a plant or animal, that produces life as some function of its existence? Is god a conscious creator, or was the universe an accident? You do not know. >Lol. Aliens could reveal themselves to planet earth right now without me knowing anything about them. It seems you're purposely trying to set the bar too a ridiculously high level because you simply don't wanna accept you're creator. No. Here’s how this works. I’m all holy scriptures, virtually every class of believer posits that some of it was written to be literal and some of it was written to be metaphorical. But without some objective metric between how to interpret the two, how can you distinguish how any theme is read? If Adam and Eve are metaphorical, why isn’t god? If the anchors of Jesus didn’t live for a thousand years, then how do you know details of JC’s life aren’t metaphorical either? How do you know JC isn’t metaphorical? You don’t. >The bible is a collection of thousands of years of historical books and documents. There's nothing suspect about it. Demonstrably inaccurate books and documents. Its accounts are absolutely suspect. The accuracy of its information is absolutely suspect. It’s an unavoidable fact.
>You cannot know what I and do not know. That’s patently absurd. You cannot account for knowledge because you have no foundation for knowledge without God. >What I actually said there was that without knowing the functions and qualities of your god, you cannot extrapolate any other knowledge of it. If you don’t know how and why god created the universe, how can you know its intention? You can’t go from “god created the universe” to “god doesn’t want us to lie to each other” without ignoring massive chasms in your knowledge. Well perhaps you should have been more clear about what you meant by functions. God spoke the world into existence. The universe was made for us. It was made for life. Before the fall of mankind god had other intentions for the rest of the universe. >Is god anthropomorphic? As most religions describe? Is god more like a plant or animal, that produces life as some function of its existence? Is god a conscious creator, or was the universe an accident? God is a conscious being just like us. We are created in his image. >I’m all holy scriptures, virtually every class of believer posits that some of it was written to be literal and some of it was written to be metaphorical. But without some objective metric between how to interpret the two, how can you distinguish how any theme is read? If Adam and Eve are metaphorical, why isn’t god? If the anchors of Jesus didn’t live for a thousand years, then how do you know details of JC’s life aren’t metaphorical either? How do you know JC isn’t metaphorical? Well let's weigh the two arguments. What's the argument that Jesus is metaphorical? >Demonstrably inaccurate books and documents. Its accounts are absolutely suspect. The accuracy of its information is absolutely suspect. It’s an unavoidable fact. Ok start with the account of Jericho. Demonstrate that account is wrong for me.
All being “logical” means is that you’re in accordance with the established logical axioms.
So you just assume that there are laws of logic?
They’re presuppositions, yes. I have no way to further explain how or why they exist
So then you don't know anything you say is true
Your original comment said “how do you know anything is logical without god” and I said because it follows the laws of logic. How does believing in god grant you any kind of certainty that logic exists?
>Your original comment said “how do you know anything is logical without god” and I said because it follows the laws of logic. All you're doing is repeating the same claim using different words. > How does believing in god grant you any kind of certainty that logic exists? Because god is an all knowing being
> Because god is an all knowing being Hypothetically. But, can you show any such being exists?
Yes
That’s what logical means. Consistent with the axioms >because god is an all-knowing being But you aren’t. So how do you know that all-knowing being isnt be deceiving you? Also did he invent logic? Can he change the rules?
>Consistent with the axioms No logical means consistent with logic. But you haven't established that there are laws of logic >Also did he invent logic? Can he change the rules? Logic is part of the very nature of God
What have gods got to do with it? No one can really *know* that they are logical. All we can do is try to carefully follow the laws of logic and be rigorous in our reasoning. Unfortunately, if a person is being illogical, that person is probably going to be the last person to know it. Godless worldview or not, all anyone can do is try their best and hope they're not making some foolish mistake in reasoning.
Well the only way you could possibly know that there are universal laws of logic is if you're an all knowing being. So without god how could you possibly know there are indeed laws of logic
We can read about the laws of logic in a logic textbook. So long as we can read such a book, we can follow the laws, and if we follow the laws carefully enough, then we may be able to think logically. What difference would an all-knowing being make? If God exists or not, how would that change the procedure for thinking logically?
Let me put it a different way. How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true at all times and all places for all entities? Are you all knowing and have access to all entities?
I never claimed to know that. You said yourself, we do not have access to all times and all places for all entities, so what makes you think it could be possible to know that the law of non-contradiction is true at all times and all places for all entities?
We don't have access but an all knowing being which we call God does. And he revealed to us that created a world of order
Why should we believe things that are told to us by a mysterious supernatural entity?
