How about a liger instead of a mule?
Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 6. (Read 7927 times)
How about a liger instead of a mule?
I'm no scientist, but I'll disprove god with one picture that I made.
God is all knowing, he knows the future, the past, everything that will happen. He gave the words to write the bible, correctly how everything will work out with the future.
Explain this image.
God is all knowing, he knows the future, the past, everything that will happen. He gave the words to write the bible, correctly how everything will work out with the future.
Explain this image.
Hmm.. So the mule is the proof of the non existence of God. Interesting................. Hmmm....
I'm no scientist, but I'll disprove god with one picture that I made.
God is all knowing, he knows the future, the past, everything that will happen. He gave the words to write the bible, correctly how everything will work out with the future.
Explain this image.
God is all knowing, he knows the future, the past, everything that will happen. He gave the words to write the bible, correctly how everything will work out with the future.
Explain this image.
Actually if you are referring to the God described in the Bible his existence has be disproven many times. I find it funny how easy is to call someone a lunatic now if he says he is talking to a cat, burning thingy hears voices.... but person who did that few K years ago is a god....
What was the scientific methodology to disprove it "many times"?
Science can, and does, disprove that god made the universe.
Here is another term that's very problematic in such discussions: What is the universe? Mostly it refers to our "big bang bubble" we observe. But what if there's a Multiverse? Many scientists in fact do propose that such a concept might exist, although the term makes no sense, as "universe" should already mean "all there is", but apparently doesn't. But anyway, how did that multiverse come into existence then? So the questioning just goes on. And who knows what else might exist "out there". So what the hell do we know.
I'm not sure I buy into the multiverse theory either as I tend to believe all the real estate is here and now. However, the superposition of all the possibilities are multiplicit all-be-it a massless virtual universes. What could have been and what might be for as far as the third eye can see.
The idea that we have to even argue this religion versus science thing is why America is slipping in world power. If you pit your religion against science you won't survive. It's like arguing owning a car invalidates owning a house. One has nothing to do with the other. I personally believe that science exists because we are supposed to learn more and understand more. Evolution, chemistry, and physics are all to me can only validate my beliefs.
Only thing that can ever disprove God is individual empirical integrity.
Actually if you are referring to the God described in the Bible his existence has be disproven many times. I find it funny how easy is to call someone a lunatic now if he says he is talking to a cat, burning thingy hears voices.... but person who did that few K years ago is a god....
I didn't deny that it may have been evolutionary advantageous, I simply pointed out that it could just as easily have been supplanted by critical thinking skills instead. Which leaves it's advantage as being 'in spite of', rather than 'because of'.
I agree that critical thinking skills are preferable, but my argument was that religion was easier, and therefore necessary as a stepping stone that can now be safely abandoned. Rather than being an obstacle that delayed our development of critical thinking and widespread moral reasoning, I would argue that crude, simplistic, religious moral rules played a role in creating the kind of (relatively) peaceful and prosperous societies which allowed more of the population to have the necessary prosperity and leisure time to philosophise and independently develop robust moral values.
Consensus amongst the best researchers in a given field is only valid if the reasoning behind the consensus stands up for itself.
While this is fundamentally true, it is somewhat arrogant to assume your skill at reviewing evolutionary biology research (i.e. your ability to determine whether or not "the reasoning stands up for itself") is on a par with some-one who has spent a career studying it. Not everyone has the time or resources to independently verify (e.g.) General Relativity for themselves, but we trust in its validity because a consensus of scientists agree that it is the best fit for the available evidence, and we have no reason to believe that they are incompetent or deceptive. So too with the consensus on the evolutionary explanation for religiosity.
blah blah making-shit-up(tm)
For my sanity, please copy and use making-shit-up™. Or just drop your confrontational tone all together, whichever works for you.
Can "Zero" exist in the universe by itself? I know I have zero cookies left because of how the state was, just before the last cookie was gone. But can you trap absolute "nothingness" in a box without being defined by the stuff it is not anymore? I am guessing "zero" is the thing the expansion of the universe hasn't touch yet. I can't really imagine what "not yet" is. If the universe is a bubble, then "zero" would be the infinitely small state between the "skin" of that bubble, and the state that hasn't been defined yet.
A need for a universe to expand infinitely cannot be explained. A need for a consciousness to expand infinitely makes as much sense. And yet here we are.
