Does Science hold all the Answers as my opponet suggests?

The following is a reply to Ohypothesis on reddit.  I got tired of answer all his questions previously and told him there was no reason to continue the conversation unless he made a truth claim, a positive statement.  You can find the link HERE .  Notice how difficult it is for him/her to make a positive statement or any statement of fact.  When he does make one positive assertion it is this "The intelligence that made science is provably human beings."  But how can human beings have made something we are still discovering?

Below is my response to him:

You said: At the beginning of this of this let me say that in your blogs and in your writings here, you seem to assume that anything that we do not have an answer for, you can immediately assert that a supernatural force (or higher power as you keep saying) can be inserted inside it to answer the question. This is not the case.

My Response: If I were like you I would say you are making assumptions about me. But I will be more gracious and actually answer this. I do not assume that we just move to a God for every answer because we do not know the answer. I believe God is the answer who gave us science so we can understand the world we live in. I believe he gave us metaphysics, logic, math, reason, faith etc… I believe we owe are entire existence to Him. But this is supposed to be you answering my questions I thought? The rest of what you said up until you said “As far as gaps in our…” was useless and only an explanation of why you do not like the idea of the supernatural, again not explaining anything to answer the question of “Okay... tell me about your beliefs concerning the origins of the universe/multiverse. What ever it is that is the beginning... please tell me these things.” The entire explanation was why you do not believe in a logical reason for the supernatural.

But even after you say "As far as gaps in our…” you only said “We don’t know yet” and went back to the supernatural being wrong. Still not an answer to the question. Then you talk about Holy Books for whatever reason. Nobody in this conversation said a Holy book could answer questions about science.

Then you finally said you believe in the Big Bang. WE AGREE!!! We probably disagree on who started it. For me it is logical to consider an outside the universe God who started it as easily as believing that humans started programs and are not inside the binary code universe. Again, I am being much more gracious here when sharing what I believe then you have been with me. Typically you tell me why you think my argument is foolish based off of assumption; and because you appear to be totally opposed to any idea of the supernatural. Again, assuming there is no supernatural. And you think that science must prove the supernatural because I guess science can prove things not physical in your book. Then you go into much science, some of which is utterly getting to the truth, others like abiogenesis being more difficult. Everything that man has attempted to prove life through physical means alone has run into road blocks. If you care to read here is a link that can give you a ton of information http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=abiogenesis.

You then continue on with science, which I must agree is amazing, but cannot agree that it holds the answer to everything. Your entire world view is based off of science holding all answers, or having the ability to hold all answers. So you do not open yourself up to the possibility for something other than science, like religion, or a God. But this is not true just because you do not believe. Nor have you given any reason to just believe in Ohy instead of God.

But again through this entire dialogue you do not make a positive claim until you get near the end of your whole work.

But finally you say “The intelligence that made science is provably human beings.”

FINALLY!!!!!!! So you assert that humans made the laws of physics, they made gravity, dark matter, the sun, stars and all the planets, plus the moons. Humans made the Big Bang. So humans would be what I call God.

Humans made science, the one thing you believe in. Humans did not discover science as I suggest, discover all the laws that were already in place. So humans are your Ohy. Humans are the higher intelligence because they made everything!!

But if you are not saying that, my questions again are. Who made science? Who or what caused all the laws we discover in science? What agent other than intelligence makes laws? To assume that anything other than intelligence makes laws is unsubstantiated. So can you answer these questions differently, or am I to truly  assume that you believe science was made by man?

Is God the answer or Ohy? & does being the better debator make you correct?

The following is a portion of the continued dialogue between  Ohypothesis and me on reddit.    Ohypothesis asked me to watch a video and here is my response to watching that video.

I watched the video and we could banter back and forth as to whether or not God has already settled the burden of proof for his own existence. That is useless and pointless, because it will always boil down to empirical data for an atheist, though and atheist does not have empirical data for how life began or what caused the Big Bang.   And since I cannot produce that we will just go back and forth, I saying the burden of proof has been met, you saying it has not.