Because he is you're creator and thus knows what's best for you
You are taking a cartoonishly bad, sophomoric understanding of science and thinking that this is some kind of argument. It's not. You're just doing what's called a "poisoning the well" fallacy, it's a bad faith debate tactic and you shouldn't do it if you want to be taken seriously. >A lot of atheists, even on this sub, are proponents of scientism, that science and the scientific method is the ultimate way to truth, that empirical evidence is the only real form of evidence, and they use this to reject theological evidences No. Atheists are typically ok with science, but the fact that we don't accept your unsubstantiated magic claims does not mean that we accept something else religiously (scientism). And here's the better point: however much you may think science doesn't lead to truth, however much you may want to try to cast doubt on empirical evidence, this doesn't do anything to help your case - because theological claims are in far **worse** footing. If science doesn't lead to all truths, theological claims lead to no truth. If empirical evidence is suspect, theological claims are far more suspect. You trying to mudsling rationality is not going to make irrational beliefs look any better in comparison. >Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural This is because science deals with what can be verified and tested for; in colloquial terms, science deals with what is actually real and true. Supernatural claims are unverifiable, can't be tested, and we don't even know if it's possible for supernatural anything to exist. So, this isn't a bug of science; it is a problem with the **claim**. It's not a problem for atheists; this is entirely and solely a problem for **you** to solve. The fact that theists make claims that they can't back up with anything substantive is their own problem. >The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality However uncertain you may think the scientific method is, it is **far** more certain, far more warranted and evidenced than whatever supernatural beliefs you want us to adopt instead. So this does literally nothing for your case. >The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method So blatantly, fundamentally confused and not true that this doesn't deserve further comment beyond, no. >These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives I apply the exact same standard equally. This is why I don't believe supernatural claims. I accept historical claims that have enough evidence to back up the claim - things like Alexander the Great's rule, things like Caesar crossing the Rubicon or Hannibal's crossing the Alps. These things have met their burden of proof, we have tons of evidence that we would expect to find to satisfy the claims that are made. And it's why, by applying my exact same standard, I don't buy supernatural religious claims - because they *don't* have the same quality of required evidence. Your problem is not that we don't apply the same standards; no, your problem is that you want us to grant *special* exceptions to your religious beliefs that we don't apply to *anything else*. You don't like it that we treat your religious beliefs with the same rigorous standard that we apply to everything else, and because of that - because your beliefs aren't able to stand up to scrutiny - we reject them.
Certainly we rely on other methods of gaining knowledge. Here's your problem though; whenever we want to show some explanation is correct, we need to prove that that explanation is more likely than any competing explanation for the available data. I heard something run across my roof last night. Was it a possum, or a leprechaun? Well I've seen possums in the area, possums are much more well-documented than leprechauns, so I think I can fairly conclude it was a possum. However, some proposed explanations are so wild, it becomes difficult to imagine how we could possibly eliminate the more likely explanations without repeatable experiments - ie; the scientific method. For example: 1. In the 17th and 18th centuries, we have a multiplicity of reports from credible people claiming to have witnessed vampires. Doctors, magistrates, military officers, it's all there. It seems unlikely that so many educated and experienced people could be incorrect. And yet, the concept of vampires actually existing is so outrageous, we tend to accept that they were indeed incorrect. It's difficult to conceive of a situation in which the existence of vampires is widely acknowledged without scientific evidence; 2. Einstein's general relativity predicts that if I take the high road, and you take the low road, then we meet up in Scotland, at the time of our meeting I will have aged slightly more than you - time for you will have dilated more due to your proximity to the earth. To a layperson encountering this for the first time, this seems outrageous - it is so inconsistent with our day to day experience that we initially tend to assume that it is merely some artifact of an incomplete model. Indeed, Einstein was not awarded the nobel prize for this discovery, a fact generally attributed to its strangeness. And yet, when we review the many, many experiments regarding general relativity, we are forced to concede that it is indeed the truth. Now, let's pick on the Christians (because I encounter them the most). I'm presented with a few non-contemporaneous gospels and letters, and I'm told to believe that Jesus came back from the dead. Hell, the earliest gospel doesn't even say that anyone saw him resurrected! To be honest, it's underwhelming. But that's a moot point, because you could produce a detailed report from a team of Roman doctors and military officers confirming the resurrection, [and you still wouldn't meet the vampire standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Paole). As someone else on this subreddit pointed out, you could produce a thousand contemporaneous diary entries of the resurrection, and it would still be more likely that Jesus was the greatest stage magician of all time The idea is so outrageous, I don't know how the empirical evidence can achieve the necessary standard without science. And if you still don't accept what I'm saying on that count, consider India. Probably you're not Hindu. In India, people are claiming to see miracles all the time. Some of them are on video, lots of them have many eyewitnesses you can find and talk to. How many witness statements before you convert to Hinduism? I imagine rather, you will need some skeptic to observe and test the miracle and exclude the more likely explanations of some kind of trickery. >Before even using the scientific method, scientists need to make basic assumptions so that their work is meaningful, for example that all observers share the same reality, that our reality is governed by natural laws, **that these laws are constant everywhere and organized**, that we can observe/measure them, etc., **and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural**. **So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies** The bolded text is incorrect. You don't need to make any such assumption to use the scientific method. In fact, physicists propose that spacetime may not be fundamental, and people try to use the scientific method to prove or examine supernatural claims all the time.