I did look back and didn't see a solid rebuttal which is why I asked you to quote it/them for me.
:head-desk: Eesh, you're really gonna make me hold your hand and walk you through it then?
Fine, on we go:
'Absolute' truth is 'that which is'.
So, you will concede at this point that your use of 'absolute truth', as opposed to simply employing the term 'truth', was superfluous hyperbole and entirely unwarranted, yes?Now, in terms of your particular raison d'etre, philosophy or, as I prefer to call it, pretentious navel-gazing rhetoric - Let's look at your attempt to employ argument from abstraction, such as math, as equal to that which is observable and measurable via the scientific method.
Using abstract concepts as the basis for believing you are emplying objective reasoning *outside* of the realms by which the scientific method can be employed, namely, the observable, measurable and testable reality that is our Universe, unfortunately misses one rather important fact or, to use your word, truth.
Abstraction is derived from actual, tangible, measurable, observable, things. You know, those things what the scientific method gone done and got all clever on your ass about, to your chagrin.
Abstract concepts, such as math, generally represent things that actually exist or are a stated quantity of undefined 'things' for the purposes of mathematics and, when they do not represent things which actually exist, guess what they are?
That's right, they're arbitrary made-up-shit(tm) from our imagination and entirely devoid of any objective value whatsoever (other than entertainment). They may be pretty, like the flower is pretty but without the physical flower or a representation of such with which we can base the abstract notion of floral 'prettiness' on, you're fucked.
So your philosophical word-salad about 'truth' and 'God' is just as irrelevant as it is intellectual dishonest because, as much as you want your abstraction to stand up on it's own, it doesn't.
Abstraction that is not derived from substance is not reasoning, it is speculating.
There's definitely a lot of emotional language in here. But I just want to point out a couple of things:
* 'abstraction', the term, as used in math and philosophy is concretely defined (see the lambda calculus for a very generalized defnition). in a sense abstraction is exactly what science does: it boils observables down to explantory (yet directly unobservable) principles. For example: you drop an apple from a given height (this implies you come to agreement about what you mean by 'apple', 'height', 'drop', etc). You do this repeatedly. You record the time it takes for the apple to the the surface below it (this assumes you come to agrement about what you mean by 'time' (hint: counting the oscillations of a cesium atom may help)). You find that the value you come up with for this example is repeatably equal. Then, here's where the abstraction comes in: you define the abstraction of 'gravity', you posit that this explains observable phenomena related to the acceleration of the fruit in your experiments. You feel especially satisifed when your result generalizes to all objects (not just fruit!). Thus, gravity is an abstraction, and very much a scientific notion.
Okay maybe i'll leave off there. It seemed like these discussants weren't taking into account the fact that abstractions are relevant to scientific systems---especially where abstractions provide generalizations over directly observable phenonmena. This is the crucial part, the grounding out in observables. If you don't meet that criterion, you're in the realm of metaphysics and supernatural---by definition outside of science.
2) I'm not really sure why you took issue with the term 'absolute truth' or how it relates in any way to what I said.
The question is, is this ignorance wilful?
if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.
You are employing the term 'absolute truth' disingenuously if you cannot clearly define a difference between it and plain vanilla 'truth'. So, as you've already agreed, the word 'truth' is only ever describing 'that which is'. Care to explain the purpose of renaming 'that which is' to 'God', or 'x', or 'Allah'?
If 'that which is' can be established by way of abstraction derived from the literal (the observable, measurable, testable) then the scientific method is applicable to the literal, in order for the abstraction to qualify as a component of a 'reasoning' process.
Otherwise, in cases where the abstraction is not derived from the literal but is, instead, solely figurative a notion, such as 'God', 'Allah' or, for that matter, 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', then one is back to the school of making-shit-up(tm) which, while entertaining and occasionally useful a part of human imagination, is utterly devoid of reasoning as it is solely speculative and wildly speculative at that.
2) Please tell me how science can explore something abstract (hint: it can't).
So, with regards to this assertion, I remind my learned friend that, for abstract concepts to form part of a reasoning process, they must be derived from the literal, not solely the figurative and, therefore, that which is derived from the observable, measurable and testable, is well within the domain of the scientific method.Which leads me to dismiss everything else you're trying to claim for your argument about the, supposed, validity of the abstraction in reasoning and critical thinking because, as highlighted, abstraction from the figurative is speculation, not reasoning.
