Archive for the ‘Scientific Method’ Category

Is”Scientific Method/s” invalid in Religion?

October 31, 2017

Thread: “Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23: 

[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims.

That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea.

Paarsurrey wrote:

OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science:

The University of California, Berkeley

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?
Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please?


*science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.Sc

Post 25: 

Originally addressed to friend D———n- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

Paarsurrey wrote:

To add further:

So we in religions don’t substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don’t belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?


“Science has limits”

October 24, 2017

Thread: “When science does not work What are some examples? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Post 38: 
When science does not work 
Paarsurrey wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t notice this thread earlier. Friend Rufus21 has brought my attention to this thread vide his Post 101: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am in the thread :”Scientific search for what is God.” Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion:

I am neither against science nor against religion. I believe both are essential for human development and progress.
Science with the grace of One-True-God has done marvelous things in its domain since the discovery of “Scientific Method” which I understand changes with the discipline of science and the problem/issue in hand due to the nature of the discipline it is being applied to. To start with it was applied in “Physics” properly and formally. Its father/mother is Mathematics and it Grandfather/mother is Philosophy where it is not applied altogether, or not to much extent. Right, please?

Further reading/research:

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.Read more about it.
  • Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
  • Science doesn’t make moral judgments
  • Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
  • Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
  • Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

The University of California, Berkeley (also referred to as UC BerkeleyBerkeley, and Cal [7]) is a public research university located in BerkeleyCalifornia.[8] Founded in 1868, Berkeley is one of the ten research universities affiliated with the University of California system and is ranked as one of the world’s leading research universities and the top public university in the United States.[9][10][11][12][13],_Berkeley

Past experience has shown that mathematical models of nature have tremendous advantages over the earlier, more appealing, models that use analogies to familiar everyday phenomena of our direct sensory experience. Mathematical models are less burdened with emotional baggage, being “pure” and abstract. Mathematics provides seemingly infinite adaptability and flexibility as a modeling structure. If some natural phenomena can’t be modeled by known mathematics, we invent new forms of mathematics to deal with them.

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?—-(2)

April 2, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please



Paarsurrey wrote: #31

“a changing gravitational constant”

Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please

Scientific Method is useless in religion?

October 20, 2016

Yesterday at 3:23 PM#1

Paarsurrey wrote:

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please


Yesterday at 4:40 PM#9

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one.
Comparative study of religions is simply a method . One could say it is an art or equally one could describe it to be science in general terms being rational. For sure it is not a discipline of Science.

Belief in magic is not a subject of Science

June 1, 2014

May 22nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
@boxingpythagoras : May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41 am

“[However, I’ve sometimes heard the word “scientism” applied to the claim that the Scientific Method is the best method yet discovered for discerning and disseminating an understanding of the way in which reality operates. I would wholeheartedly disagree with classifying this claim as “pseudoscience.”]”

Within the physical and material realms, I agree that scientific method is useful as a tool. Out of these limits it is of no use  and those who try to fit it everywhere definitely believe in magic and that is not a subject of science.
Even science does not claim it.



The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”!

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, had already been started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

The Holy War — A DEBATE BETWEEN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY — Jang-e-Muqaddas (


From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim

Science is not designed to tackle everything in life

July 20, 2013

I commented on the blog <> and then a discussion ensued; the same is given here-under for the viewers of this blog.


  1. paarsurrey says:

    Science is not designed to tackle everything in life; scientific method is valid only for the things physical and spiritual; beyond that it is just blind.

    The one true God is neither physical nor spiritual; He is attributive.

  2. Thanks for putting this together. It really covers a lot of information without getting very complicated.

    I think scientists will eventually be able to create complex organisms from elements (inorganic material). I can’t predict how of course. I am just fairly sure that the creator created by natural laws and that He always will work in ways that make Him thus a mysterious supernatural force that is undetectable using what we have to work with to “see” and “hear” Him.

Of Claims and Burden of Proof

June 9, 2013

I write on religious education forum <>one of our friends

beenherebeforeagain, a scientist from Central Illinois,  has written post  #26 under the topic/thread <Claims and Burden of Proof> which I have appreciated and with his permission the same is given hereunder for the benefit of the viewers of this blog.

beenherebeforeagain says:

(vide post #26 in response to post #25 )


“1) “Isn’t it better” is a value judgment, based on some pre-existing assumptions about what is good or bad. It’s possible to make a reasoned argument that it is better, but not everyone will agree, because they will have use different assumptions in their reasoning. It’s been pretty conclusively shown in psychology that people don’t build beliefs from facts, but use facts to justify beliefs most of the time.

