Originally posted by inimalist
the conclusion that modern biology supports any divine entity is not in line with scientific evidence.
Correction: some forms of evidence. Please don't throw around the word "scientific" as though any word modified by the word scientific makes it irrefutable and objective.
Originally posted by inimalist
It might be your interpretation, but failing any ability to falsify the theory, it isn't science.
Correction: isn't your personal version of science.
So what did I learn? You believe in an ultimate objective truth without admitting it is God.
Originally posted by inimalist
... it really doesnt matter if people have a problem with it, science is t democratic.
It sure is. This is where you fail with using the word "science".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Science is not democratic. If 80% of all the scientists in the world believed the Earth was flat, then 80% of all scientists in the world would be wrong.
Pluto.
Also, the earth is flat, depending on which scientific definition or scientific perspective you want to subjectively apply.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: some forms of evidence. Please don't throw around the word "scientific" as though any word modified by the word scientific makes it irrefutable and objective.
no, but scientific evidence is evidence of a different kind than what you presented. You presented evidence that relates to personal subjective religious experiences. What makes evidence scientific or not is really not a matter of opinion, except in very rare cases that are much more convoluted than your example.
it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: isn't your personal version of science.
there aren't such things as "personal versions of science".
Originally posted by dadudemon
So what did I learn? You believe in an ultimate objective truth without admitting it is God.
objective, sure. I don't know what an ultimate truth would be, and certainly believing that there is such a thing as reality is not the same as believing in the divine.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It sure is. This is where you fail with using the word "science".
in... in what possible way? the context of that quote is that people in general have a problem with the standards of evidence in science... were it democratic, it would mean science would have to change those standards to accommodate popular opinion.
I'd never expect such solipsism from you....
Originally posted by inimalist
no, but scientific evidence is evidence of a different kind than what you presented. You presented evidence that relates to personal subjective religious experiences. What makes evidence scientific or not is really not a matter of opinion, except in very rare cases that are much more convoluted than your example.
I disagree, scientifically, of course.
Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.
I disagree. It also was not a prayer revelation, but an extremely specific prayer confirmation.
It was far more specific than, "Okay, God, give me the numbers to all the world's lottery's currently running" and then getting them all correct.
If I wanted my confirmation on how to objectively prove if this information was correct, I got it. But, keep in mind, this is not scientific stuff.
Originally posted by inimalist
there aren't such things as "personal versions of science".
It is quite unfortunate that you hold this. There's no way that you're this naive. I know you're not because you've been on the other side of this conversation, before. Before we continue...are you just posting contrary only because it conveniently contradicts something a theist said.
Originally posted by inimalist
objective, sure. I don't know what an ultimate truth would be, and certainly believing that there is such a thing as reality is not the same as believing in the divine.
And I believe that separating the two, from certain approaches, is kind of silly.
Originally posted by inimalist
in... in what possible way? the context of that quote is that people in general have a problem with the standards of evidence in science... were it democratic, it would mean science would have to change those standards to accommodate popular opinion.I'd never expect such solipsism from you....
I've already shown you why. I can't help you any further.
But you have satisfied any question I had about your bias.
Edit - I understand objective science vs. "everything is actually subjective...which is the only ultimate objective truth".
I understand you're trying to convey that something is truly objective to you. That is obviously a fallacy of epic proportions and you also are aware of this.
I also understand that reproducing my experience has been done many many times which is one of the keys of "is this objective"? The conclusion I have made is the subjective problem, not the "evidence" I have collected. In no way am I pretending to have proven God exists. Hell, I could have tapped into this weird force we do not understand yet which seems like it is conscious...which is what everyone attributes to God. This is why I ultimately will always conclude, "I don't know, but I believe in God".
So I believe we got very tangential and we agree, regardless. You say "not God" I say "yup, God"