But I disagree with your guy in the video because if the only goal is to win a debate or prove someone wrong or less capable of coherently defending a position it does not help mankind to understand anything. Until a proposition that is useful and helpful is presented all you are doing is making yourself feel good if you can beat someone in a debate. And I concede that even if I could best your wits in a debate I do not desire to beat you. You win.  My goal has been and always will be to get people to think.

At roughly 5 minutes into the video your guy says that B undoes all of A’s arguments proving that his arguments are not good enough to defend his position in God. If B bests A does that make B's position true?  Or does that just make B smarter than A?

Your video states that if just one disagrees with a position the position itself cannot be defended by saying it is self-evident. But you have done this with social constructs. Not everyone agrees with the ones in place. Nor will everyone ever agree.  Does this prove that social constructs have no value as you claim that just one not believing in God means that God cannot be self evident?  What if the individual who does not believe in God is just blind to what most everyone else sees?

But if we want to be genuine and find out why social constructs mean anything or why we call things good or evil etc… we need to be more sincere.

As you have not been willing to state what you believe I have to assume you are an atheist. And I feel I have been more willing to accept what an atheist might think and give them credit for rational thought then you are willing to give a theist. I feel this way because I am willing to accept that you too believe something and can rationally defend it as I can. But you are unwilling to give that something a name.

Since an atheist likes to go around saying they do not have the burden of proof because they do not claim God they put themselves in a nice little package of not having to defend a position at all. But an atheist has to acknowledge something higher than self. What I mean by this is that the atheist is not the creator of himself. Whatever allowed for our creation must be higher than us. For without this things permission we would not be here in the first place. This thing can be intelligent, all knowing, or intelligent, somewhat knowing, or intelligent, less knowing then we are today. But this thing still is or was.

Just as a computer program may evolve to one day find no use for humans it does not negate the fact that humans are the reason why it exists. Something before us is the reason for our existence and we owe are life and capabilities to that something. An atheist cannot get around that fact!

So the only way to pursue this conversation honestly is to give the atheist something positive to affirm. I call the something that gave us life God. Since I cannot get you to call the something that gave us life anything, with your permission I would like to give the atheist Ohy as the something. Let us from now on in our conversations call whatever you believe Ohy. Now you have just as ambiguous a term to defend as I do. Unless, of course, you do not acknowledge that we owe are existence to something other than ourselves. But if you do acknowledge that and prefer the name of whatever that is to be something other than Ohy please tell me that name and we can use it instead.

Did Ohy have a purpose in creating us? Did we become more intelligent than Ohy? If so, when? Did Ohy want us to be moral and work together? Did, does Ohy have an agenda? Or did Ohy just put us out there and determine to let us figure it all out for ourselves? Why did Ohy give us science? Why did Ohy allow us to think religion was so important for so long? Why does the skeptic think he/she does not need to defend Ohy? Because if the skeptic says Ohy does not exist, what then does, what put as here? Why does the skeptic not defend that thing (which I hope we can just call Ohy)?

What is more, the video says that when we choose to make a claim in a debate….

I never made a claim beyond the fact that religion and science are both tools that can be used and that faith and reason are things that everyone uses. You desired to see if I believed in a God and I said I did. But I do not desire to defend my God to you if you do not desire to defend your Ohy to me. My goal is not to get you to believe like me… my only goal is to get people to think. You obviously do think and have come to a different conclusion and are either happy not knowing who put us here and why they put us here or, too scared to really try to figure out the answer. Or because you are not sure and do not believe in the supernatural have come to the conclusion we cannot know.  But this is not true just because you say it is and it definitely is not true just because you are more educated and better at debating than me.  Or you are disingenuous because you have already come to a conclusion but are unwilling to place yourself in the same position you asked me to walk into.

As we have both agreed that religion and science are tools and that faith and reason are used by all we have nothing more to debate unless you too are willing to make a positive claim of your belief in Ohy. And that Ohy as a beginner of all things or at least some things makes more sense than God.

Is God Disproven, therefore making religion obsolete?

The conversation below is between me and an interesting person on reddit. 

 He/she goes by 0hypothesis and you may find the link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2qg7r4/science_and_religion_are_not_at_odds/cn62nmf

Ohypothesis took apart an answer I gave him/her and then challenged or questioned my answers.  