As for your comment that the 'God' concept can be asserted as, "Plausible, but incapable of being explore [through science]", how's my 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' doing then on the plausibility-o-meter? Or quantum elephant wings? Or . . .or . . .
So we're back to making-shit-up(tm) and claiming that it is equally as valid a hypothesis on the basis that, hey, it's 'plausible'?
How much energy should our species expend in the study of everything that is plausible by way of figurative abstraction?
You have some of the most selective reading skills I've ever seen. You conveniently ignore every knock-down argument. This is obvious because everything you just said, I refuted.
Please rebut my arguments point by point. Here's what you missed:
- You are asking if I am willfully ignorant of an argument that you interjected against a strawman -- so yes, because it's not relevant to what I said.
- I then clarified the distinction in detail, but your response indicates you didn't read why distinctions between certain kinds of truths are necessary at times; it depends on the vantage point you take in the argument. Then you outright lie by saying that I 'agree' there is no distinction even when I addressed the issue over several paragraphs.
- You are flat out wrong that a metric is derived from the literal because a metric is required to define the literal! To even be capable of observing a given conditional state requires invoking a metric first which fundamentally allows you to identify the condition as separate from all others.
- This fact (I.e. that introducing an abstract metric precedes the identification/measurement of a conditional event) renders virtually all of your other arguments invalid.
When I get home from work and have access to a computer, I will rebut your claims point by point, something that you are avoiding to do due to your selective reading.
my argument was that religion was easier, and therefore necessary as a stepping stone
Your hypothesis being based on what, exactly? That our species has a history whereby religion plays a large part in how we imagined our reality, therefore, religion was necessary? You're still speculating about something you are assuming to be true without actually testing whether it is true.It makes more sense to assume that there are far healthier alternatives that our species might have enjoyed instead, compared to religion, as useful psychological stepping-stones towards developing critical thinking skills. Which leaves your argument about religion being a necessity, incorrect.
While this is fundamentally true, it is somewhat arrogant to assume your skill at reviewing evolutionary biology research . . .Not everyone has the time or resources . . . .we trust in its validity because a consensus of scientists agree that it is the best fit for the available evidence,
Where did I say that scientific general consensus had no function? I didn't. I simply pointed out that you can't prove anything by way of general consensus and the appeal-to-authority is often conflated with general consensus and presented as being some kind of proof of validity, namely, X number of people believe Y to be true and, because a proportion of X also happen to be highly-qualified researchers on the subject of Y, there must be some validity to the notion of Y being true.Theists frequently cite senior academic theologians by way of appeal-to-authority and consensus, without acknowledging that the consensus is based on made-up-shitTM - See, I even did the 'sup' code for you, how can you possibly claim I am being confrontational when, in fact, I am being derisive.
2) I'm not really sure why you took issue with the term 'absolute truth' or how it relates in any way to what I said.
The question is, is this ignorance wilful?
if you can prove absolute truth exists (this is ludicrously easy as any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence), and you set 'absolute truth'='God' or 'x' or 'Allah' or whatever else, then you're no longer speculating -- instead, you are reasoning about something that is demonstrably provable.
You are employing the term 'absolute truth' disingenuously if you cannot clearly define a difference between it and plain vanilla 'truth'. So, as you've already agreed, the word 'truth' is only ever describing 'that which is'. Care to explain the purpose of renaming 'that which is' to 'God', or 'x', or 'Allah'?
If 'that which is' can be established by way of abstraction derived from the literal (the observable, measurable, testable) then the scientific method is applicable to the literal, in order for the abstraction to qualify as a component of a 'reasoning' process.
Otherwise, in cases where the abstraction is not derived from the literal but is, instead, solely figurative a notion, such as 'God', 'Allah' or, for that matter, 'Invisible Pink Unicorns', then one is back to the school of making-shit-up(tm) which, while entertaining and occasionally useful a part of human imagination, is utterly devoid of reasoning as it is solely speculative and wildly speculative at that.
2) Please tell me how science can explore something abstract (hint: it can't).
So, with regards to this assertion, I remind my learned friend that, for abstract concepts to form part of a reasoning process, they must be derived from the literal, not solely the figurative and, therefore, that which is derived from the observable, measurable and testable, is well within the domain of the scientific method.Which leads me to dismiss everything else you're trying to claim for your argument about the, supposed, validity of the abstraction in reasoning and critical thinking because, as highlighted, abstraction from the figurative is speculation, not reasoning.
