|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 11:32:32 GMT
There is proof. I can have them dug up. But I believe it right now. Thank you. Thatās saves me time and money. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 12:06:54 GMT
If everything in reality requires it. I think photons donāt have a weight, but they are highly detectable, so real. Is there a device to measure the divine? Lets call the photons divine, because Erj ain't gonna find proof of God supreme divinity that he so desperately desires. If Jesus was Essenes-sque in his preaching, and what was written down as what is assumed via faith as verbatim, matches up with what archeologists and ancient manuscripts scholars found at Qumran, then he was a well of Divine Sparks or a tzaddik. As I see it, his ādivineā message of Love survives his cult. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I can see how the human longing for it has profoundly shaped who we are. This longing created the science. It is born of religion, but is wholly separate from the parent, just like we all are. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 12:28:18 GMT
But to say science cannot prove anything is ludicrous. In a universe of a capricious nature, can it be proven "absolute"? Nothing has to be proven absolute. The sun may not come up tomorrow, but I donāt need a religious faith and prayer to sing to assure me God will not let that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 12:49:01 GMT
Nothing has to be proven absolute. The sun may not come up tomorrow, but I donāt need a religious faith and prayer to sing to assure me God will not let that happen. No, but that is not what I was suggesting. I claimed science can't be proven absolute.
Science can be used for theory and experimentation to prove what can be done with it, but it is never going to give a permanent fixture or result, especially in an ever changing universe.
I agree, but I donāt think the religionists here are thinking in those terms. They seem to think science is a substitute for religion, which can be absolutist. Religion is in no danger from science. Eastern faiths like Buddhism and Tao coexist. Jews obviously have few spiritual issues. It Christians and Muslims who have resisted change in varying degreesā¦even 99% of Christians are not going to live like the Amish to keep their righteousness before God intact. Social science is something else, but thatās not a hard science, and doesnāt claim to be. Culture cannot be quantified, which means neither can religion. History teaches science must defend itself from religion, but otherwise it has nothing much to say about the supernatural or paranormal. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 6, 2023 13:23:49 GMT
Both the premise of naturalism and supernaturalism are philosophical. The real question is where the stronger evidence lies to come up with as a conclusion. Indeed, the laws of Causality and finites of energy (among several others) strongly demonstrate the flaws of a naturalistic interpretation. So, the stronger philosophical argument based upon the hard evidence (increasingly) disputes the notions of a natualistic interpretation. The words are, but one connotes reality, the other the surreal. There are no finite conclusions of the kind you require in hard science. No language definition can overtake a mathematical equation. The Party can say 2 + 2 = 5, but that will never really happen. Actual both hypothesize reality; it's only a question of which one makes the more compelling argument based upon observation available at this point in time. While it's true that neither will be provable whether it be natural or supernaturalistic origins to the universe... there can be evidence that gives more/less credence to one perspective or another. Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 6, 2023 13:34:15 GMT
Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. The exact opposite is actually the case--belief in God or a higher power is vastly lower among scientists than it is among the general public. And this is no accident. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 13:37:59 GMT
The words are, but one connotes reality, the other the surreal. There are no finite conclusions of the kind you require in hard science. No language definition can overtake a mathematical equation. The Party can say 2 + 2 = 5, but that will never really happen. Actual both hypothesize reality; it's only a question of which one makes the more compelling argument based upon observation available at this point in time. While it's true that neither will be provable whether it be natural or supernaturalistic origins to the universe... there can be evidence that gives more/less credence to one perspective or another. Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. And this proves Godās existence? Because thatās what these arguments boil down to. The reductionist argument is if āreligionā aināt figured this out after 6,000 years, why should I put one iota on credence to what they say? No amount spells or prayer to the Goddess Luna put a man on the Moon. But science didnāt pray, it just did it. The Apollo 9 astronauts reading Chapter One of Genesis while orbiting the Moon was a nice touch, but expresses a human desire for peace on earth, not expressing an absolutist worldview triumph over reality that sadly some religions keep claiming. Both all of science and religion should hope for peace and stop building war machines, both real and imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 6, 2023 13:50:10 GMT
Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. The exact opposite is actually the case--belief in God or a higher power is vastly lower among scientists than it is among the general public. And this is no accident. You're absollutey right. There is a lot to be said when people have to think critically and truly analyze the evidence. Naturally, many longstanding beliefs will not hold up as well when truly reviewed and tested. However, it also depends upon the field. When considering fields such as biology, then you are absolutely correct. However, when you get into the most advanced fields such as astronomy, advanced mathematicians, or physicists that deal with studying the origins of the universe, probabilities, etc... you will find they are disproportionately higher in reaching the same conclusion of belief. "And this is no accident." : ) |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 13:53:33 GMT
Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. The exact opposite is actually the case--belief in God or a higher power is vastly lower among scientists than it is among the general public. And this is no accident. But doesnāt mean scientists canāt be religious or draw spiritual insight from their profession or even scientific insight from their faith. If it works, I donāt knock it as necessarily a bad thing. A group of physicists Iāve read are the Fundamental Fysiks Group who let their 1970s California, mind-altering substances and Eastern spirituality inform their ideas about what they thought what quantum mechanics was telling them. FFG is not science, but uses science as a mediation tool. Thatās one way to look at it and they were ahead of the curve on superstring theory. This is probably not much different than how the Pythagoreans thought. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 6, 2023 13:55:05 GMT
Actual both hypothesize reality; it's only a question of which one makes the more compelling argument based upon observation available at this point in time. While it's true that neither will be provable whether it be natural or supernaturalistic origins to the universe... there can be evidence that gives more/less credence to one perspective or another. Indeed, it is because of the fields of math, space, and time that you find a high degree of those scientists reaching that conclusion; because their fields of study offer that perspective and a much higher probability. And this proves Godās existence? Because thatās what these arguments boil down to. The reductionist argument is if āreligionā aināt figured this out after 6,000 years, why should I put one iota on credence to what they say? No amount spells or prayer to the Goddess Luna put a man on the Moon. But science didnāt pray, it just did it. The Apollo 9 astronauts reading Chapter One of Genesis while orbiting the Moon was a nice touch, but expresses a human desire for peace on earth, not expressing an absolutist worldview triumph over reality that sadly some religions keep claiming. Both all of science and religion should hope for peace and stop building war machines, both real and imagined. Oh no....please don't confuse yourself by my post. I clearly stated neither hypothesis could not be "proven".. merely that the observable evidence will either favor one hypothesis over the other. You are conflating the personal God of traditional religion versus the impersonal one that may or may not be personal. Just because one's personal take on the nature of God may not have held up under degrees of scrutiny doesn't prove nor disprove God's existence.. just merely one's personal take on him/her/it. The discussion of the nature of God is a secondary discussion and entirely different. Though faith can inspire, science has been a great tool to provide growth and direction for humanity. I see no contradiction whatsoever in the two and share your hope for peace. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 6, 2023 14:06:18 GMT
The exact opposite is actually the case--belief in God or a higher power is vastly lower among scientists than it is among the general public. And this is no accident. You're absollutey right. There is a lot to be said when people have to think critically and truly analyze the evidence. Naturally, many longstanding beliefs will not hold up as well when truly reviewed and tested. However, it also depends upon the field. When considering fields such as biology, then you are absolutely correct. However, when you get into the most advanced fields such as astronomy, advanced mathematicians, or physicists that deal with studying the origins of the universe, probabilities, etc... you will find they are disproportionately higher in reaching the same conclusion of belief. "And this is no accident." : ) The part you got right is that belief in god or a higher power is lower among biologists than folks like physicists or astronomers. And this is because biologists can see much more clearly than other scientists that complexity in the universe can come about just fine through mindless, mechanical processes without any need for a guiding hand. But belief in a god or higher power is still much, much lower among astronomers and physicists than the general public. If the evidence really did support the idea of a god this would not be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 6, 2023 14:18:17 GMT
