Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

21. Is it science that is saying such things or is it

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 03:51 AM

Jul 2012

those who worship science like yourself?

The Scientific Method, as it is applied to physical science, does not even have the capacity to evaluate nor comment on anything considered as supernatural. That is its intentional limitation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the Higgs Boson Discovery Resolve the Religion-Science Debate? [View all] rug Jul 2012 OP

I find this kind of talk very silly. longship Jul 2012 #1

The news media never misses a chance skepticscott Jul 2012 #4

That is correct. rug Jul 2012 #5

Well, sorry...science DOES say things skepticscott Jul 2012 #6

Care to provide an example or two? nt. SwissTony Jul 2012 #10

Science has something to say about skepticscott Jul 2012 #11

No it doesn't. SwissTony Jul 2012 #14

Nice try skepticscott Jul 2012 #15

Nice try, too. SwissTony Jul 2012 #16

Getting lamer every time skepticscott Jul 2012 #17

But Science doesn't say it. SwissTony Jul 2012 #18

As I said skepticscott Jul 2012 #19

I think you're the one with the problem about understanding science. SwissTony Jul 2012 #23

So your counter argument is that science isn't actually saying anything about gods... eqfan592 Jul 2012 #25

Yes, science doesn't say "God X exists or not' SwissTony Jul 2012 #32

Second reply... SwissTony Jul 2012 #34

Yup cgnick Jul 2012 #51

Sheesh, how many ways do you need this explained? skepticscott Jul 2012 #35

"Then science discovers ways that X, Y and Z COULD be without god." humblebum Jul 2012 #37

That statement has merit skepticscott Jul 2012 #39

When the statement is made that "a god was not necessary" - that is a purely subjective opinion humblebum Jul 2012 #40

Is it science that is saying such things or is it humblebum Jul 2012 #21

Science has made its judgement skepticscott Jul 2012 #22

Em...I don't think Humblebum is actualy saying what you think (s)he is saying... SwissTony Jul 2012 #24

I do believe you are incorrect, on both counts. (nt) eqfan592 Jul 2012 #27

We can agree to disagree. SwissTony Jul 2012 #33

You absolutely validate the term 'scientism' but in fact, humblebum Jul 2012 #36

If you think that science cannot rely skepticscott Jul 2012 #38

Oh yes, Science can comment on 10 dimensions or a hundred, or one. That is not the issue. humblebum Jul 2012 #41

It is exactly the issue you raised in #36 skepticscott Jul 2012 #47

Scientists can make comments about anything they so choose. But, "Science" itself says nothing. humblebum Jul 2012 #50

Your statement humblebum Jul 2012 #42

If everything in the physical world skepticscott Jul 2012 #48

You are simply restating the obvious, and last I knew the SM was humblebum Jul 2012 #49

No one "worships" science. But thanks for playing. kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #31

FAIL. You need to provide SOME scientific evidence for the kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #30

Hi, longship! Welcome back. FWIW, I think this was supposed to be silly. cbayer Jul 2012 #7

Back at ya, my friend. longship Jul 2012 #12

Get to the lake and get on a boat. cbayer Jul 2012 #13

It was originally called "The god-damned particle". SwissTony Jul 2012 #9

I like this answer to that question Silent3 Jul 2012 #2

This is hilarious and right on target. cbayer Jul 2012 #8

+6,105 Angry Dragon Jul 2012 #28

Also... Silent3 Jul 2012 #43

Confirmation of the standard model is indeed a problem for some. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #3

It's all in the name, Bosons are named for a guy named Bose, and bose is a dimbear Jul 2012 #20

Eh. What's in a name? pinto Jul 2012 #26

Not at all. Expect theologians to claim that God created the God Particle. no_hypocrisy Jul 2012 #29

I don't know about any claims anyone will make, but LARED Jul 2012 #44

What ultimately solves the debate is the lack of a God. Gore1FL Jul 2012 #45

No. mr blur Jul 2012 #46