Separation of Science and State

[Beskar]

First Cause.

Happy?

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

[The Stranger]

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

prove the truth of the scientific method.

[Beskar]

prove the truth of the scientific method.

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

[The Stranger]

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

i am not talking about science. which is the practical form founded on the scientific method. Prove the method. It is not an invalid question.

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

[Beskar]

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

[The Stranger]

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

[Beskar]

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

Who says it isn't "God"?

This was my problem with HoreTore's OP, he opened with "X does not exist" without any attempt to define X.

He is ineffable, and defies definition, He says "I am".

Is that more to your liking? I can quote Saint Augustine if you would prefer.

[Beskar]

Who says it isn't "God"?

Hawkings has said so. So has Dawkins. So has many other people.

Even then, "God" (Christian God) is defined as having a conscious, so it isn't a process of nature. So if it was simply one of those fundamental constants which is responsible, or even there not even being a 'first cause', it doesn't make it 'God'.

Also, the Christian God is a personal god with a deep seated interest in humanity, so even then if there was a 'First Cause God', it doesn't even mean it is the Christian God.

[The Stranger]

nvrmind.

[Reenk Roink]

nvrmind.

You do learn quickly.

[The Stranger]

You do learn quickly.

XD i had typed something. but i misread what i was reacting to.