 Below you will find:

1.       What I shared in a previous discourse

2.       His/her challenge or question

3.       My response to his/her challenge or question

This dialogue is about whether or not all people are religious and if religion has value or is a tool.

1. What I get as value is an understanding of my fellow man. I learn other peoples perspective. I can learn why other people believe, or behave a certain way.  What is more, though it cannot be empirically proven, I have the possibility of finding something that makes sense and gives purpose.

You said: Although you might say that it makes sense and gives purpose to you, you have no rational basis for adjudicating whatever conclusions you reach over other ones other people reach. Unless you can demonstrate that mechanism. Can you?

This is what my goal is… to get people to think.  I have no desire to try to make people believe as I do.  Every human believes, has faith in what they believe, and cannot prove what they believe empirically about the topics of how and why we are here.  I know I will never be able to prove empirically but none can disprove either.  And none can prove their beliefs empirically.

2.Now this goes far beyond religion. Let me say that if it is the case that there is a God, and he does want relationship with His creation, it does not matter what religion an individual is, all that matters is how the creator revealed. Thus religion becomes man’s individual attempt at explaining his belief system which may or may not include a god. Those who think it does not include a god still reach to something outside themselves as the "why" behind their beliefs and therefore still have belief in a supreme something they prefer to not call god, but is god none the less.

You said: So, your logic chain starts with the idea that a god does exist--a form of presuppositionalism. The rest of course works then, but you've just assumed that point. In which case these do go beyond religion. You're just assuming it does. This is not a valid form of argument. You need to start with proving a god in order to do this. I'm not going to ask you to, but I'm just saying that this form of argument is not valid.

Everyone makes assumptions about origins.  If it is not my God then it is another god, which includes the universe/multiverse god.  No one can say they are the origin of everything and therefore they are god.  My contention is that all have a god whether they call God, God or not.  Even atheists have a god if they attempt to explain origins.  If they choose to not attempt to explain origins they cannot truly be atheists.  How can they say I do not believe in God without saying I believe in…. and then put whatever they believe in.  Agnostics can say I am not certain.  But they too lean one way or another.

3.So, religion has taught me that I can logically grapple with metaphysical concepts of love and hate, good and evil. These things actually make sense and do not have to be subjected to individual interpretation and meanings. They are objective truth if there is a God.

You said: You've talked about this topic a lot. Although you've said that it does this for you, I'm still confused as to what mechanism you use to do this grappling. What chain of logic--since you said above that you are logically grappling with it--did you use to reach unique and necessary conclusions about love, hate, good, evil, and god? And can you tell other people that have reached different conclusions that they are incorrect, and substantiate why? If not, what use is this?

One great example is this.  If binary code grew a consciousness and the 1 said there is no human and the 0 said I think humans must exist, how else did we get here?  Both can logically argue their positions similar to how we humans do but both positions are not correct.  But again, I know that people who believe other things can come up with different ideas to validate their points.  As I have stated over and over again… my goal is never to prove why my point is more correct then their point.  If that were possible it would have been done long before me.  My point is to get people to think.  And for them to recognize we are on an equal playing field, but both of us cannot be right.

4. I can call pedophilia wrong absolutely and not question whether it really is wrong or just that most people do not prefer to be pedophiles. The list can go on and on and on and on and on.
The reality is that without religion, or the understanding that we all have to address these issues, which makes us religious, i would never know these things are wrong. But you may argue that I can look to myself and see that they are wrong. Yes and no... what of the pedophile who looks to himself and thinks it is okay? This term wrong becomes a subjective meaningless term that is dependent upon an individuals preference instead of absolute truth.

You said: So why do you think that morality must be supernatural to be valid? Reason-based morality has been around for longer than many organized religions including even Christianity. Have you studied it at all?

All I have said is that morality has to come from a higher source for it to be valid.  If it does not come from a higher source then it is subjective and dependent upon individual interpretation.  I think it is more logical to believe this higher source to be God, rather than evolution as god, but I cannot prove that empirically.  