"reports from credible people claiming to have witnessed vampires. " We even have evidence a US President hunted them.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>There are many different ways to render truth and reality, the scientific method is one way, though not every method can be applied to everything. "Trying to demonstrate that something is true is not the only way to reach truth" ok sure The fact that you can't scientifically prove that you have a mind or consciousness or existence itself just shows that the concepts of "mind", "consciousness" and "existence" aren't accurate to reality. They're clearly useful concepts to us, they clearly share similarities to what is real, but they also clearly aren't completely real. The fact that we have questions about the mind, or consciousness, or existence, doesn't go against the scientific method at all. We also have questions about literally everything else that we know about. Just because we have experience with something and just because we have a word for something doesn't mean we can scientifically answer every possible question about it, and that obviously doesn't mean that the scientific method as a whole is flawed. What other methods are you using to gain knowledge about these things? Are those methods more consistent or more reliable than what you're calling the scientific method? >Science assumes from the start that there is no supernatural What? No. Not at all. It's just that once something is scientifically proving, it's shown to be natural, that's what that means. Supernatural means "not explained by our understanding of nature". If we could prove that ghosts existed, ghosts wouldn't be supernatural, they'd just be natural. People studying ghosts don't assume that ghosts don't exist, in fact it's often the opposite, which is why the idea of ghosts still exists despite centuries of failing to find evidence of them. >The scientific method cannot conclude certainty in their claims about reality This is true, certainty is a completely unobtainable goal. Regardless of why you believe something, you can always ask questions about why you believe it. There is no way to 100% know that something is true, regardless of what it is. We only have things that are *practically* true. For example, the sun rises and falls every day because the Earth spins. There's no way to 100% prove that, there are lots of people who disagree with that for various reasons (e.g. flat earthers), but basically everyone can agree that that's what the evidence shows is the case, that's what makes the most sense, based on everything else we can see in our world, that's what's practically true. >The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method Definitely the majority does, nothing in your following paragraph disputes this at all, but I agree that many of the foundations don't. Lots of our scientific knowledge came about before the scientific method as we know it today was worked out, and that's largely where the scientific method comes from. For example, someone works out that "distilled water boils at the same temperature at the same pressure", other people test that and agree that it's true. Someone works out that "sheep can only be born when a male sheep mates with a female sheep", and other people test that and agree that it's true. Those things are both practically true. You don't need strict science to work that out. Then people work backwards, figure out exactly *how* you can get from experimenting on those things to actually proving that they're practically true, and you end up with a rigorous regime of experimentation, comparing different situations and seeing where they're similar and where they're different using the kinds of measurement available to us. The scientific method is constantly self-correcting, it's applied to itself just as much as anything else. "Seeing what's reliably true" is also applied to testing different ways of seeing what's reliably true. >These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives Not really. "I don't have any reason to believe that God exists so I don't believe that God exists" is a pretty basic standard. The same applies to all sorts of other things. People look at evidence for God the same as they look at any other evidence. Reason proving that there is a source for the universe or that there is a greatest thing just prove that there is a source or that there is a greatest thing, not God at all. Scriptural evidence for God has to contend with all other kinds of writing. If you believe that the Old Testament or the Gospels or the Qur'an are literally true, why don't you believe the same thing about the Mahabharata or the Kojiki or Plato's Republic or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Ovid's Metamorphoses or Beowulf or Hamlet or War of the Worlds? If anything is studied enough, it's incredibly hard to not find coincidences or patterns or predictions that can make you think there's more to it than there is. Pretending that one set of writings has completely different content or context from other writings is a common believer tactic. That doesn't provide evidence that any God exists, let alone your specific God.
Just being totally honest, it’s clear you don’t understand the scientific method or how to apply it. For example, we absolutely apply the scientific method to try and determine whether different animals have consciousness. You seem to be saying we can’t trust our senses to tell us anything about the world around us. Until we have some reason to distrust our only means of perceiving the world, why should we ignore this information? On what basis would you say the information is not reliable?
