|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 8:14:51 GMT
WTF is that? Feel free to believe in partisan religious generated junk science without foundation. [/div]
And feel free to believe that the opinions of a middle aged woman in Australia are more informed than published academia.
[/quote] Please supply as previously request, the definition of religiousness as used by this 'published academia' to which you have not linked. At least I know how science works. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples Repetition Critical analysis Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment What is their hypothesis? What objective observations? What critical analysis? What verification and testing?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:28:10 GMT
we actually already know that the mathematics allow for a universe to form within the bounds of physics. It’s called quantum fluctuation. And I really don’t know how if you’re weighing possibilities, the “there must be a designer” one ever takes on any believability. If the reason is that you don’t know how things could form without one, then you’d still have the same problem with where the designer came from. The idea doesn’t solve that issue. If there's no design, then we're very lucky that one proton gives us hydrogen, two gives us helium, three gives us lithium and so on, mostly void with electron orbits, yet each having distinct physical properties, and in turn interacting with each other like building blocks to form compounds with their own physical properties. Darn lucky it turned out that way without design. Were it that one proton and two and three didn't have these distinct different properties then there wouldn't be any little bits of the universe like us that could ponder its own existence. Pretty lucky it all turned out this way. The problem with this logic to support a designer is it just moves the problem back a step. Instead of "we're darn lucky that one proton gives us hydrogen..." we're left with "we're darn lucky to have a designer who designed the world so that one proton gives us hydrogen..."
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:34:05 GMT
I’m glad you understand the equal odds of the cards. So the question is, why are you suggesting we are the royal flush instead of just seemingly ordinary cards? I suppose we're fairly unique in that we can reflect on our own existence while most other things in the universe (as well as most hypothetical things in hypothetical universes) are not able to do so. I guess that's what leads to the debate around the anthropic principle.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 8:43:29 GMT
And I don't accept your assertions as they have come out of a hole in your head. I have provided overwhelming evidence, your refusal to accept what scientists are discovering is on you, not me. and I repeat, it is NOT possible to DNA test for being 'religious' because it is not a genetically testable thing. End of story. If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 17, 2019 9:01:38 GMT
and I repeat, it is NOT possible to DNA test for being 'religious' because it is not a genetically testable thing. End of story. If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know. The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 17, 2019 9:23:59 GMT
If it's not testable then your assertion "There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is unfalsifiable. The fact that the obverse assertion "there is a genetic disposition towards religion or faith" is also unfalsifiable doesn't change that. The correct stance is we don't know. The onus would then be on the person making the claim this it IS possible. That doesn't make sense to me. If a hypothesis is untestable (at least with current science) then declaring it false is as equally wrongfooted as declaring it true. If you wanted to take the more cautious stance of "we shouldn't assume there is a genetic component to religious belief in any cases until evidence is presented to that effect" then I would have no issue with that. Your earlier assertion that religious belief is fully accounted for by indoctrination is also pretty dubious by your own standards.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 10:35:18 GMT
That hasn’t changed. I said i didn’t need evidence you were wrong. There is evidence for everything I believe. Two different things. Bottom line, there is not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that a god exists. Just saying you think the universe seems designed is not evidence that it is. You're right, it's not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that God exists, if it were, that would be quite something. What I see leads me to believe that God does exist though. Ok so help me understand how you can say that there isn’t sufficient evidence, but it still leads you believe it. To put it in context, there is nothing I believe without sufficient evidence, so I don’t know how you’ve reached this conclusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 11:41:09 GMT
You're right, it's not a demonstration or sufficient evidence that God exists, if it were, that would be quite something. What I see leads me to believe that God does exist though. Ok so help me understand how you can say that there isn’t sufficient evidence, but it still leads you believe it. To put it in context, there is nothing I believe without sufficient evidence, so I don’t know how you’ve reached this conclusion. I see enough evidence to have faith to believe. The underlaying nature of the fabric of the universe supporting beings that can question existence, and most likely many beings on many worlds with similar questions, is enough for me. It's just too big a coincidence for me to believe this universe like it is just happened because "that's the way it works" If you need concrete evidence, I won't be able to provide that. I don't believe concrete evidence is part of that design. If it isn't design, then science may eventually get to the point of knowing how a universe with all the laws of physics is created.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 11:53:55 GMT