You're absollutey right. There is a lot to be said when people have to think critically and truly analyze the evidence. Naturally, many longstanding beliefs will not hold up as well when truly reviewed and tested. However, it also depends upon the field. When considering fields such as biology, then you are absolutely correct. However, when you get into the most advanced fields such as astronomy, advanced mathematicians, or physicists that deal with studying the origins of the universe, probabilities, etc... you will find they are disproportionately higher in reaching the same conclusion of belief. "And this is no accident." : ) The part you got right is that belief in god or a higher power is lower among biologists than folks like physicists or astronomers. And this is because biologists can see much more clearly than other scientists that complexity in the universe can come about just fine through mindless, mechanical processes without any need for a guiding hand. But belief in a god or higher power is still much, much lower among astronomers and physicists than the general public. If the evidence really did support the idea of a god this would not be the case. Yes....and no. You see, a lot of religious beliefs have a "personal" take on God as opposed to the more generic scientific supposition of an all-powerful creative force beyond naturalistic means. The traditionally religious view can be verified or refuted based upon provable history and criteria that was taken at face value for an extended period of time. But when critically reviewed, one can poke holes in it as they have the time, resources, and generations of philosophy to question such beliefs. When people enter the scientific fields, they obviously have access to more information to challenge those views. And yes..biologists deal with just the most recent tiniest fraction of development on a spec of space dust while astronomers deal with the most complex observations of the cosmic creation event, probabilities, nature of energy, laws of causality, thermodynamics, etc. Indeed, even biologists have moved from a paltry 1% believing to close to 20%. I know that's still low... but its due to the fact now more and more advanced mathematic courses are becoming increasingly required for their degrees. So we can see that when exposed to more pertinent information regarding the nature of the universe as a whole, it moves the community in the direction with most of the populace. Perhaps not in as high a number as the general, but in that direction nonetheless. So, since the evidence from those highest fields does support the idea and it seems sounder (at least at the present time) than a naturalistic one, I see no fault in their conclusion. You are also correct that the educated parts of the west are becoming increasingly secular. 15K leave the church every single week on average. And this is among the more educated. But here is something interesting. In China alone..close to 30K convert TO Christianity DAILY and its among their most highly educated. And the math scores/fields there are far more elevated. It is very possible for very astute individuals to weigh the evidence and come up with entirely different results. In the end, we will likely never have irrefutable proof... but we will have evidence that more strongly favors one hypothesis over the other. I am comfortable throwing my lot in with the physicists and astronomers... you feel more in line with the biologists. : ) I appreciate the exchange. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 6, 2023 14:39:10 GMT
You're absollutey right. There is a lot to be said when people have to think critically and truly analyze the evidence. Naturally, many longstanding beliefs will not hold up as well when truly reviewed and tested. However, it also depends upon the field. When considering fields such as biology, then you are absolutely correct. However, when you get into the most advanced fields such as astronomy, advanced mathematicians, or physicists that deal with studying the origins of the universe, probabilities, etc... you will find they are disproportionately higher in reaching the same conclusion of belief. "And this is no accident." : ) The part you got right is that belief in god or a higher power is lower among biologists than folks like physicists or astronomers. And this is because biologists can see much more clearly than other scientists that complexity in the universe can come about just fine through mindless, mechanical processes without any need for a guiding hand. But belief in a god or higher power is still much, much lower among astronomers and physicists than the general public. If the evidence really did support the idea of a god this would not be the case. Francis Collins who headed the US Humane Genome Project, is an Evangelical Christian. He had no problems keeping his religion out of his work, but it did inform his ethics regarding his work. He knew his moral boundaries, and no scientist should be expected to cross it. Another thread elsewhere insinuates most scientists are immoral sellouts and thatās profoundly bigoted. That said, men like Josef Mengele do exist. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 6, 2023 16:15:45 GMT
So, since the evidence from those highest fields does support the idea and it seems sounder (at least at the present time) than a naturalistic one, I see no fault in their conclusion. You have a huge problem with this supposition. If there were any evidence worthy of the term āevidenceā that even remotely suggested the existence of a god, or higher power-- whatever you want to call it--this would regularly appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature and be discussed just as everything else regarded as āevidenceā is, for any X one cares to discuss. And you know as well as I do that this just doesnāt happen. By contrast, you have cosmologists and physicists gleefully publishing about strings and string theory, none of which can even be falsified at this time, based on nothing other than that the math seems to work, and work equally well in a million different ways. To them, that counts as a kind of evidence, though indirect. Now at this point, the string theorists are starting to get called out on this behavior as being contrary to sound science, with accusations that this stuff is more like metaphysics than science, but a large number of scientists still think believing in strings based on math and nothing else is just fine. So they appear to be pretty open about the rules for who gets to enter the club--you don't even need to make falsifiable propositions these days! Yet, the proposition that there is a god, and that this notion is supported by evidence, canāt even find the beginnings of a footing in the professional literature, even as unfalsifiable claims about vibrating strings and branes are discussed and taught in a routine matter. Basically, when these scientists who are believers can back up their beliefs as scientifically credible by doing proper, evidenced based science and publishing their results in exactly the same manner that their peers do on every single other subject for which so-called āevidenceā exists, then I will take seriously the idea that there is genuine evidence for a god. But not until then. If they canāt play by the same rules and succeed, then whatever the bases of their religious beliefs are, they are not based on āevidenceā as it understood scientifically. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 6, 2023 16:35:38 GMT
So, since the evidence from those highest fields does support the idea and it seems sounder (at least at the present time) than a naturalistic one, I see no fault in their conclusion. You have a huge problem with this supposition. If there were any evidence worthy of the term āevidenceā that even remotely suggested the existence of a god, or higher power-- whatever you want to call it--this would regularly appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature and be discussed just as everything else regarded as āevidenceā is, for any X one cares to discuss. And you know as well as I do that this just doesnāt happen. By contrast, you have cosmologists and physicists gleefully publishing about strings and string theory, none of which can even be falsified at this time, based on nothing other than that the math seems to work, and work equally well in a million different ways. To them, that counts as a kind of evidence, though indirect. Now at this point, the string theorists are starting to get called out on this behavior as being contrary to sound science, with accusations that this stuff is more like metaphysics than science, but a large number of scientists still think believing in strings based on math and nothing else is just fine. So they appear to be pretty open about the rules for who gets to enter the club--you don't even need to make falsifiable propositions these days! Yet, the proposition that there is a god, and that this notion is supported by evidence, canāt even find the beginnings of a footing in the professional literature, even as unfalsifiable claims about vibrating strings and branes are discussed and taught in a routine matter. Basically, when these scientists who are believers can back up their beliefs as scientifically credible by doing proper, evidenced based science and publishing their results in exactly the same manner that their peers do on every single other subject for which so-called āevidenceā exists, then I will take seriously the idea that there is genuine evidence for a god. But not until then. If they canāt play by the same rules and succeed, then whatever the bases of their religious beliefs are, they are not based on āevidenceā as it understood scientifically. "You have a huge problem with this supposition." Not really. Remember, we are approaching this from a neutral position and not one predisposition towards one hypothesis or another. It's a question of which presents a stronger case based upon what has been observed and tested. "If there were any evidence worthy of the term āevidenceā that even remotely suggested the existence of a god, or higher power-- whatever you want to call it--this would regularly appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature and be discussed just as everything else regarded as āevidenceā is, for any X one cares to discuss. And you know as well as I do that this just doesnāt happen. True, the hypothesis of a higher supernatural power couldn't be directly observed as his/her/its presence would be outside the physical universe. To this end, science and math are the tools to support such a theory but cannot be proven any more than a naturalistic one can. To this end, you wouldn't find the conclusion in such literature. Fortunately, you will find the math, energy cycles, laws, and probabilities to find said conclusions in many publications. With said evidence being enough for the highest echelons of the scientific community, I admit their arguments are far more compelling. The takeaway they come away with, however.....you may not agree. As I said, two equally brilliant people can come away with different opinions. "By contrast, you have cosmologists and physicists gleefully publishing about strings and string theory, none of which can even be falsified at this time, based on nothing other than that the math seems to work, and work equally well in a million different ways. To them, that counts as a kind of evidence, though indirect." None of which is tested. Hence, no evidence. Caltech has a host of physicists who took a deep look at it. "While string theory carries potential to resolve substantial, fundamental scientific issues, a growing number of scientists cite its lack of experimental verification as a need to exercise caution. In the absence of experimental verification, some string theorists advocate using theoretical elegance and beauty to determine the truth of string theories. However, as George Ellis rightly notes by comparison, the āscientific opposition to āintelligent designā centers on an insistence that for a theory to be scientific it must be testable, observationally or experimentally.