2) While in logic there might be a reason for some beliefs to be considered “default” positions, the standard method in most sciences is called the “null hypothesis,” a statement to the effect, “There is no evidence of X.” The null hypothesis is always paired with an alternative, “There is evidence of X.” The scientist then collects and analyzed appropriate evidence to see if there is evidence or no evidence. Many scientists would probably take the position that the default should be “there is no evidence of God,” but I (and I like to believe there are others with me) would say that the correct default is to recognize that “God” is an inherently untestable proposition for science, and therefore science should not be spending time trying to refute God. Other propositions, such as “There is no evidence of a global flood of Biblical proportions occurring roughly 4,000 years ago” (paired with the alternative that there is evidence) is a testable proposition, and certainly falls within the venue of science.

3) “…who accept and believe unfalsifiable conjecture that have already been REFUTED and DEBUNKED…” Really? if it’s an unfalsifiable conjecture, by its very nature it cannot be refuted or debunked. The problem often is that modern skeptics don’t like to allow such conjectures to go without response of some kind. “Believing in Gods” is therefore not like either of your propositions above: believing in God(s) is believing in something that cannot be empirically tested. Is that a good or a bad thing? Your position is a value judgment based on prior assumptions.

4) As a scientist, I’ll disagree that there is “a” scientific method. There are a number of methods used in science, appropriate for different kinds of science activity, none of which works in all situations.

5) Beliefs are not the same as hypotheses, and people rarely change beliefs because of evidence–yes, it does happen, but it’s also very difficult to define what exactly is a belief, and what exactly is a change, and why does that change happen? Modern science and skeptics have defined certain kinds of information as not valid evidence for use in science: individual experience, divine revelation, holy texts, and so on are among them. But most people reason using all of the information available to them–they have to learn to exclude these “nonvalid” sources from consideration to learn to do science. It’s another value judgment, based on some prior assumptions, about what should be considered evidence, and how it should be analyzed.

Yes, to a scientist/skeptic, the reasoning of creationism and ID appears invalid, but to supporters of Creationism and ID, the reasoning of scientists/skeptics appears invalid–because both sides make different assumptions about what is acceptable as evidence in their reasoning. It doesn’t make progress to insult the other side.

6) Burden of proof always lies with the maker of a positive claim, but the burden of rejoinder means that if you wish to respond, you must take on the burden of proof to show that the first claimant is incorrect in either their evidence or their reasoning. In order for this to be effective, one must be able to clearly state their own pre-existing assumptions, and clarify how those assumptions differ from the original claimant. In the world of science, it is never enough just to undermine the argument of a claimant–one must offer an alternative that explains more of the evidence in a (usually) simpler but still testable manner.”


Paarsurrey says:

In religion no physical or material experiments are performed or possible to be performed; in religion it is experiences and Word of Revelation from the one true God form the facts that the issues are perceived as right or wrong

Do the dreams have scientifically proven evidence of real existence?

April 8, 2013

One believes, regardless one is a theist or an atheist, seeing a dream or a certain dream that others have not seen; and as long as one is asleep one perceives it a reality without doubt; but this is on the basis of one’s experience; and not by any scientific experiment done in a lab or evidence that atheists are so fond of asking of the theists.

So things could be believed by even the atheists on the basis of mere experience.

And that is what the theists want to tell the Atheist friends.

Am I right?

What kind of hope do Atheists have?

June 6, 2009

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend Ron Ash

I don’t think it is a consistent or natural and scientific stance. It is good that you have a hope, love and faith. How does Jesus advise you or angels from God Allah YHWH guide you. Do you think you are an Apostle like Paul or Joseph Smith or you are different form them?

What kind of hope do Atheists have?

It is good that Truth is your religion.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Ron Ash said:

I belong to all denominations and no denominations. My faith is that of hope, love and faith. Truth is my religion. Jesus advises me and I am guided by angels to do what God sends me to do. I Am an Apostle and all that it means to be.

Tell me a little about yourself.

You can see comments of Ron Ash on my post here:

Not seen ourselves; yet we and Atheists believe being born of our parents naturally

March 25, 2009

paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends

Life and creation and its Creator existed already.

Kwinters wrote:

Where’s your evidence for a creator or life before life emerged from natural causes on this planet?

paarsurrey writes:

Hi friend Kwinters,

Life emerged on this planet from natural causes set in motion naturally by the Creator.

This could be understood as you or I and everyone else on this board have been born or started life naturally out of a father and mother; though we have not seen ourselves being born from them, yet we believe for sure that we have been born of a father and a mother.

Like we have been born naturally, we will die naturally someday.

I think this helps.

This has also been mentioned in Quran:

[4:1] بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

[4:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

[4:2] يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفۡسٍ۬ وَٲحِدَةٍ۬ وَخَلَقَ مِنۡہَا زَوۡجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنۡہُمَا رِجَالاً۬ كَثِيرً۬ا وَنِسَآءً۬‌ۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِى تَسَآءَلُونَ بِهِۦ وَٱلۡأَرۡحَامَ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ رَقِيبً۬ا

[4:2] O ye people! fear your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and created therefrom its mate, and from them twain spread many men and women; and fear Allah, in Whose name you appeal to one another, and fear Him particularly respecting ties of relationship. Verily, Allah watches over you.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

%d bloggers like this: