I know. 
[quote=âStripeâ]I asked how you rationally account for the effectiveness of science. Why is it that you trust its results? Why do you believe the scientific method will continue to be the means by which we advance our culture?
Do you have any answers to that question?[/quote]
Chrisâ answer was a direct, efficient, and rational response.
Thereâs nothing wrong with presuming the existence of God.[/quote]
it is a logical fallacy, but thereâs nothing wrong with it if you come from a position of faith. Thatâs the whole point.
Presuppositional apologetics are a recipe for isolation from rational thinking.
[quote=âStripeâ]It is. And if Iâd asked, âIs science doing a good jobâ, you could have answered with this post.
But I didnât ask that. I asked how you rationally account for the effectiveness of science. Why is it that you trust its results? Why do you believe the scientific method will continue to be the means by which we advance our culture?
Do you have any answers to that question?[/quote]
There are various levels of certainty in science, all the laws that went into making that phone are observable. Take Ohms law, I can take a voltage source, I can take resistors of different values, I can measure them, I can arrange them , I can observe the effect of voltage change.
String theory on the other hand, is attempting to understand certain phenomena, but has not yet been able to do so. I think science will indeed one way to advance our culture, I hope our understanding would quickly allow for phasing out fossil fuels. science can be used for both good and bad so it may help to advance our culture, but for things like the banking crisis, corrupt politicians and cultures driven on greed, science really doesnât have the means to advance our culture in those respects.
[quote=âFortigurnâ]Presuppositional apologetics are a recipe for isolation from rational thinking.[/quote]Did you pre-suppose that statement? 
[quote=âurodacusâ]it is a logical fallacy, but thereâs nothing wrong with it if you come from a position of faith. Thatâs the whole point.[/quote]How is it a logical fallacy?
Premises cannot be logical fallacies. You need an argument to make a logical fallacy.
And there is nothing wrong with accepting any premise and analysing how it works in a logical argument. Thatâs why we have logic. To test premises. If youâre going to arbitrarily deny certain things as potential premises then youâre undermining the entire practice of logic!
No, it wasnât.
The question is, âWhy do you believe science works?â But he effectively said, âScience works because science worksâ. That is by no means a rational response to the question.
And this is about where the conversation ends. Atheists cannot give a rational answer and must dress up irrational or non-answers. But those deceptions are easily shown up. The only rational response to the question is to say that people were created rationally and were rationally created.
Of course a Christian has no problem with this statement.
[quote=âStripeâ]No, it wasnât.
The question is, âWhy do you believe science works?â But he effectively said, âScience works because science worksâ. That is by no means a rational response to the question.[/quote]
He didnât say anything like that. He made no comment on why it works, he made a comment explicitly on why he believes itâs reliable; he pointed out that the scientific method has an excellent track record of success (the prinicple of sustained resistance to falsification), which is sufficient reason for âconfidence in the efficacy of scienceâ. That is a perfectly logical and rational argument.
This claim is demonstrably untrue, and makes the kind of inflammatory comment that I will not tolerate in this thread or in this part of the forum. It does not advance the discussion at all. In the interest of facillitating the discussion I wil ask you not to repeat this claim or anything like it. Repeated comments of this nature will be flamed; split off from this thread and sent to the moderator forum for review.
Meanwhile, having received information from Tempo Gain (thanks), Iâd like to clarify what the forum owner has said with regard to advertising workarounds.
So youâre free to use them, even though the owner would prefer they werenât used, for the sake of the forumâs sponsors. However, direct references to such workarounds (especially by name), are not in the spirit of this comment from the owner.
[quote=âFortigurnâ]He didnât say anything like that. He made no comment on why it works, he made a comment explicitly on why he believes itâs reliable; he pointed out that the scientific method has an excellent track record of success (the prinicple of sustained resistance to falsification), which is sufficient reason for âconfidence in the efficacy of scienceâ. That is a perfectly logical and rational argument.[/quote]There is no logical connection between:
It has always worked,
and
It will always work.
Itâs good common sense, but it is not a rational response to the question posed.
[quote]This claim is demonstrably untrue, and makes the kind of inflammatory comment that I will not tolerate in this thread or in this part of the forum. It does not advance the discussion at all. In the interest of facillitating the discussion I wil ask you not to repeat this claim or anything like it. Repeated comments of this nature will be flamed; split off from this thread and sent to the moderator forum for review.[/quote] 
If it is demonstrably untrue then youâll be able to show how. In the meantime I am perfectly justified in repeating the claim that atheists have no rational answer to the question posed.
[quote=âStripeâ]
And this is about where the conversation ends. Atheists cannot give a rational answer and must dress up irrational or non-answers. But those deceptions are easily shown up. [/quote]
I have a feeling âthisâ is always where this conversation was going to end 
It might have saved some time if the âendâ had come say in the OP. But for arguments sake, why is the following true?
[quote]The only rational response to the question is to say that people were created rationally and were rationally created.
Of course a Christian has no problem with this statement.[/quote]
If people became rational as a result of a process of evolution, couldnât they be equally rational to people who were âcreated rationally?â
[quote=âStripeâ]There is no logical connection between:
It has always worked,
and
It will always work.[/quote]
That is not the argument he made.
I have. Chris, an atheist, gave a perfectly rational answer. So has Tempo Gain, and so has Mick.
No you arenât. Thread closed. Reflect, consider, act accordingly.
We have top Scientists working on the issue. They have Faith in living like a Goat.Nobel Prize winners ? Really? âNormallyâ, Science is rational, but not always.
1 Like
That was amusing, but did you miss the Ig?
Sometimes science is faith-based, but it is less faith-based than religion, and more demanding of evidence.
I did TGâŚ
So many awards . Maybe I should start a thread on the virtues of the Falun Dafa ideologyâŚoh waitâŚ
Faith is so very difficult to argue against by definition . Science is always trying to prove/disprove itself, which is a reasonable way to get answers.
I may joke and not understand Religion but I do accept it is a right to believe in anything.
Sarcasm and argument is also part of LifeâŚfrom both sides, and perfectly acceptable.
1 Like
Thatâs wonderful.
As long as you donât think it can answer the big questions in life (What is right or wrong, purpose of life) you wonât go off the rails.
I have it all worked out now.
3 Likes
Scientists donât appear particularly rational when they are also Hindu nationalists:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/indian-scientists-dismiss-findings-issac-102354630.html
So thatâs why he wants the Force to be with us! 
The less humans know about that, the better. 
Shouldnât this be in the Hindus and science thread?
1 Like