As for your comment that the 'God' concept can be asserted as, "Plausible, but incapable of being explore [through science]", how's my 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' doing then on the plausibility-o-meter? Or quantum elephant wings? Or . . .or . . .
So we're back to making-shit-up(tm) and claiming that it is equally as valid a hypothesis on the basis that, hey, it's 'plausible'?
How much energy should our species expend in the study of everything that is plausible by way of figurative abstraction?
It's funny to me how many folks misunderstand the notions 'science' and the notion of 'God' (as popularly accepted) in that they don't see that by definition, the two don't really interact. Science requies observation, measurment, repeatibilty. God is usually defined as not being directly observable, so that just takes him/her/it out of the picture right there. If your notion of God *is* measureable, then I think it's a nonstandard sort of God because it's no longer a super-natural notion your talking about. I don't have any belief in a supernatural beings, but my nonbelief has nothing to do with scientific experiments. On the other hand, I don't believe that black rats (Rattus rattus) have wings with which to fly, but that nonbelief is based on repeatable observation, so you could say it's grounded in scientific experiment (although in this case the experiment is a little to basic to worry about --- simply look for wings on the nearest rat).
Actually, science can make a definitive statement about God precisely because it is not measurable, "Plausible, but incapable being explored [through science]."
Of course science doesn't disprove God. But scientists aren't the ones with the burden of proof in the first place.
I have to agree with this. Science is not meant to disprove god either, it is meant to delve into a greater understanding nature, the universe and humanity. But in doing so it challenges dogmatic belief religion often relies on.
All scientific questions though must begin with a question based on skepticism, not an assumption based on belief, if you want to prove god exists, you cannot assume it does from a scientific basis. The point being no one has methodically proved god exists through scientific methodologies. Nor is science all that concerned about that question, it is however concerned with explaining natural phenomenon. I think this is where science and religion butt heads, where one says god and relies on dogmatic belief for explaining nature, the other put's forth rational explanations of the way things work through experimentation, analysis, replication, and the scrutiny of peer review.
When it gets down to it, some people have a difficult time handling what science reveals, as they are more dogmatic in their psychology.
It's funny to me how many folks misunderstand the notions 'science' and the notion of 'God' (as popularly accepted) in that they don't see that by definition, the two don't really interact. Science requies observation, measurment, repeatibilty. God is usually defined as not being directly observable, so that just takes him/her/it out of the picture right there. If your notion of God *is* measureable, then I think it's a nonstandard sort of God because it's no longer a super-natural notion your talking about. I don't have any belief in a supernatural beings, but my nonbelief has nothing to do with scientific experiments. On the other hand, I don't believe that black rats (Rattus rattus) have wings with which to fly, but that nonbelief is based on repeatable observation, so you could say it's grounded in scientific experiment (although in this case the experiment is a little to basic to worry about --- simply look for wings on the nearest rat).
I'm sure they are finding it rather hard to disprove the unknown so they have to make it all up as they go and ignore anything that discredits their reality.
I did look back and didn't see a solid rebuttal which is why I asked you to quote it/them for me.
:head-desk: Eesh, you're really gonna make me hold your hand and walk you through it then?
Fine, on we go:
'Absolute' truth is 'that which is'.
So, you will concede at this point that your use of 'absolute truth', as opposed to simply employing the term 'truth', was superfluous hyperbole and entirely unwarranted, yes?Now, in terms of your particular raison d'etre, philosophy or, as I prefer to call it, pretentious navel-gazing rhetoric - Let's look at your attempt to employ argument from abstraction, such as math, as equal to that which is observable and measurable via the scientific method.
Using abstract concepts as the basis for believing you are emplying objective reasoning *outside* of the realms by which the scientific method can be employed, namely, the observable, measurable and testable reality that is our Universe, unfortunately misses one rather important fact or, to use your word, truth.
Abstraction is derived from actual, tangible, measurable, observable, things. You know, those things what the scientific method gone done and got all clever on your ass about, to your chagrin.
Abstract concepts, such as math, generally represent things that actually exist or are a stated quantity of undefined 'things' for the purposes of mathematics and, when they do not represent things which actually exist, guess what they are?
That's right, they're arbitrary made-up-shit(tm) from our imagination and entirely devoid of any objective value whatsoever (other than entertainment). They may be pretty, like the flower is pretty but without the physical flower or a representation of such with which we can base the abstract notion of floral 'prettiness' on, you're fucked.
So your philosophical word-salad about 'truth' and 'God' is just as irrelevant as it is intellectual dishonest because, as much as you want your abstraction to stand up on it's own, it doesn't.
Abstraction that is not derived from substance is not reasoning, it is speculating.
Responding to each group of text in order (Edit: I don't know how to count
).1) Please recognize that you introduced the passive-aggressive behavior, and I'm happy to return the favor (I'm sure we both are feeling this is okay since we both 'know' the other is incorrect). I'm a big boy and can cross the street on my own, but I'll come back and get you. I like holding hands.
2) I'm not really sure why you took issue with the term 'absolute truth' or how it relates in any way to what I said. You seem to be introducing your own argument here. In any case, just because I used 'absolute truth' and 'truth' interchangeably by their respective definitions, it doesn't mean the distinction in name isn't necessary at times.
If you had asked me what relative truth is, I would have said "that which is." Both practically and technically, this is correct. However, depending on the frame of reference (e.g. are you talking as though you are a person?; the Universe as a whole?), the definition of each *could* yield an extended annotation.
If you're talking from the vantage point of a subjective, stratified, information-processor (e.g. a person), you would say that 'relative truth' is "that which is." However, from the same vantage point, you would say that 'absolute truth' is something to the effect of "that which is for the set of all sets and for all subjective, stratified, information-processors and conditions both simultaneously and independently...etc."
If you're talking from the vantage point of the Universe as a whole, you would say that 'absolute truth' is "that which is." However, from the same vantage point, you would say that 'relative truth' is something to the effect of "that which is for a subjective, stratified, information-processor."
3) More passive-aggressiveness when you start speaking bilingually in the same sentence. I'm sure you're aware that "measurement" requires a "metric" which is a totally abstract construction. Here's an example: If we measure space using a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous; if we measure space using a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous. Holy shit, Batman! We just came to two totally different conclusions about a property integral to the very nature of space, and both are equally valid! Welcome to your own version of the tower of turtles that you fail to realize you employ. No worries, though -- there is a way to avoid the problem of 'mathematical uncertainty' (i.e. the problem of choosing the best of two-or-more equally-plausible theories). When you apologize for the passive-aggressiveness, I'll tell you.
The scientific method quite literally depends on abstract principles, and even faith-based assumptions (e.g. there is exactly *zero* evidence that we live in a Positivistic Universe). Theories that are formulated in science are mathematical constructs, but yet the scientific method *must* remove all mathematical constructs from the content of its own theories. Thus, it is impossible through science to even formulate a theory about the nature of scientific theories!
Here's a freebie: If you want to begin to formulate any comprehensive theory about the Universe, you really need to start with a theory of theories.
4) Let me model this for you: Philosophy is the most comprehensive discipline (aside from, arguably, language) as it yields the tools inherent in every other discipline. Philosophy branches into mathematics (abstract) and physics (physical). Science is a method of knowledge acquisition linking mathematics and physics.
It's interesting to note that science is not a discipline, but rather a method that utilizes both mathematics and physics; mathematics provides abstract metrics which we utilize to measure the physical world. Mathematics itself is more comprehensive and generalized than the tools the scientist has at his disposal, and he forfeits much of the glory of mathematics (and more generally, language). A mathematician can do all the work he needs without any tools from the scientist, but the scientist would be stuck without the mathematician. Science is great for many things including technology development that greatly increases our quality of life, but I suspect it is also a passive-aggressive jerk, like you (I'm sure you also do many great things, and I mean that genuinely), as it never gives the mathematician the credit he deserves (i.e. no theories about math can be formed) even after stealing all his damn tools!
5) I'd stop you here and tell you to go back to what I said about metrics, but I'm sure you're going to tell me anyway...
6) ...I was right! My response is, "Go back to what I said about metrics." But, it sounds like you don't think it matters that measurement itself is enabled by something silly and nonsensical like an arbitrary "made-up-shit" metric. Go ahead, try to utilize the scientific method without one. Tell me how far you get.
7) It's not irrelevant or intellectually dishonest, and I'm showing you why.
So then WHY do you keep using damn metrics?!?!?! 
if you try to proof a believe than you would turn believing into knowing... in other words you believe when you do not know and you do not believe if you know...
Jump to: