Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Weren'r you the one who threatened me for picking out an individual word to comment on, that word being presumed irrelevant to the content of the post?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Weren'r you the one who threatened me for picking out an individual word to comment on, that word being presumed irrelevant to the content of the post?

If you don't want your mistakes point out, don't make them.

The word 'dogma" is widely, as here, similatly / ironocally misapplied.

Science doesnt do "dogma", tho those with dogmatosis may.

Having been around scientidts pretty much all my life, how many times have I personally heard
scientists say some version of "incontrovertibly true"?
Probably never.

PaulSacramento wrote:Like I said, if you don't like your mistakes pointed out, do make them.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Like I said, if you don't like your mistakes pointed out, do make them.

Lol, was that intentional Paul? Still hysterical even if it weren't.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you said:

The word 'dogma" is widely, as here, similatly / ironocally misapplied.

I showed that you were wrong.

You said:

Science doesnt do "dogma", tho those with dogmatosis may.

I agreed BUT point out that scientists DO make dogmatic statements.

You said:

Having been around scientidts pretty much all my life, how many times have I personally heard
scientists say some version of "incontrovertibly true"?
Probably never.

I proved that they do.


Like I said, if you don't like your mistakes pointed out, do make them.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
Either you don't understand or you don't choose to.
If you don't understand, I don't know how to explain it any better.
If you do and choose not to, there is nothing I can do.
So, given my two options, the choice is clear.
You decided to make two statements ( that science isn't dogmatic and that scientists don't make dogmatic ( incontrovertibly true) statements. YOU choose to make these the issues and I showed that your views are incorrect.
Scientists ARE dogmatic and they do make statements that come off as incontrovertibly true.

You don't seem to understand that YOU made this about those two things and I simply showed that you were wrong.
Nothing more needs to be said and calling out "double standards" to someone replying to a statement you made, showing it to be incorrect is, well, wrong.

Later.

I nowhere made the statements that you attribute to me.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I nowhere made the statements that you attribute to me.

I quote your actual words in the posts above young lady.
Now, you are crossing the lines so I suggest you be careful.
Calling anyone, much less a moderator, a liar and/or a slanderer is not a good idea.

Audie wrote:Of note is how so many of our religious sorts try to fault atheism by calling it a religion.

The word 'dogma" is widely, as here, similatly / ironocally misapplied.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So it's the mentioning of "dogma" that has your feathers ruffled?
Heh, I've never associated that word as being of a purely religious nature.

Anyway, I found his talk quite interesting.
Some of his listed "dogmas" seemed a little arbitrary, or further removed if you will.
However, nonetheless a good talk.

Nah, no feathers ruffled.

No lucks ruffling your either.
But you knew I was having fun.

Science doesnt do "dogma", tho those with dogmatosis may.

And yes, some of the items put in to try to round it out to ten are sketchy at best.

Now, is the proffered list and associated possible fallacies something characteristic
of any known person, or are we just going after an amorphous "They"?

Ten points at once is a bit much, tho some are as noted, kinda lame. Is there one in particular you think worthy?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:While science doesn't do dogma (neither does religion since neither do anything really, they aren't things capable of doing anything), scientists do talk in dogmatic terms all the time.
They do make absolute statements (yes, we know they shouldn't, but they do).
EX:
Dogma is :a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

And how many times have we heard a scientist say ( using the examples above):

Dogma #5) Nature is purposeless. There are no purposes in all nature and evolutionary process has no purpose or direction.
Dogma #6) Biological heredity is material. Everything you inherent is in your genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes, or in cytoplasmic inheritance. It's material.
Dogma #8) Your mind is inside your head. All your consciousness is the activity of your brain and nothing more.

Having been around scientidts pretty much all my life, how many times have I personally heard
scientists say some version of "incontrovertibly true"?
Probably never.

It sure isnt the way I am accustomed to them talking, and it is so contrary
the discipline of scientific thinking, I am disinclined to think you can name an exception.

Of course, as in all things, you find some individuals who've
lost a wheel along the way.