Ok so help me understand how you can say that there isn’t sufficient evidence, but it still leads you believe it. To put it in context, there is nothing I believe without sufficient evidence, so I don’t know how you’ve reached this conclusion. I see enough evidence to have faith to believe. The underlaying nature of the fabric of the universe supporting beings that can question existence, and most likely many beings on many worlds with similar questions, is enough for me. It's just too big a coincidence for me to believe this universe like it is just happened because "that's the way it works" If you need concrete evidence, I won't be able to provide that. I don't believe concrete evidence is part of that design. If it isn't design, then science may eventually get to the point of knowing how a universe with all the laws of physics is created. Why does the existence of conscious beings make you think there is a god? Why are you calling it a coincidence? For instance, a cloud moved over and rained yesterday, but I wouldn’t describe that as a coincidence because I understand the physics and chemistry involved in clouds forming. Life also arose though physical and chemical processes. So what is going on that you think is a coincidence? If life can form through natural processes, then why think a god is necessary?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 12:42:23 GMT
I see enough evidence to have faith to believe. The underlaying nature of the fabric of the universe supporting beings that can question existence, and most likely many beings on many worlds with similar questions, is enough for me. It's just too big a coincidence for me to believe this universe like it is just happened because "that's the way it works" If you need concrete evidence, I won't be able to provide that. I don't believe concrete evidence is part of that design. If it isn't design, then science may eventually get to the point of knowing how a universe with all the laws of physics is created. Why does the existence of conscious beings make you think there is a god? Why are you calling it a coincidence? For instance, a cloud moved over and rained yesterday, but I wouldn’t describe that as a coincidence because I understand the physics and chemistry involved in clouds forming. Life also arose though physical and chemical processes. So what is going on that you think is a coincidence? If life can form through natural processes, then why think a god is necessary? I'm not talking about life forming, I'm talking about the nature and existence of the type of matter that allows for something physical to exist in the first place. If you are content that the "nature" of atomic structure makes it such that the elements exist, each with unique characteristics, that happen to work together in multitudes of ways like tinkertoys because that's the way the universe works, then good for you. Go with it, stand on it as fact. I believe the tinkertoys were designed, it's amazing matter exists at all. It has taken quantum theory to postulate how anything could have come from nothing and that just theory, let alone how that anything that sprung from nothing has the properties to act in the manner it does. I think it shows design, that there's a designer out there, maybe made of simpler stuff than the complex universe this designer created. I could be wrong, but it makes more sense to me than any competing theory at this point.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 13:12:27 GMT
Why does the existence of conscious beings make you think there is a god? Why are you calling it a coincidence? For instance, a cloud moved over and rained yesterday, but I wouldn’t describe that as a coincidence because I understand the physics and chemistry involved in clouds forming. Life also arose though physical and chemical processes. So what is going on that you think is a coincidence? If life can form through natural processes, then why think a god is necessary? I'm not talking about life forming, I'm talking about the nature and existence of the type of matter that allows for something physical to exist in the first place. If you are content that the "nature" of atomic structure makes it such that the elements exist, each with unique characteristics, that happen to work together in multitudes of ways like tinkertoys because that's the way the universe works, then good for you. Go with it, stand on it as fact. I believe the tinkertoys were designed, it's amazing matter exists at all. It has taken quantum theory to postulate how anything could have come from nothing and that just theory, let alone how that anything that sprung from nothing has the properties to act in the manner it does. I think it shows design, that there's a designer out there, maybe made of simpler stuff than the complex universe this designer created. I could be wrong, but it makes more sense to me than any competing theory at this point. So in all honesty, you are jumping to a conclusion. Just because matter can form into molecules, in no way means that it requires a designer to do so. You need evidence of the designer, and without it, all you have is a guess. What you have is not a theory. A theory is a well established and verified aspect of reality that accounts for all facts. You don’t even have a hypothesis because you can’t test your claim. All you have is speculation based on a lack of actual information, which means you have no basis for concluding that your idea is actually true. Or even possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 13:25:33 GMT
I'm not talking about life forming, I'm talking about the nature and existence of the type of matter that allows for something physical to exist in the first place. If you are content that the "nature" of atomic structure makes it such that the elements exist, each with unique characteristics, that happen to work together in multitudes of ways like tinkertoys because that's the way the universe works, then good for you. Go with it, stand on it as fact. I believe the tinkertoys were designed, it's amazing matter exists at all. It has taken quantum theory to postulate how anything could have come from nothing and that just theory, let alone how that anything that sprung from nothing has the properties to act in the manner it does. I think it shows design, that there's a designer out there, maybe made of simpler stuff than the complex universe this designer created. I could be wrong, but it makes more sense to me than any competing theory at this point. So in all honesty, you are jumping to a conclusion. Just because matter can form into molecules, in no way means that it requires a designer to do so. You need evidence of the designer, and without it, all you have is a guess. What you have is not a theory. A theory is a well established and verified aspect of reality that accounts for all facts. You don’t even have a hypothesis because you can’t test your claim. All you have is speculation based on a lack of actual information, which means you have no basis for concluding that your idea is actually true. Or even possible. And what theory that is well established and verified exists that covers what we are talking about am I dismissing?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2019 14:09:18 GMT