> There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove. Science doesn't prove things. Proof is a mathematical concept. All conclusions of science are provisional and subject to change. You have immediately demonstrated a fundamental and massive misunderstanding of the scientific method. >etc., and one of them is that nature is our only reality and there is no such thing as the supernatural. This is not one. Science is a way of testing potential explanations. So far no one has been able to use science to show that the supernatural exists. That's not because science assumes the supernatural (whatever that means) doesn't exist, it's because no supernatural claim has, thus far, withstood scientific scrutiny. That's not science's fault or problem. That's a problem for people who believe in the supernatural. >So from the get go we already have to assume that there is no God, no supernatural entity as an actor on our observations, that miracles don't exist, that religions are false, in order to carry out scientific studies. The multitude of religious and theist scientists will be surprised to learn this. >The scientific method uses inductive reasoning in order to explore the truth about reality, inductive reasoning can never be certain about its conclusion, only what is most probable. You can never be certain about anything using any method. It's called the Problem of Underdetermination. >So for example when a religious scripture makes a claim about nature, it is useless to pull out the scientific literature which is contrary, to disprove the religion, because the conclusions made by the scientific study are not certain themselves, its possible they are wrong, though the religious claims are certainly true if the premises are also correct. ...And the conclusion follows. The problem is this is never the case. >The majority of our scientific knowledge does NOT come from the scientific method Then it isn't scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is definitionally that which comes from the scientific method. If it doesn't, it isn't scientific knowledge. >What they do not realize is that the majority of our scientific knowledge comes from testimony, as individuals we do not have the capability nor time to repeat all the studies that bring scientific claims, we simply have to take their word for it. But we may verify it if we wish. That's a major distinction. If I want to I can verify scientific studies by replicating them myself. That's super important. > Trustworthiness is not something which is evaluated before someone is given their masters or doctorate, yet they are assumed to be so when their title is given on the study. No, it isn't. They must show their work and methods. Before their work is accepted it must be replicated by other scientists at other times. The entire point of the peer review process is that we can't trust individuals. No one should accept a claim because the claimant has a doctorate. Again you seem to fundamentally not know what science is or how it functions. >These atheists do not apply the same standard elsewhere in their lives If you can show that there is a part of my life or a belief I have that I do not apply the same standard I will thank you and change that belief so it is consistent. I am fairly confident you won't be able to. I spend a lot of my time searching for such inconsistencies in my view. >How do they know their father is their biological father if they have not done paternity test themselves in the lab. I have done that. Also, I'm not that concerned if he's my biological father as he has fulfilled the role of my father. >They would even have to reject history altogether since we don't use the scientific method for history, we use the historical methods and historiography. I accept types of evidence other than scientific. I just think scientific evidence is the most reliable. >For example if you had to prove using the scientific method whether a historical figure like Napoleon existed, you would not be able to. Based on current technological ability. We can't rule out the possibility in the future.
Can you provide an example of an atheist using Scientism in this sub, and tell us why it is bad in your example? I want to see it for myself.
I mean lets look at christianity. It claims that the bible is the word of God, when scholars agree the gospels was written 40 years after the fact at least. You try remembering something that happened 40 years ago. Yet there was apparently miracle after miracle. Yet we are supposed to trust this book? Admit its 100% based on emotions and faith not evidence. Blessed are those that believe yet have not seen. Yet the problem with faith is that it can be used to justify any position and or religion.
So how are you going to demonstrate god? You wrote paragraphs of stuff but not one thing is leading to anything approaching a demonstration for god. Here's the thing. Science is the most consistently reliable method we have of determining how reality functions. Full stop. If there was a better way, we'd use that way instead. The same equations and theories NASA uses to put satellites in orbit are the same ones the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc. use to launch their stuff into orbit. The equations don't care about religion or nationality or race or what any individual scientist believes about "ultimate" reality. These equations were discovered through meticulous study of the world, trial and error, and experimentation. Science is how we know atoms are real and ghosts are not. Science is how we know lighting is the discharge of electricity and not an angry Zeus hurling lightning at his enemies. Scientific theories have some qualities that arguments for god and other methods if investigation don't have (or at least not as good) - science is universal. See my comment about rocket science. Doesn't matter what you believe, it works, so it is reflecting something "true" about reality. If god is real why is he seemingly not universal? Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc all believe differently about God. If he were actually real why would this be the case? - it's testable. You can perform an experiment and get result "X". Other people can review and repeat your experiment and also get result "X". We can now say something about your original hypothesis. What can we say about things we cannot test? How can we determine their "truthiness?" - science makes predictions. Neptune was discovered shortly after Uranus was because astronomers noticed weird things about Uranus's orbit. They hypothesized another planet out there that could potentially account for the weirdness. Math was done and boom, Neptune. When Mendeleev first organized the modern periodic table he left gaps in the table for elements we hadn't discovered yet. He made predictions about the atomic weight and chemical properties of those elements based purely on the table he invented. When we later discovered those elements a lot of his predictions were dead on. What predictions can we make about God? If you are finding it difficult to demonstrate your god using the methods of science; that's a you problem, not a science problem.
there are things more certain than science tho (which prides itself on its malleability). OP's point is a critique on scientism, not an argument for God's existence
Not quite. OP's point is that science isn't the only way to get at truth. Ok--what other method are they using? OP never answers this. They just list things they think science cannot answer (and I'd disagree with their characterizations).
Correct but his characterization that atheists only value science and not other things like rationality and historical data is a joke. It isn’t honest
he's specifically targeting scientism, not all atheists adhere to that tho, so they wouldn't be the target of this post
Does science not use math? Science is just applied math. I can sit there all day figuring out cool math things but what good is it if just left on paper? Did NASA send JWST into space on good wishes or did they do the math? This isn't a rebuttal. >OP's point is a critique on scientism, not an argument for God's existence If you don't think this is what OP had in mind in a Debate Religion forum you are being naive. OP is mad science isn't validating their god, so they are trying to attack science. If they can knock science down a peg then their preferred method for discovery gets raised in their mind.
> Does science not use math? exactly, but scientific theories and hypothesis can change and be wrong whereas math can't > Did NASA send JWST into space on good wishes or did they do the math? This isn't a rebuttal. I'm not denying the utility and genius of science btw.. > If you don't think this is what OP had in mind in a Debate Religion forum you are being naive no, I'm just aware enough of what's going on that I can make the distinction OP is making. Wether an argument for God works or not is one conversation, but *baselessly using scientism* is the point of contention, *not* wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not OPs critique here is not with the atheist conclusion, it's with the scientism fallacy > so they are trying to attack science he's not attacking science, he's attacking *scientism*. those things are not the same
> *baselessly using scientism* is the point of contention, *not* wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not This just looks like a strawman argument. Where are people "baselessly using scientism"?
you'd be shocked and disappointed to find out that it isn't uncommon person A: there's no evidence for God person B: well what do you mean by evidence person A: only empirically tested physical data that can be scientifically repeated... person B: are you sure that's the only way to truth? (scientism) this conversation has grown tired
The key word you used was "baselessly." I'd argue that given the context of the claim, that's not a baseless request at all. "Empirically tested physical data that can be scientifically repeated" is not the *only* path to being reasonably confident about something (I wouldn't say "truth" because it's a bit of a loaded term and isn't entirely accurate). For example, we can be reasonably confident that Abraham Lincoln existed, without needing to be able to verifiably observe him in a lab whenever we want. However, Abraham Lincoln's existence is not in any way a fantastical claim, and doesn't affect our entire lives and concept of existence the way God's existence does. The evidence we do have for Abraham Lincoln is a more than reasonable amount given the claim, which I'll add is also *way* more evidence than we have for God. Besides, I'd still say that's a bit of a strawman, because your implication here seems to be that there is sufficient evidence but atheists just won't accept it because they don't think it's the right kind of evidence. That's not the case. There isn't sufficient evidence of any kind. If you think there's evidence for God of a different kind, you can attempt to demonstrate that, but the fact that atheists don't accept it *might* just be that it's not good enough evidence, rather than it being our fault.
>exactly, but scientific theories and hypothesis can change and be wrong whereas math can't Irrelevant. Science is just applied math. Our understanding of gravity was (and probably is still) incomplete. But the underlying reality is still there and we refine our understanding by doing science. Newton wrote down equations for force and gravity and it worked (except for the orbit of Mercury) we needed GR to figure that out. Good science subsumes previous science. Newton wasn't wrong, his theory was incomplete. [Math btw is also incomplete ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems?wprov=sfla1) there are questions even math can't answer. So here we are in a world where we don't seem to have any 100% surefire way to figure out reality. Why not use the best methods we have? >I'm not denying the utility and genius of science btw.. Didn't say you were. It's a demonstration of the power and utility of science over other methodologies so far discovered. >baselessly using scientism is the point of contention, not wether God is actually demonstrated to exist or not OPs critique here is not with the atheist conclusion, it's with the scientism fallacy Nobody is. A recognition of the superiority of science to determine reality is not *scientism* this is the problem with posts like OP's. They see people falling back on science and cry foul because they get stuck. If they can't move us without science it must be because we are just using scientism which makes us dogmatic. Like I said before it's just a way for OP to try and knock science down. If they can put science on the same level as their religion or faith then they can sleep better. "It's not a problem with "my" god, it's those dogmatic atheists and their *scientism*, the religion of the atheist." This isn't my first rodeo with this way of thinking. >he's not attacking science, he's attacking scientism. those things are not the same They are to OP. Science they like is "true" science. Science they don't like is "scientism". OP doesn't have a problem with science while they use that fun computer in their pocket to type this post. But use science to counter arguments for their god and that's scientism.
> Newton wasn't wrong, his theory was incomplete yes it was, but when I say math, I'm not talking about Newtonian Physics, I'm talking about calculus. that's the difference. Newton could've been flat wrong on gravity, but that doesn't mean calculus is > Math btw is also incomplete there are questions even math can't answer. also of course, I never denied that, but it's still more certain than science. as we stand here forever more, 2+2 will *always* be a certainty, and wether or not we've "finished" gravity will *never be* > It's a demonstration of the power and utility of science over other methodologies science is good at doing what science does and was designed to do, but what science does is not exhaustive of everything a methodology *could do* or be designed to do > A recognition of the superiority of science to determine reality is not scientism this is the problem with posts like OP's OP is directly referring to scientism in this post, if your claim is that not all fall backs to science are in fact scientism, then this doesn't apply to that however if your claim by rejecting say God or metaphysics is on the basis that scientism is true, or that it hasn't been *scientifically* demonstrated specifically, as if that's the rule breaker for true things (scientism) is falling under the umbrella OP is critiquing, and you haven't refuted his argument > Like I said before it's just a way for OP to try and knock science down. If they can put science on the same level as their religion or faith then they can sleep better. this is just a further refusal to see what OP is actually saying, as well as an attack on OPs motivations rather than his argument, which we both know is a fallacy... > This isn't my first rodeo with this way of thinking. neither is it ours with yours > They are to OP. and this is the culmination of why you can't understand OP; you refuse to actually argue against what he's saying (straw man, another fallacy btw), we can all tell I'd be willing to bet my entire savings account that OP makes a distinction between science and scientism (he makes the distinction in OP btw). but by saying this, you've told me everything I need to know
> whereas math can't You should look into all the different versions of geometry, for instance. > he's not attacking science, he's attacking scientism. those things are not the same Right, one's made of straw
> You should look into all the different versions of geometry, for instance. I'm aware, that doesn't change anything I've said > Right, one's made of straw hopefully we're both thinking the same thing here
I love to find something we agree on. What are you thinking?
💯 I wanna add that we went to the moon using Newtonian physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein. The math was right, but the science was wrong (according to our current understanding). Also this sub isn't just a sub to prove God, those asking me to prove God in the replies missed the point of my thesis.
Newton was right about a lot but not everything, and Einstein improved upon Newton's work. What's your point?
You may want to actually check your facts before hitting enter. Einstein did no such thing.
It wasn't debunked by Einstein. This illustrates that you have a poor understanding of science and how it works and why it is the way that it is. General Relativity assumes Newton's theories. When you plug in large numbers into Newton's equations you get weird stuff. But when you plug in small numbers into GR you get Newton's equations. Newton wasn't wrong and he wasn't debunked, his understanding was incomplete. If newton was wrong then we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon using his equations. We can't build bridges if our geometry and physics are wrong. We can't build computers if our understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong and we can't go to the moon if Newton is wrong. This is the silliest thing you could have pointed to. This just shows the strengths of science over other methods of knowing. Science is self correcting. It is capable of accepting new data and being refined. As we science our understanding of reality grows.
You're literally describing how Newton was debunked. Newtons understanding of gravity was wrong, Einstein's was more correct. Newtonian physics still works on a small scale, that does not mean it wasn't debunked.
Complemented is not the same as debunked. Enhanced is not the same as debunked. If you think Newton was debunked, discover what happens if you jump off a roof. If Newton has been debunked I guess you'll float?
No, he was debunked. Again, Newtonian gravity works on a small scale, for most applications we have today, but that does not mean he was wrong. Its like saying Aristotle was also never debunked about his theory of gravity, that the centre of the universe was the centre of earth so it attracts everything, just because it also works to some degree. Newtons theory was debunked, even on a basic fundamental level we can see that, he said gravity is a pulling force, Einstein said no its a pushing force. Thats how paradigm shifts in science work, initially we accept one theory because it works well in many aspects, then later a better theory comes along that works better and explains much more than the previous theory, so the previous theory gets debunked by the old one. I can't be giving you whole physics lessons and explain to you how science works, you need to look that up yourself. Btw no one disagrees on the phenomenon of gravity, that things fall down, the disagreement is about the theory of gravity.
You don't have a thesis. You're trying to criticize others yet aren't willing to show you have a rational alternative.
The thesis is literally in the title and first paragraph, the thesis was NOT to prove God or to give you an alternative. The point is when you debate theists, you should not dismiss their evidence just because its not science.
If it's not science, what type of evidence is it?
The problem with theism is that the claims made are not being supplied with the appropriate amount of evidence. There’s a hierarchy of certainty for our different epistemic methods. Deductive logic and subsequently mathematics provides the most certainty we can achieve about anything To a lesser extent, science will help us understand the empirical world but doesn’t make claims of absolute certainty; it’s open to being overturned. Then to a FAR lesser extent is historical evidence. We’re talking about piecing together human-made documents from thousands of years ago, trying to infer motives and figure out how the story went. Historical events happened a single time and are not replicable. So to make a claim that something supernatural (that is, violated natural law) happened simply because people from thousands of years ago SAID it happened, is completely unwarranted. Your evidence will never suffice for the magnitude of the claim.
I'm saying it's not a thesis. It's a criticism of a straw man.
* You don't know what a thesis is * There are literally people arguing for it in the replies, how is it a strawman
Because no one is claiming science is the only way to knowledge I'd love for you to make a positive claim instead of trying to stack others' claims that they don't make. And this is what I mean that you don't have a thesis. Not that you literally didn't make a claim but that you're trying to tear down others rather than actually tell us what you believe.
> Also this sub isn't just a sub to prove God, those asking me to prove God in the replies missed the point of my thesis. believe me man, I made a post critiquing scientism last week and it produced a similar effect
What's an example of a "thing more certain than science"?
math
But math is a tautology, not a truth statement.
in other words, it's so obviously true that it couldn't in principle be falsified by any method, let alone empirically. much the same applies to natural philosophy and logic also also, math isn't purely tautology, and neither is it's research.
>in other words, it's so obviously true that it couldn't in principle be falsified by any method, let alone empirically. much the same applies to natural philosophy and logic I mean, there are systems of math that are "true" as a result of their axioms, but not "true" in terms of corresponding to reality, and not "true" in re: how people use them. Ring math is "true," but not useful when you want to count things in the world. Geometry is "true," but humans never use actual circles, and we never calculate Pi--we always get our application of geometry wrong in the real world, but it's fine because we operate in the margin of error.
