Do scientists use anything beyond empirical means to discover truths about reality? If there is such a thing that lies beyond tangible things and requires a form of reasoning to decipher this argument is silly. What kinds of prove would scientists require than the complexities of life that cannot be explained through human reasoning or computing power. Things that are beyond human grasp, there is more than tangible things how do you explain beauty or love. How do you calculta the impossibility of something coming out of existance out of nothing or how, or non living elements coming to life?
Dawkins' argument, and the whole premise behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is more philosophical than scientific. It affirms Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, which states that the burden of proof lies on those making the spurious claim (theists) and not on those refuting it (atheists). Moreover, there are psychological explanations behind beauty and love. There is little understanding as to how something can arise from nothing, but, then again, a omnipotent Creator doesn't really resolve this conundrum.
@DanielRochester800 I don't see how it does really if there has been two views say athiest and thiests I can tell you which has been around for the longest, wouldn't the burden of proof lie on the new upcoming theory? Does science disprove the bible, or completely explains reality? All I see on these arguments is the choice of beliving in scientists or God.
@@TheWordIsLife-r1f That's the thing: biblical messages aren't theories because they are not scientific. They are merely claims, based on absolutely no evidence and very little reason. I will remind you that the Old Testament was written before the dawn of science in Ancient Greece. Science is not based on belief; religion is. Therefore, the argument that we have a choice between "believing" science or religion is rather misguided.
@DanielRochester800 Well is it scientific to say something comes out of nothing, or there is no before before the big bang, that life comes from non-life, that there is multiverses. Aren't these beliefs?
@@TheWordIsLife-r1f Many of these are not scientific debates, but philosophical/metaphysical. For instance, whether something can come from nothing cannot, at present, be affirmed or denied by science. And, the fact that they are philosophical does not make them faith-based, but logic-based. This is why I prefer philosophy over religion. On the other hand, the multiverse has been corroborated by quantum mechanics, and the emergence of life can be explained by abiogenesis.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Do scientists use anything beyond empirical means to discover truths about reality? If there is such a thing that lies beyond tangible things and requires a form of reasoning to decipher this argument is silly. What kinds of prove would scientists require than the complexities of life that cannot be explained through human reasoning or computing power. Things that are beyond human grasp, there is more than tangible things how do you explain beauty or love. How do you calculta the impossibility of something coming out of existance out of nothing or how, or non living elements coming to life?
Dawkins' argument, and the whole premise behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is more philosophical than scientific. It affirms Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, which states that the burden of proof lies on those making the spurious claim (theists) and not on those refuting it (atheists).
Moreover, there are psychological explanations behind beauty and love. There is little understanding as to how something can arise from nothing, but, then again, a omnipotent Creator doesn't really resolve this conundrum.
@DanielRochester800 I don't see how it does really if there has been two views say athiest and thiests I can tell you which has been around for the longest, wouldn't the burden of proof lie on the new upcoming theory? Does science disprove the bible, or completely explains reality? All I see on these arguments is the choice of beliving in scientists or God.
@@TheWordIsLife-r1f That's the thing: biblical messages aren't theories because they are not scientific. They are merely claims, based on absolutely no evidence and very little reason. I will remind you that the Old Testament was written before the dawn of science in Ancient Greece. Science is not based on belief; religion is. Therefore, the argument that we have a choice between "believing" science or religion is rather misguided.
@DanielRochester800 Well is it scientific to say something comes out of nothing, or there is no before before the big bang, that life comes from non-life, that there is multiverses. Aren't these beliefs?
@@TheWordIsLife-r1f Many of these are not scientific debates, but philosophical/metaphysical. For instance, whether something can come from nothing cannot, at present, be affirmed or denied by science. And, the fact that they are philosophical does not make them faith-based, but logic-based. This is why I prefer philosophy over religion. On the other hand, the multiverse has been corroborated by quantum mechanics, and the emergence of life can be explained by abiogenesis.