ā" "Yet, the proposition that there is a god, and that this notion is supported by evidence, canāt even find the beginnings of a footing in the professional literature, even as unfalsifiable claims about vibrating strings and branes are discussed and taught in a routine matter." Actually, the criteria put forward is not only published but tested and widely accepted...far more than string theory. The only difference is the conclusion reached based upon the same information. "If they canāt play by the same rules and succeed, then whatever the bases of their religious beliefs are, they are not based on āevidenceā as it understood scientifically." I agree 100%. Which is why if their conclusions were based on non-scientific theories, non-testable theories, and findings, I would be just as skeptical as I would be with those who advocate for String theory (or other science of the gaps arguments) without evidence. But at this time, I cannot deny the evidence currently strongly is against a naturalistic interpretation and more towards the supernatural. As aways, I thank you for your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 6, 2023 23:20:03 GMT
<abbr title="Jan 6, 2023 10:35:38 GMT -6" data-timestamp="1673022938000" class="o-timestamp time">Jan 6, 2023 10:35:38 GMT -6</abbr> averagejoe2021 said: "You have a huge problem with this supposition." Not really. Remember, we are approaching this from a neutral position and not one predisposition towards one hypothesis or another. It's a question of which presents a stronger case based upon what has been observed and tested. "If there were any evidence worthy of the term āevidenceā that even remotely suggested the existence of a god, or higher power-- whatever you want to call it--this would regularly appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature and be discussed just as everything else regarded as āevidenceā is, for any X one cares to discuss. And you know as well as I do that this just doesnāt happen. True, the hypothesis of a higher supernatural power couldn't be directly observed as his/her/its presence would be outside the physical universe. To this end, science and math are the tools to support such a theory but cannot be proven any more than a naturalistic one can. To this end, you wouldn't find the conclusion in such literature. Fortunately, you will find the math, energy cycles, laws, and probabilities to find said conclusions in many publications. With said evidence being enough for the highest echelons of the scientific community, I admit their arguments are far more compelling. The takeaway they come away with, however.....you may not agree. As I said, two equally brilliant people can come away with different opinions. "By contrast, you have cosmologists and physicists gleefully publishing about strings and string theory, none of which can even be falsified at this time, based on nothing other than that the math seems to work, and work equally well in a million different ways. To them, that counts as a kind of evidence, though indirect." None of which is tested. Hence, no evidence. Caltech has a host of physicists who took a deep look at it. "While string theory carries potential to resolve substantial, fundamental scientific issues, a growing number of scientists cite its lack of experimental verification as a need to exercise caution. In the absence of experimental verification, some string theorists advocate using theoretical elegance and beauty to determine the truth of string theories. However, as George Ellis rightly notes by comparison, the āscientific opposition to āintelligent designā centers on an insistence that for a theory to be scientific it must be testable, observationally or experimentally.ā" "Yet, the proposition that there is a god, and that this notion is supported by evidence, canāt even find the beginnings of a footing in the professional literature, even as unfalsifiable claims about vibrating strings and branes are discussed and taught in a routine matter." Actually, the criteria put forward is not only published but tested and widely accepted...far more than string theory. The only difference is the conclusion reached based upon the same information. "If they canāt play by the same rules and succeed, then whatever the bases of their religious beliefs are, they are not based on āevidenceā as it understood scientifically." I agree 100%. Which is why if their conclusions were based on non-scientific theories, non-testable theories, and findings, I would be just as skeptical as I would be with those who advocate for String theory (or other science of the gaps arguments) without evidence. But at this time, I cannot deny the evidence currently strongly is against a naturalistic interpretation and more towards the supernatural. As aways, I thank you for your thoughts. Bottom line for me is quite simple.
Scientific theories based on serious, scientifically plausible evidence, get discussed by their proponents publishing about them in the peer reviewed scientific press and discussing them at high level scientific conferences.
In an environment where such scientifically questionable notions as string theory and the multiverse regularly appear in scientific discourse of this sort, the god hypothesis has never risen to this level. It is not part of the conversations that the world's brightest scientists are having with each other and there is no sign this will ever change. It is effectively as dead a proposition as phlogiston or mind/body dualism now are.
This tells me all I need to know about how credible a hypothesis "god" is and how solid this so-called evidence for it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Jan 7, 2023 2:44:01 GMT
<abbr title="Jan 6, 2023 10:35:38 GMT -6" data-timestamp="1673022938000" class="o-timestamp time">Jan 6, 2023 10:35:38 GMT -6</abbr> averagejoe2021 said: "You have a huge problem with this supposition." Not really. Remember, we are approaching this from a neutral position and not one predisposition towards one hypothesis or another. It's a question of which presents a stronger case based upon what has been observed and tested. "If there were any evidence worthy of the term āevidenceā that even remotely suggested the existence of a god, or higher power-- whatever you want to call it--this would regularly appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature and be discussed just as everything else regarded as āevidenceā is, for any X one cares to discuss. And you know as well as I do that this just doesnāt happen. True, the hypothesis of a higher supernatural power couldn't be directly observed as his/her/its presence would be outside the physical universe. To this end, science and math are the tools to support such a theory but cannot be proven any more than a naturalistic one can. To this end, you wouldn't find the conclusion in such literature. Fortunately, you will find the math, energy cycles, laws, and probabilities to find said conclusions in many publications. With said evidence being enough for the highest echelons of the scientific community, I admit their arguments are far more compelling. The takeaway they come away with, however.....you may not agree. As I said, two equally brilliant people can come away with different opinions. "By contrast, you have cosmologists and physicists gleefully publishing about strings and string theory, none of which can even be falsified at this time, based on nothing other than that the math seems to work, and work equally well in a million different ways. To them, that counts as a kind of evidence, though indirect." None of which is tested. Hence, no evidence. Caltech has a host of physicists who took a deep look at it. "While string theory carries potential to resolve substantial, fundamental scientific issues, a growing number of scientists cite its lack of experimental verification as a need to exercise caution. In the absence of experimental verification, some string theorists advocate using theoretical elegance and beauty to determine the truth of string theories. However, as George Ellis rightly notes by comparison, the āscientific opposition to āintelligent designā centers on an insistence that for a theory to be scientific it must be testable, observationally or experimentally.ā" "Yet, the proposition that there is a god, and that this notion is supported by evidence, canāt even find the beginnings of a footing in the professional literature, even as unfalsifiable claims about vibrating strings and branes are discussed and taught in a routine matter." Actually, the criteria put forward is not only published but tested and widely accepted...far more than string theory. The only difference is the conclusion reached based upon the same information. "If they canāt play by the same rules and succeed, then whatever the bases of their religious beliefs are, they are not based on āevidenceā as it understood scientifically." I agree 100%. Which is why if their conclusions were based on non-scientific theories, non-testable theories, and findings, I would be just as skeptical as I would be with those who advocate for String theory (or other science of the gaps arguments) without evidence. But at this time, I cannot deny the evidence currently strongly is against a naturalistic interpretation and more towards the supernatural. As aways, I thank you for your thoughts. Bottom line for me is quite simple.
Scientific theories based on serious, scientifically plausible evidence, get discussed by their proponents publishing about them in the peer reviewed scientific press and discussing them at high level scientific conferences.
