极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Is Real Knowledge Only Scientific Knowledge?

极速赛车168官网 By: z3r0 z3r0

z3r0 z3r0 — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:42:00 +0000

Hypothesis is there in science to be refuted. Scientists do not claim to have the truth, the ultimate knowledge, of whatever they are observing but merely some knowledge of it based upon deduction, observation, and consensus over the findings of their experiments. It is not the case that a hypothesis or theory is irrefutable for all time. That is not the knowledge they claim to have. Indeed they welcome a better, more precise, description of the world. Example: Time in Newtonian physics is now not the description of time that describes the world accurately enough. For a while it did describe time and space. Through mathematics and observation Einstein's theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity are accepted because they more accurately describe the known universe. In years to come those theories will be surpassed. How do you think computers were built without the knowledge of science? If Einstein did not have true knowledge that more accurately describes the universe how is it that the two clocks experiments have proven he was correct? Yet there is nothing verifiable in religion that to all people accurately describes anything

极速赛车168官网 By: Maxximiliann

Maxximiliann — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 21:30:00 +0000

But Science is omniscient and infallible ...

极速赛车168官网 By: Gary Torkeo

Gary Torkeo — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:31:00 +0000

"Science of the gaps." Someday we may have a better understanding-not proof- of God or metaphysics through science but to discount God because of science's current shortcomings is run of the mill atheistic short sightedness and disingenuity.

极速赛车168官网 By: neil_pogi

neil_pogi — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:09:00 +0000

In reply to Doug Shaver. it's the evidence-based that counts, and not the majority of scientists who say evolution is true, for example

极速赛车168官网 By: Doug Shaver

Doug Shaver — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:33:00 +0000

In reply to neil_pogi.

it's not the numbers that count

Then your remark about contradicting the majority was irrelevant.

极速赛车168官网 By: neil_pogi

neil_pogi — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:37:00 +0000

In reply to Doug Shaver. it's not the numbers that count. it's the evidences that someone is showing. unfortunately, atheists have failed to show up any evidences, most of them are 'make-believe' and 'just so' stories

极速赛车168官网 By: neil_pogi

neil_pogi — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:29:00 +0000

In reply to Doug Shaver. therefore my claims about atheist's belief: 1. non-living matter evolving into living matter , for instance, is true. the they are deadly wrong, their beliefs are just based on wishful thinking

极速赛车168官网 By: Doug Shaver

Doug Shaver — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:30:00 +0000

In reply to neil_pogi.

the lone atheist contradicts what the majority of atheists are believing.

Fine. That means that if I'm wrong, then the majority of atheists are right. I can live with that.

极速赛车168官网 By: Doug Shaver

Doug Shaver — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:45:00 +0000

In reply to neil_pogi. You have no idea what the majority of atheists believe, but it doesn't really matter one bit. Being in a minority doesn't make anyone wrong about anything.

极速赛车168官网 By: neil_pogi

neil_pogi — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:22:00 +0000

In reply to Doug Shaver. the lone atheist contradicts what the majority of atheists are believing.