And what theory that is well established and verified exists that covers what we are talking about am I dismissing? There is none and there probably never will be one. But as it stands now, your hypothesis for the necessity of a designer is incoherent and actually goes in the opposite direction that all existing science since Darwin has been heading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 14:38:42 GMT
And what theory that is well established and verified exists that covers what we are talking about am I dismissing? There is none and there probably never will be one. But as it stands now, your hypothesis for the necessity of a designer is incoherent and actually goes in the opposite direction that all existing science since Darwin has been heading. Actually I believe it is exactly where it is heading. It would be amazing to be there the day if man can get to that veil of reality and lift it. The universe either just happened by itself, it happened via outside force by chance, or it happened via outside force with intelligent help. I think that about covers it, but I'm often wrong. I see the utility of matter as a design element that among many other things, allows me to be rambling on here as evidence of the third. With the other two, this phenomenon is to me, akin to our universe hitting a massive lottery when it had no money to buy a ticket. It could very well be the other two, but that's where I base this belief, sue me.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 14:42:24 GMT
So in all honesty, you are jumping to a conclusion. Just because matter can form into molecules, in no way means that it requires a designer to do so. You need evidence of the designer, and without it, all you have is a guess. What you have is not a theory. A theory is a well established and verified aspect of reality that accounts for all facts. You don’t even have a hypothesis because you can’t test your claim. All you have is speculation based on a lack of actual information, which means you have no basis for concluding that your idea is actually true. Or even possible. And what theory that is well established and verified exists that covers what we are talking about am I dismissing? The problem isn’t that you are dismissing a theory, because there is no theory on the origin of the universe. The farthest back we have is the Big Bang Theory which covers the expansion of the known universe, but not its origin. So the problem is that you are making a claim about the origin without any evidence to support it. All you are doing is pointing to molecules and saying that because they bond that you think something must have designed them to. But there is no evidence of that. If you want to claim that molecules bond because something designed them to, you need to demonstrate that they require being designed and that there is a designer. Because all of the current evidence shows that everything we observe in reality has natural causes.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2019 14:43:38 GMT
Actually I believe it is exactly where it is heading. You could only utter such a statement by making a conscious effort to actually avoid hearing what respected, mainstream scientists are saying to one another here in the early 21st century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 14:47:15 GMT
Actually I believe it is exactly where it is heading. You could only utter such a statement by making a conscious effort to actually avoid hearing what respected, mainstream scientists are saying to one another here in the early 21st century. Are you appealing to authority, or does the authority have some evidence to offer?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 17, 2019 14:58:25 GMT
You could only utter such a statement by making a conscious effort to actually avoid hearing what respected, mainstream scientists are saying to one another here in the early 21st century. Are you appealing to authority, or does the authority have some evidence to offer? Your speculation is what requires new evidence. Until you provide it, the scientific community proceeds as it always has since Darwin put the nail in the coffin of metaphysical teleology: by modeling all phenomena as, at base, being completely mindless and not receiving direction or assistance from any un-demonstrated supernatural forces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 15:28:25 GMT
Are you appealing to authority, or does the authority have some evidence to offer? Your speculation is what requires new evidence. Until you provide it, the scientific community proceeds as it always has since Darwin put the nail in the coffin of metaphysical teleology: by modeling all phenomena as, at base, being completely mindless and not receiving direction or assistance from any un-demonstrated supernatural forces. I'm glad that they will proceed as they have been! It's a great course to take. I'm not sure what by looking at the universe around me and from what I see that at the point of this Universe's creation there was something guiding the great something out of nothing that happened. Let science discover how it all happened, good path to take.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 17, 2019 16:28:08 GMT
I'm not sure what by looking at the universe around me and from what I see that at the point of this Universe's creation there was something guiding the great something out of nothing that happened. It isn't necessarily the case that something came from nothing because you have two logical possibilities: either something from nothing or something has always been.
|
|