In an environment where such scientifically questionable notions as string theory and the multiverse regularly appear in scientific discourse of this sort, the god hypothesis has never risen to this level. It is not part of the conversations that the world's brightest scientists are having with each other and there is no sign this will ever change. It is effectively as dead a proposition as phlogiston or mind/body dualism now are.
This tells me all I need to know about how credible a hypothesis "god" is and how solid this so-called evidence for it is.
Interesting perspective, Faustus5...thank you. Your first statement was astute. We cannot lend credence to a hypothesis based upon circumstances that cannot be tested. However, this contradicts any shred of credibility given to String theory as it cannot be tested and is therefore not scientific; sort of defeats your very premise. Conversely, the scientists who do believe/acknowledge God are basing their findings from published and testable models on the nature of the universe. These range from the Cosmological argument, nature of energy, the Laws of Causality, 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the impracticality of the cyclical or multi-verse, etc. They cannot specifically test "God" as he/she/it exists outside the observable/physical universe. Hence, the most logical way to demonstrate the strongest case is from what we could observe if such an entity exists. Now whether a series of scientists engage in unscientific speculation with unprovable models such as string theory in an effort to avoid the growing evidence is on them, but they do not constitute a majority in the fields of physics, astronomy, or advanced mathematical applications. However, if testable models were available, I would be entirely willing to see their results. If there was a reversal and we saw spontaneous creation from naturalistic sources that were precise in nature.... I would definitely rethink my stances based upon any new evidence. Truly, there are two subjects that are typically not breached in normal conversations. These are politics and religion. To this end, it is of little consequence it isn't discussed amongst their regular conversations. But I am more concerned with the findings of the most brilliant aforementioned who strongly do favor the notion. I am quite comfortable and find their logic sound as well as the refuting of the increasing barriers a naturalistic interpretation brings. But if you feel more comfortable with scientists who don't deal with the formation of the universe and such measures and instead more on biology and social sciences.....that's your call. Personally, I believe the resistance is likely more personal as opposed to scientific, but I fully admit it's entirely speculation/experience on my part. As I stated before, brilliant people can see the same information and come to entirely different results. I again thank you for the interesting discussion.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 5:29:15 GMT
If I say your problem seems to be more with Catholicism than Christianity, would you try to get Proboards to ban me? No, unlike you. Your memory is getting worse, Paul... support.proboards.com/thread/667048/admin-leave-meTsk tsk. But I believe it right now. Thank you. Thatās saves me time and money. Apparently it also saves you from the question. But this is your lucky day, because I have the answer for you: It's not unreasonable to believe you had parents in the absence of "scientific proof." Digging them up is completely unnecessary. The simple fact that you exist is enough to believe in your parents without calling it faith. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 5:34:18 GMT
Your memory is getting worse, Paul... support.proboards.com/thread/667048/admin-leave-meTsk tsk. Thank you. Thatās saves me time and money. Apparently it also saves you from the question. But this is your lucky day, because I have the answer for you: It's not unreasonable to believe you had parents in the absence of "scientific proof." Digging them up is completely unnecessary. The simple fact that you exist is enough to believe in your parents without calling it faith. I wanted to know from proboards how to block an admin, which is not banning anyone, you big fat liar. Shall I post the entire conversation I had with them? And what are you doing dredging up old, private business anyway? You are not an admin anymore and that was between me and you. I never said anything on this board. Now you know why folks hate your guts around here. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 7, 2023 5:41:39 GMT
Your memory is getting worse, Paul... support.proboards.com/thread/667048/admin-leave-meTsk tsk. Thank you. Thatās saves me time and money. Apparently it also saves you from the question. But this is your lucky day, because I have the answer for you: It's not unreasonable to believe you had parents in the absence of "scientific proof." Digging them up is completely unnecessary. The simple fact that you exist is enough to believe in your parents without calling it faith.I can determine I had parents using inference not faith. It has been observed by not just me, but every human with a normal IQ for perhaps several hundred thousand years that a male and female having sex is what produces children. Even if I was born in an orphanage with no parents to call my own, I can figure out that I did indeed have two parents because a. I am a child, b. all other children have them. What other proof do I need? |
|
