The same argument holds true the other way. Just because the physical world has a set of rules (even if we don't understand them yet) there's nothing that precludes a "god" (whatever that may be in your view) from being able to alter those rules at will.
Go back to grade school and you can learn all about it.
You obviously lack an understanding of science. While it's true that there's not a lot science can prove, there's some and sometimes more importantly what it can disprove.
Canadians are smarter than trying to play whack-a-mole. We just go after the money.
Reject? No. Make a distinction between saying something is proven scientifically or not? Absolutely.
Poor grammar on my part, my apologies. "It" in the previous comment was not meant to refer to statistics itself but rather anything that uses statistics to prove something. At some point, whatever that subject is, must be proven scientifically but until we're able to do so statistics acts as a 'best guess' but is not actual proof. Example: a psychological study of a group cannot prove anything about any given individual.
Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven yet but in the mean time it's believed because of the likelyhood it can be proven.
Absolutely true. And even though science can disprove the 6k Earth it doesn't mean everything else in religious texts is false. While I don't proscribe to a religion I also don't proscribe to invalidating religion - even if certain elements are suspect that doesn't degrade some lessons to be learned from the texts - faith or not.
Technically, that's just theory that hasn't been proven by science yet
This was my point in the other discussion
Odd, as you make entirely different points in the other discussion. Perhaps you should review your old posts to see why you were (rightly) thrashed.
I think I know my own points. Thanks for your input though.
Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment.
This was my point in the other discussion. If you can take a test and replicate it to get a consistent result that is scientific. Psychological studies can never truly be reproducible because of the diversity of humanity.
Religion and science can co-exist if people stopped attributing religious or anti-religious views to science. Science makes no claims about religion and they are not mutually exclusive. When atheists are asked "well, if you don't believe in religion what do you believe in" - they'll often erroneously say "science". Science is not a belief system though it may cause claims of religion to be called into question example: Jesus walking on water. To our current understanding of science this is not possible unaided. Maybe it was a hoax, maybe it was a divine being, maybe it wasn't a literal claim - science doesn't know, that's for people to examine or accept on faith (as part of a religion or otherwise).
Science needs to be separated from anti-religious ideology.
[facepalm] - The article made no such claim. The claim was that they shared a view that "science was like magic" - which both of them have been quoted as saying. That's the only comparison that was being made between the two - you're reading way more into it than it actually says.
What article are you reading? The part about psychology supports what I was saying completely.
Ad hominem arguments are pointless.
No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.
