Why Atheist/secular Science is wrong to ignore God/Metaphysics

Actually, String Theory can have up to 26 dimensions.

 

so then you feel no need to discuss it even if other people do believe in the easter bunny?

 

Yes, but so called String Theory isn't actually a scientific theory. It's still theoretical, meaning it's an hypothesis. There are scientists who argue that they think it has enough evidence to be classified as a theory, but it's quite contentious and many physicists disagree, even those who support the hypothesis as being promising.

 

I wouldn't unless they decided to make beliefs regarding the Easter Bunny to be law.

 

red herring. there is no law that says you have to believe in the easter bunny.

 

Not a red herring because there are many pointless laws that are only on the books because enough politicians agreed that their beliefs should be codified.

 

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

 

Wow, it's like the religious right wing read that and thought it said, "How to present a solid argument."

 

You made some very good points. Many scientists do doubt the validity of String Theory as an actual theory and yes, some of these hypothesizes sound like metaphysics. So is this a gotcha moment?

No, because despite all the debate about the validity of String Theory, it is still more scientific than ID. At least String Theory can show you the math of how it works. Can ID do the same? Can ID make predictions? String Theory can, even if we can't prove them. And finally, what about experimentation. There are experiments that can be created to test String Theory, we just don't have the technology yet. Is there a single experiment that someone could make, assuming we had the technology, that would validate any part of ID? Also, String Theory is still fairly new and the jury is still out whether it is a valid theory or not. ID/Creationism has been around for a while and time and time again, it has not met the criteria to be a valid theory.

 

In fact, ID constantly fails every test developed.

"What use is half an eye!" the IDists ask.

Well, since there are eyes ranging from just light sensitive eye spots to eyes better than ours, apparently there is quite a lot of use in "half" an eye. IDists use that as one of their biggest guns.

 

Judging from the pointless responses I get from liberal atheists to support their views on economics, I would say the "right wing" portion of your description is irrelevant.

Liberal atheists demand thorough and well reasoned arguments about everything... except when it comes to their own economic views.

 

Liberal atheism has nothing to do with economics. Keep failing though.

 

Science is neutral to God. It describes nature. It's not science's fault that wherever it looks, God isn't to be seen.

 

One would hope. But one told me the other day that the old rules of supply and demand are no longer applicable. They are out there whether or not you want to admit it.

And to clarify, they are what I refer to when I say "liberal atheist". To clarify for you: fiscally liberal atheist, even though that should have been obvious from the context.

 

Faith in science is every bit as much of a leap, as faith in The Almighty (God first, Ayn Rand second).

 

Science isn't faith based.

 

Prove it.

 

Ok. It's called science, not religion.

Do you think the computer you're currently sprewing idiocy through works through prays?

 

What a ridiculous LIBERAL strawman. (Yes I can tell you're a liberal/leftist/communist based on your "oh science is so great" attitude).

So because I realize that computers were developed by (corporate-funded) science and engineering, that means..what? That the people that are corporations, should be allowed to do what they do, and not hindered by you "science"-loving leftists? That's the ONLY thing that registered to my mind.

As to your question, my computer works because GOD set the rules to allow it to work. I don't see how any answer other than that could possibly yield more absolute Truth or usefulness.

 

You quite clearly don't know what a strawman is since you accuse me of using it (I didn't) and then you engage in the very thing yourself.

 

Yes it is, it's based on faith that scientists are a better judge of how the world works than you are - which still requires a degree of faith

 

Irrelevant. You still haven't proven that science is any less faith based than Jesus Christ, The Almighty Savior.

 

I don't need faith. I can see what science provides.

 

Science works on logical evidence.

 

You believe based on faith, that the scientists are right - when it's still possible in theory (however unlikely) that they could all be wrong. You place faith in their credentials.