Posts Tagged ‘proofs’

Science gets incapacitated in revealed religions

October 25, 2017

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

Post 23: 

D—–the-D—-n wrote:
[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.

Paarsurrey1 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.

If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; the Atheists give claims and reason in its support from peer reviewed science journals of repute

April 16, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 01:59

@makagutu :April 16, 2014 at 21:27
“Are you saying that to ask you to consider the possibility you are wrong and no preaching are many conditions?”

Well, the Atheists also preach; but I was not hinting at that.

I already agreed that when one enters into a discussion one accepts the possibility that one could be wrong.
There are other conditions:

• “That morality has nothing to do with the gods so I propose that in our discussion you will not bring up the question of where I get my morals if I have no belief in god.”
• “Let us also agree here that whether life has meaning or not has nothing to do with gods.”

Not only the host should be respected but the guests should also be respected; neither bullied nor ridiculed.
Why should the religious be put to answer the questions or to give the proofs and evidences? If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; then the Atheists should provide the proofs and evidences they so often demand from the religious.
The Atheists extol science as if it has been invented by them; nevertheless they should quote for their claims and reasons from a peer reviewed scientific standard journal of science.

If the religious quote their scripture; their quotes should have the claims and reason-content in them.

It should be a friendly discussion.

Please have a thought on this.


paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 02:40
@Ben Nasmith :April 16, 2014 at 17:5
“I think that such a being exists, and as a Christian I am devoted to the God revealed by Jesus.”

I endorse the One-True-God that revealed Himself on Jesus; but that God was not Jesus and cannot be Jesus.

Do you agree with this? Please


paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 18:50
@clubschadenfreude : April 17, 2014 at 18:18

If you are an Atheist and as you say that you are not on blind-faith rather everything you believe is based on sound experiments and is nothing but science.

As I requested from the Atheists; now please start providing proofs and evidences favoring Atheism- the perfect ideology for the human being; for the claims and reasons supporting it from peer reviewed journals of Science.

This is an open question to all the Atheists. Please


paarsurrey says:
April 21, 2014 at 17:54
@clubschadenfreude :April 17, 2014 at 20:27

Sorry to point out.

The arguments you have given are based on your understanding of religion and are against religion.

You have extremely failed to prove and give positive evidences favoring Atheism; not a single quotation from a text book of science or a peer reviewed article from a journal of science which even mentions of Atheism and arguments of its truthfulness.

Did you?

If Tom is proved to be wrong, supposedly; it does not prove automatically that Harry must be right.


Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit

April 11, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

April 8th, 2014 at 6:19 am
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:

I totally agree with you.

The same way one could ask the materialists; do you exist? If yes, give its proofs and evidences. They never give answer to this question.

Thanks and regards

April 10th, 2014 at 6:03 am

@Debilis : April 9th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
“That one has never occurred to me, I must admit.
I’ll have to remember that.”

Thanks for your appreciation. You make good points defending religion.

The arguments, though sophisticated and philosophical for the learned at times; should have a simple form also so that ordinary people could benefit from them and they could also defend religion on their own.

Most people are not much educated; religion is also for them; they should be equipped to defend religion in simple terms.

Communication between us is proof of our existence; otherwise we are just illusions or shadows of existence.

God has communicated with perfect men among human beings in all ages and all regions of the world; that is a strong proof of His existence.


April 10th, 2014 at 6:46 am

@john zande:April 10th, 2014 at 4:23 am

“1. Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
2. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
3. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”
4. Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a switch. The light will reveal a cat… if there is one.”Unquote

I would like to add two more categories to the above.

5. Revealed Religion is like being in a dark room and looking for a cat from its meowing; if the room is dark one cannot know the color of a cat.
6. Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit; and one sees a black cat but insists that there is no cat out there.


Frank Morris
April 10th, 2014 at 10:27 pm

John, I’d say you are as much in the dark as any of us, so you don’t know what is there or what isn’t.

Atheism is like being in a brightly lit room filled with cats and denying cats exist.

Perhaps the majority in the room have found something you haven’t found yet.

April 11th, 2014 at 5:58 am

@Frank Morris : April 10th, 2014 at 11:15 pm
“paarsurrey, you and I had the same thought on number 6, but I hadn’t read your post yet.
As an open-minded skeptic who rejected everything told to me at school, home or church to try to see what the facts are really telling me, I may be in a 7th group.
I am in a brightly lit room desperately fumbling for a light switch but finding cats.” Unqote

Frank Morris

Thanks for your appreciation. I regularly view Fide Dubitandum and sometimes I write comments also. I like Debilis defending religion with good arguments.

You are welcome to visit my blog @

I would be pleased to visit your blog and enjoy your wisdom; please give me the link of your blog.


A weird concept of Religion and Transcendence

March 24, 2014

03/24/2014 at 6:16 am

@ Sabio Lantz
“Religion is a term used to package very complicated socio-political movements while also capitalizing on internal psychological states.”

There seems to be some error in your concept of religion as given above.

Do you think Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/”Humanism”/secularism etc are also covered in your concept of religion?

If yes; why?

If no;why?

Please give your proofs and evidences.


Atheists always pushing others to the answering end

March 15, 2014

I wrote a post on the following blog; the viewers are welcome to give their valuable opinions even if they differ.


paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote: Quote “Even then they insist me to give evidences and proofs. I ask them to define as to what they understand from evidence in their own words rather than quoting from some dictionary; they even avoid it.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: As I said, burden of proof is not an issue with me; I feel no burden of it; and I deny anybody putting burden of it on me. I immediately know that the person is weak in arguments as also his standpoint is weak, hence he avoids to share the ethical and moral burden of a joint discussion.

I want the Atheists to realize that it is not rational or reasonable for them to always be on the questioning end. But they are always like that; never being on the answering end and always pushing others to the answering end; maybe just for convenience. On this important issue of the “Existence of God or otherwise”; they just sit pretty; never giving any positive evidences that “God does not exist”.

If we give proofs or evidences; they just reject them arrogantly saying these are no proofs and evidences. It is for this that I ask them to define as to what they personally understand from the words “proofs and evidences”; only then we could be on the same page for discussion or understanding.

Thanks and regards