Atheist claim: War is caused by religion if participants are religious.

[Jon Miller]

A third possibility is that we could just go on like this indefinitely. The theory may not be falsifiable and it may not be true, but it's accepted as truth now. Science could go on indefinitely believing that a theory is true when it isn't.

True, but science picks the best natural theory based on observation and mathematics.

What ever theory that science picks is true as far as science as see (when science is working properly, which I have heard/seen no reason to expect it isn't here.).

If there is other way of gaining knowledge which is not scientific, then of course you can find something that is true which science can not.

JM

[Kidlicious]

That's the thing about Evolution, anything fits.

According to the evolutionists anyway.

[Kidlicious]

True, but science picks the best natural theory based on observation and mathematics.

How do we know that?

[Jon Miller]

Because from our experience, science does the best job.

True science is based on empiricism and the reason to believe in science is empiricism. But that is the same with all ways to investigate the universe... the best you can ask is that they are internally consistent (and that they give truth, of course, but this isn't something that we can know right now, or possibly ever know).

JM

[Jon Miller]

In my opinion, people who want to include a miracle working God should focus on science only picking the best natural explanation instead of the argument (which I don't see gaining them anything, and which seems to be wrong) that science does not pick the best natural explanation.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Because from our experience, science does the best job.

Saying science does the best job is not the same thing as saying that science picks the best theory. The New England Patriots may be the best football team in the NFL, but it doesn't mean they win the Super Bowl every year.

[Kidlicious]

In my opinion, people who want to include a miracle working God should focus on science only picking the best natural explanation instead of the argument (which I don't see gaining them anything, and which seems to be wrong) that science does not pick the best natural explanation.

JM

For me, I see a whole lot of conjecture on both sides. And I see scientists claiming things like, they are the objective ones, and all they care about is science. They would be just fine if the theory was proven false. I don't believe them, and I don't know if I trust them. I'm not going to believe in the theory without something more than what they offer.

[dannubis]

For me, I see a whole lot of conjecture on both sides. And I see scientists claiming things like, they are the objective ones, and all they care about is science. They would be just fine if the theory was proven false. I don't believe them, and I don't know if I trust them. I'm not going to believe in the theory without something more than what they offer.

That is the point, now is it.

Anyway, nobody ****ing cares if you or Ben believe in a theory that based on a very simple premise describes our world very well.

BTW, did you find a realistic explanantion yet on how microbes become resistant to antibiotics that doesn't involve evolution ?

[Kidlicious]

That is the point, now is it.

Anyway, nobody ****ing cares if you or Ben believe in a theory that based on a very simple premise describes our world very well.

BTW, did you find a realistic explanantion yet on how microbes become resistant to antibiotics that doesn't involve evolution ?

This is about the problems with the theory that you believe in. I don't claim to know objectively. Try to keep up.