Is Science everything?

This mechanism doesn't work online, however let's say you're in school and your teacher asked you for an assignment:
Teacher: "You didn't do it did you"
You: *Nothing*
Teacher: "Ok, you didn't do it. I'm giving you a 0 on the assignment"

Likewise:
"Praise the Lord. God will bless you."
*Nothing* <~ Maybe smiling, looking away, idk.

^ If you don't say you're an Athiest and you step into a church, the members of that church usually automatically think you're religious.

Not at my church, at least. (I might have more experience than you in this matter as I do go to church) We ask "hey how are you doing" then "are you a Christian?"

But is this going to be a proxy thread for "Science v. Religion"?

Nested quotes. >.<

Intelligent conversation and good conversation are not necessarily the same thing. An intelligent conversation might be a horribly ugly legal proceeding in "family law," (divorces, custody battles, etc.) is VERY intelligent because it involves a judge and two lawyers, (which is 3 Juris Doctorates and as much as like 120-150 years of "conversation" experience.) I can tell you variations on such "intelligent conversation" for about an hour. However, intelligent conversation is not always good conversation. Internet religion debates are about as pleasant as family law, I think.

Silence is not conformity. It can be construed as any number of things, including respect, (students listening to a teacher,) to apathy, (people in an audience listening to a flatulent politician,) to boycott in some cases. Holocaust denial, a type of pseudo-academic hatred for lengthy reasons succeeds by engaging people about "dialogue" as to the reality of the Holocaust. They lie, their opponents tell the truth, but the truth cannot win against lies like this, so the history PhDs simply refuse to talk to the deniers. Silence is their rebuke to these people. Silence can be ANYTHING.

Sorry. I'll stop with the nested quotes.

Intelligent conversation and good conversation are not the same thing, but you expect us all to be lawyers? Also, it's not exactly like we're all talking like dumbasses or spamming or using this section as Funhouse.

What you say is both true and false. Silence CAN be anything, but doesn't mean it will. Silence allows the people you speak with to make any assumption about you and convince themselves that it's true.

Not at my church, at least. (I might have more experience than you in this matter as I do go to church) We ask "hey how are you doing" then "are you a Christian?"

That's interesting then.

But is this going to be a proxy thread for "Science v. Religion"?

As quoted from the OP:

Is Not Complete! There are still many, many things undiscovered or untested. That doesn't mean something doesn't exist. It could.

Why not start with religion?

Sorry. I'll stop with the nested quotes.

Intelligent conversation and gyers? Also, it's not exood conversation are not the same thing, but you expect us all to be lawactly like we're all talking like dumbasses or spamming or using this section as Funhouse.

Congressmen, school boards, military leaders, etc. do intelligent convesation for WORK. It's not fun, it's stressful, lives can be on the line, or budgets. Intelligent, yes, fun, no.

I personally consider any discussion about religion useless. It will always turn into a flame-fest. People don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. On religion everyone's an expert.

I personally consider any discussion about religion useless. It will always turn into a flame-fest. People don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. On religion everyone's an expert.

Tell that to a theology major.

inb4 loltheology.

At any rate, I will respond to the original topic because I seem to have missed it.

Is Science really everything? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)

Depends what you call science. Is art a science, for example? Or, could you equally say that science is an art?

If something does not have scientific evidence, is it false? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)

Depends. If there is more evidence to the contrary, then it's probably false. If there is simply nothing there, then one cannot say. Also, lack of evidence now does not mean lack of evidence in the future, one way or the other.

If something does not comply with some scientific laws, is it false? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)

If said scientific laws are taken to be universal, then yes.

If you answered Yes to any of the above 3 questions, then..

you obviously don't know or is ignoring the fact that current science

Is Not Complete! There are still many, many things undiscovered or untested.

True, which is why anything with absolutely no evidence, for or against, we can't conclude. We can only guess.

However, if there is evidence - not complete, definitive, deductive evidence, but a reasonable amount nonetheless - then we can more or less conclude that the more supported explanation is probably true. And there would need to be a comparable amount of evidence to the contrary and pointing to an alternate explanation for it to be considered plausible.

That can be extended to basically anything factual.

Hmm...

that leads me to a very perplexing question:
What if God appears to Humankind and tells us some random statement, such as He is the only God?

Would that have to be proven as well?

Yes, that will also prove that God himself exist, by introducing himself. He hasn't done that since.... well the beginning of written history so the chance of him actually doing that? After all the very veil of mystery to his existence brings hopes to some yet curiosity to others and even condemnations among some.

Otherwise, the only other method of proving whether god exists is through a logical process, so perhaps science is the way to do so if it could.

Tell that to a theology major.

inb4 loltheology.

You don't have to be religious to study theology, and study would focus more on customs and beliefs (which can be observed) or the reasons why humans have a need for a God figure. They could have something interesting to add, but they would probably be just as annoyed at the religious zealots as everyone else is.


In absense of proof, I'm always going to go with the null hypothesis - if you can't observe something, it's because it doesn't exist.

I strictly limit my faith to human beings. I trust people, I care about people, I worry about people, I do not do the same for invisible useless idiots.

Yes, that will also prove that God himself exist, by introducing himself. He hasn't done that since.... well the beginning of written history so the chance of him actually doing that? After all the very veil of mystery to his existence brings hopes to some yet curiosity to others and even condemnations among some.

I think you missed the point. Hypothetically, if God exists, and then introduces Himself, then goes on to tell us that He is the only God, is that "scientific" evidence or are there other Gods and God is merely lying?

Guys.

I just wanted to let you know that you had an arguement over wether or not arguing over religion is useful.

I think you missed the point. Hypothetically, if God exists, and then introduces Himself, then goes on to tell us that He is the only God, is that "scientific" evidence or are there other Gods and God is merely lying?

Maybe look up on what "scientific" means?

Guys.

I just wanted to let you know that you had an arguement over wether or not arguing over religion is useful.

To me that's less dumb than arguing atheism v. religion because arguing the dumbness of atheism v. religion might actually stop people from engaging in future $hitfests.

Science has done nothing but guessed until it was correct, and most of what science knows has originated from some of the most absurd thoughts you could ever come up with.