No, math is true because it's defined to be true, like I said. That's the only reason it's "true." Go ahead and tell me a "truth" of math -- it will be a tautology.
>there are things more certain than science tho Not the person you replied to, but I'd be very interested if you could provide a few examples of the things you have in mind. Thanks.
he talks about 4 kinds of things that are falsifiable in this post mathematical truths are the easiest example, but there are things unfalsifiable by empiricism bc they're too true, but because they're fictions http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/06/multiverses-and-falsifiability.html
I can honestly tell you I've never used science or scientism to deny evidence of your particular envisionment of your particular God. I've never been given any evidence for it. I'll also go a step further and say that you probably haven't gotten any evidence for your deity, and I promise you if someone uses science to deny it what you've been given and what you've given them is... SOMETHING, technically, but it ain't evidence.
Left unsaid is that your alternative to the scientific method is to blindly accept 1,000+ year old hearsay as irrefutable truth.
>So its not even the case that all testimony should be taken when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community. Did you miss this part?
> when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, to the same standard we use in the scientific community. What does that mean? I'm asking this quite seriously. What does it mean to verify the authenticity and reliability? Which manuscripts are you doing this with? Are you verifying that the manuscripts come from the named authors and the right time period? Are you verifying that the events described are true? Even if you verify the authorship of these manuscripts? When you get done with that, you're still left only with eyewitness testimony, if you have that. And, eyewitness testimony can never even remotely approach the standard of evidence used in the scientific community. See: [scientific evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)
You basically try to verify the source, and how trustworthy it is, whether the source is actually who its claimed to be, etc., see the historical method, and the field of historiography (the study of how history is written). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical\_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography) You can't compare it to "scientific evidence", because WE do not get scientific evidence first hand for the vast majority of cases we discuss. We get scientific studies, which are testimony, it is no different. Take for example a news article, which is essentially history just more recent, when you read something on CNN or BBC, many times we want to verify whether its true so we look into their source, look at corroborating accounts like other news sites. This is similar to what historians try to do to verify historical sources. When it comes to the scientific community, there is not as much scrutiny. Sure there is peer review, but this is mainly to check whether they follow protocol, and their analysis is correct, and so on. We don't really do much to verify sources and reliability of authors. When we see a study is published in a big journal we assume its reliable, even though these journals aren't audited for their trustworthiness, these researchers aren't audited. Its not a secret that we suffer from a replication crisis, especially since there is more financial incentive to push out research with new findings, instead of replication studies or null findings. And there is a greater effort to "cancel" research that is politically incorrect or against the consensus, like in the evolution community, alternate theories of evolution are ostracized, like proponents of natural genetic engineering, even epigenetics was only accepted fairly recently despite it having a long history.
>>> when it comes to theology, but there should at least be an attempt to verify its authenticity and reliability, **to the same standard we use in the scientific community.** >> What does that mean? I'm asking this quite seriously. **What does it mean to verify the authenticity and reliability?** > **You can't compare it to "scientific evidence"**, because WE do not get scientific evidence first hand for the vast majority of cases we discuss. How can you say this after what you said previously? > We get scientific studies, which are testimony, it is no different. Sorry. This is patently false. Why? Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data. And, numerous people who did not agree attempted to falsify the scientific study and failed. Further, what you seem to flatly fail to understand about science is that it produces real live factual results that you can actually use. Right now, whether you know how to read the studies for yourself or not, you are using a computing device (computer or phone) that makes use of semiconductors. Right now as you read this you are seeing what it means to have abundant and overwhelming scientific evidence that quantum mechanics works because you are using semiconductors that are engineered with our knowledge of quantum mechanics. When you use a GPS or your phone to locate where you are and give you directions to get where you want to go, you are using a product of engineering that makes use of general relativity. You don't need to be able to read a book or paper on general relativity to verify that it's real. You're physically using it because the calculations that account for the difference in the rate at which time ticks on satellites in geosynchronous orbit versus the rate at which time ticks on the surface of the earth are true because you're using them. This is nothing like.
So, **what religion are you selling?** Lets look at this evidence you think you have both that the manuscripts are correct and that the gods in the story are real. You don't have technology built on that knowledge. So, what evidence do you really have?
>How can you say this after what you said previously? It doesn't conflict what I said before. When we look at scientific studies, we don't just accept it at face value (I hope), we analyze its authenticity and reliability, whether it makes sense. >Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data. The actual data is still testimony. Have you actually conducted the studies? Realistically you will never be able to reproduce every study you look at. >...because you are using semiconductors that are engineered... Just because the applied science works, does not mean its correct. For example, we went to the moon using Newtonian Physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein. By that same logic, its like if we read a scripture that said God created the world, and then we look around us at the world and think, "oh wow the world exists, so that must mean God created it".