5.An honest search for truth has to be religious. If it were not we would not be asking enough of the right questions concerning the meaning to life and good or evil, and rightness or wrongness etc... etc... etc...
Science cannot give us these answers unless, of course, we decide to make science an religion. As you looked at my blog you see where I am coming from.

You said: I disagree with this assertion than an honest search for truth must be religious. You are just calling certain lines of inquiry religious. Now, I haven't limited my tools to scientific ones, which are confined to empirical questions. I also use critical thinking and logic. And, for that matter, an understanding of politics and even literature. And especially discourse. But the lines of inquiry itself about morality and good and evil does not make it automatically religious. Those topics are appropriated by religion. I believe so that those in power at the time could dictate their answers to those questions and say that it "came from god(s)". But considering that the answers to moral questions many religions come up with sound like the ravings of Iron or Bronze age war-tribes, it's pretty clear that they are not timeless answers to those questions, but rather an attempt at the answer based on what rather fallible people believed at the time.
As I've said repeatedly here, I do not see how "religious tools" come up with distinct answers that let me decide between religious answers, so it doesn't seem different than imagination and textual analysis of whichever the person's favorite holy book is. Is it more than this? And if so, can you explain the mechanism so that I can use it too?

You can disagree but you do it anyway.  Everyone is religious.  Do you have opinions about love and hate, good and evil?  Show me love and hate and not just the acts of these things.  Show me good and show me evil and not just actions.  If you have ever had an opinion about what these things are you are religious.
Below is a list of 25 different definitions of religion.  Just because you do not agree with a definition as being correct does not make your one or two definitions of religion all encompassing.  But every human being fits in one or more of these definitions.

1.    The human search for ultimate meaning in life. A quest for and response to ultimacy.

2.    The quest for the values of the ideal life and for the means of achieving them, including a world view that relates this quest to the surrounding universe.

3.    "A set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man to the ultimate condition of his existence." (Robert Bellah)

4.    A specific system of belief in God, doctrines, etc. God’s relation to humanity and the universe.

5.    A set of rituals which transform the state of man. Rituals which are rationalized and confirmed by sacred myths. A supernatural power behind the ritual brings the transformation.

6.    The feeling of absolute dependence. A sense and taste for the infinite. (F. Schleiermacher)

7.    An exploration in self-discovery.

8.    "What an individual does with his solitariness" (Alfred North Whitehead)

9.    "A person’s ultimate concern" (Paul Tillich)

10.  "A system of beliefs and practices directed to the ultimate concern of society."

11.  A personalized set or institutional system of beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural. (Supernatural: An order of existence beyond human experience and observation)

12.  Belief in invisible superhuman power together with feelings and practices that flow from such a belief.

13.  Humanity encountering what is authentically real and unconditionally important.

14.  "[The seeking] of divine truth, exploring who we are, why we’re here, and how we should live." (Joel Beversluis, ed., Sourcebook of the world’s Religions)

15.  Ways of interpreting life and ways of living.

16.  Belief about reality and living in accord with that belief.

17.  The search for the "more" of life; questioning, seeking truth.

18.  The ultimate sense that people give to their existence.

19.  The betterment of yourself and the betterment of the world you live in.

20.  A set of beliefs and practices designed to improve the nature of oneself.

21.  A means to ultimate transformation.

22.  A way to understand this experience that we call "life"

23.  Religion is the journey of life whereupon individuals attempt to achieve the highest possible good by adjusting their lives to the strongest and most magnificent power in the universe.

24.  A set of beliefs and practices which serve to subordinate us to something superior or holy in order to justify the events that control our lives 

25.  A person’s journey within themselves and within society on a search for truth, love, community, and "holy connection".

You said: Well, first, I don't see that you have any actual answers above. You've just said that you use religion--without specifying a particular religion--to answer questions. An answer for what question in particular?

As I have already addressed… though I believe strongly my blog is not to try to beat others into believing as I do but to get them to think.  I believe these topics are very important.  Anyone who does not desire to engage in the topic with me does not have to.  Notice not many are getting in on the conversation.  And I do think I have answered why religion as a tool is a tool that has use just as science is a tool that has use.

So are you going to keep asking questions or start answering some to defend a position?