Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 423. (Read 845654 times)

It is more likely that some aliens that were playing "Cops and [Devils]" decided to make things a little more visceral and dig-out some caverns.

It is more likely that some aliens that were playing "Cops and [Devils]" decided to make things a little more visceral and dig-out some caverns.

Wow! This is the greatest piece of evidence you have offered so far! It's that, that, your head is full of some of the solidified iron that you brought back up the last time you were down there.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not so far off. The Revelation says that the devil will be released from the bottomless pit sometime. Hmmm.

 

Shouldn't you be in church reinforcing your brainwashing?  

The centre of the earth is a solid iron core.  Surrounding that core is molten metal.  We know this because we haven't been fried by the sun's radiation.

The only place on earth that could have a bottomless pit would be the center of the earth, where gravity would pull equally in all directions. So, maybe the Russians accidentally opened up part of the pit that goes DOWN, down, down, down... to the "bottom."

The temperature at the center of the earth is 10,000 degrees Farenheit, so 2,000 is not surprising. Plus at that temperature and depth, there would be a lot of pressure, and gasses trying to escape, so I wouldn't be surprised if that pressure moving things around sounded like weird noises some might think sound like screams.

Or it might just be a stupid story that a couple of scientists made up, since we have gone to those depths before and haven't had the same experience. (http://xkcd.com/1040/large/)

For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil drill gets oil from about the same depth as that hole the Russians dug, yet we just get oil. The Marianas Trench, the deepest part in the earth, is about as deep too, and we haven't found any "hell" when we went there either. At least James Cameron didn't say anything about seeing hell. Maybe he's hiding something.

According to legend, in 1989 a team of Russian scientists who were operating under the direction of Dr. Azzacove drilled a hole that was nine miles deep in an unnamed place in Siberia before breaking through into a cavity. Intrigued by this unexpected discovery, they lowered an extremely heat tolerant microphone, along with other sensory equipment, into the well. They listened and recorded (purportedly) the tormented screams of desperate people. The second surprise was the high temperature that they discovered at the earth's center, which was over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The conclusion was that they had opened a hole into Hell.

This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:

I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution.  Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence.  An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x.  Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know a priori that it's a logical impossibility.

1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions.   For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.

These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.'  Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist.  To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data.  This brings me to my second point...

2) As mentioned previously, a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible.  If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place.  Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.

Accordingly, we can look to see what types of a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set.  In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities.  Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium.  Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference .  If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence.  Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism.  He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic.  Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.  

The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality.  This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.  

I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical.  Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism.  Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing.  Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it.  Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein.  Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.

Good thing there's (possibly) always next time, if you so think