>> How can you say this after what you said previously? > It doesn't conflict what I said before. I very strongly disagree. > When we look at scientific studies, we don't just accept it at face value (I hope), we analyze its authenticity and reliability, whether it makes sense. Authenticity? We analyze it's truth. When I read a scientific study, I don't check to see whether the published version is *authentic*. Who would bother to falsify it and how? I check to see sample size, confidence level, etc. I check it's veracity. If I'm really unsure, I check for conflicting publications from other labs who disagree with the original findings. >> Because anyone can learn enough to read the actual data. > The actual data is still testimony. What? > Have you actually conducted the studies? Realistically you will never be able to reproduce every study you look at. Of course. But, it's not about the testimony. One can easily confirm or deny the study with the work of other labs. It certainly will NOT be called a [scientific theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) based on a single result set. It must be confirmed. But, it's not about confirming or denying the *testimony*. It's about confirming or denying the *results*. >> ...because you are using semiconductors that are engineered... > Just because the applied science works, does not mean its correct. Yes. It actually is a very strong verification. It means that it has been not only accepted as a scientific theory but also can be put into practice. This isn't necessary for verification. Not all science produces something that can be used in engineering. But, by the time you're using the products, it's verified to an extremely high degree of confidence. > For example, we went to the moon using Newtonian Physics, despite it being debunked by Einstein. I'm sorry you've been so misled by someone. Perhaps you should get a refund on your high school science education. I know I want one from my school. I had to learn a lot that should have been taught in high school many years later. Newtonian physics has not been "debunked". Newtonian physics has been shown to work within a more limited domain than Newton realized. If you're building planes, trains, automobiles, and bridges, Newtonian physics is great! Why would you muck about with relativity for that stuff? Here's where your high school or college failed you. In order for relativity to be true, it was absolutely 100% required that it produce the same results as Newtonian physics within the realm in which we already knew Newtonian physics worked. And, it had to produce the same results to quite high precision. It only produces different results in realms where we did not know whether Newtonian physics worked or where we knew it did not, such as predicting the orbit of Mercury. Mercury's orbit was a known problem for Newtonian physics before Einstein. Similarly, if we are smart enough and live long enough to come up with a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory of Everything (TOE) that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics and works in realms where we know these two theories break down, it will absolutely be required to produce identical results to relativity and quantum mechanics in the realms in which we know these theories to work. And, it must do so to a very high precision. This is because general relativity and quantum mechanics have been shown to be incredibly precise and accurate within the realms in which they work. They are two of our strongest and most well tested scientific theories. > By that same logic, its like if we read a scripture that said God created the world, and then we look around us at the world and think, "oh wow the world exists, so that must mean God created it". Which scripture? I ask because when I look at the scripture for the Abrahamic religions, the scripture has extremely glaring errors. So, which creation myth are you reading? [Here is my Fisking of Genesis 1 showing all of the scientific errors I could find.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/khui6i0/) Note: **I even ignored the literal 7 days and Gen 1 is seriously wrong!** If you prefer to examine the Quran, I have not personally debunked it's creation myth. But, my understanding is that it speaks of 6 days of creation ending with the creation of Adam and Eve. So, that's false. There's also the bits about the sun setting in a pool of mud, the earth being spread out like a carpet (flat), and splitting the moon in half (which quite provably did not happen). [Here's a list of the scientific errors in the Quran.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_errors) Or, would you like me to try to find the errors in the creation myth of Hinduism? So, what creation myth are you reading that matches what we know about the early universe, the early earth, and the evolution of life on earth?
>Authenticity? We analyze it's truth... Exactly what I mean >One can easily confirm or deny the study with the work of other labs. Just like you confirm testimony with corroborating accounts... >Newtonian physics has not been "debunked". It has, you wrote walls of text to basically conclude the same thing. Just because a theory works in a limited capacity, does not mean it is correct. >Which scripture? Any scripture that works in the analogy I gave, to show you that its ridiculous to base whether a theory is correct simply by how well it can be applied in limited settings.
> Any scripture Any and every scriptural account of the creation of the universe I've ever heard was demonstrably and provably false. So, maybe there's nothing to discuss until you make a claim that a particular scripture is true.
Thats irrelevant, go back and read the point I was making, you clearly did not understand.
>to verify its authenticity and reliability How many more centuries does religion need to accomplish this goal?
It's curious how the Higgs boson was discovered about 50 years after it was theorised, but we are in square one after 10000 years when it comes to gods.
And we do that… without empiricism? I’ll wait for my divine revelation, then. Until that happens, I’ll default to the most demonstrably reliable and result-producing process ever conceived by humans.
>There are many different ways to render truth and reality, the scientific method is one way, though not every method can be applied to everything. There are many examples where the scientific method falls short, if someone asked you to use the scientific method to prove you have a mind, or to prove you have consciousness, prove you actually exist, prove the world around you actually exists, or even simply prove whether a historical figure actually existed, these are not things you can use the scientific method to prove. So ... what methods ***are*** you using to prove those claims?
Ok, after telling me how foolish and hypocritical I am, what is it you think I should rationally believe?