 |
 |
Simple question?
Thread Rating:
| October 17th, 2016 at 12:17:20 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18777 | Science when it's done right gives us a method to remove human bias. That's the main problem with belief alone even if it is well-meaning and not intentionally trying to be fraudulent. A double blind is the gold standard.
But even science wants multiple investigations with different investigators repeating the same results again and again. If a god would participate we could design a test. But no such luck. What does that leave us with? Not much, IMO. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| October 17th, 2016 at 6:17:02 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
With apologies to JMS: Observation and logic are like the shoes on your feet. You get farther with both than you would with just one. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| October 17th, 2016 at 6:39:19 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
As I've said a number of times before, it's like Sagan's quote on Venus. Venus is shrouded in a thick cloud cover that doesn't let us see its surface, Until the XX Century, that was all we could see or measure. In "Cosmos" Sagan constructs a chain of reasoning with one assumptions, that clouds on Venus are like clouds on Earth, and proceeds from there. He then ends with "Observation: there is absolutely nothing to be seen on Venus. Conclusion: it must be teeming with life." Here we see a similar attempt. We cannot see past a small instant after the Big Bang. Piling up assumptions like "it has a cause," "the cause must be non-contingent (and this subsumes the assumption that the universe is contingent)," and "it was God (whatever it is)." And then we can go on to say things like "Observation: there is nothing to be seen an instant after the Big Bang. Conclusion: Christianity is the truth. DO AS I COMMAND!" Sagan also points out the god must have needed a creator, who'd have needed a creator, who'd have needed a creator, etc. etc. It's creators all the way down! But he takes up the non-contingent argument as well: if the god has always existed, why bring up unnecessary, and evidentiary unsupported, entities? What in the evidence tells you the Universe hasn't always existed? We know what we found out about Venus. What will we find out about the universe and the Big Bang? BTW, I'm astounded the theists don't use the possible ultimate fates of the universe as "proof" of another one of their cherished beliefs. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| October 17th, 2016 at 6:39:39 AM permalink | |
| pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 |
|
| October 17th, 2016 at 6:55:25 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18777 |
Perhaps to theologians. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| October 17th, 2016 at 7:09:41 AM permalink | |
| pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | There can be no "force" outside of physics. Force is physics. What's outside of that is not actually a force but we use that term in order to form a picture in our minds eye. |
| October 17th, 2016 at 7:18:51 AM permalink | |
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 189 Posts: 18777 |
Any undiscovered or undiscoverable property is currently outside of physics. And if undiscoverable, it will remain outside of physics. For instance, it will be very difficult to ever investigate anything prior to the Big Bang, if such is even possible or meaningful. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
| October 17th, 2016 at 7:22:33 AM permalink | |
| pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | Totally agree. |
| October 17th, 2016 at 2:10:50 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
You get all that with 100% certainty from lack of knowledge of what happened at and before the Big Bang? You see, it's that kind of misuse of logic that has to have Aristotle spinning in his grave. Premise: everything that exists has a cause Premise: the universe exists Conclusion: therefore Christian Myth and Dogma are Divine Truth. Let alone that the first premise may not even be valid or true, how do manage to make a simple syllogism go so wrong? Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| October 17th, 2016 at 2:17:51 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
This is just bad philosophy that I'm glad he abandons for the next argument he presents.
Opps, again bad thinking. If you take Sagan's argument about having creators all the way down you can easily see why you need a non-contingent being. Such a being is necessary and logically required for there to be anything. As to what evidence tells us that the Universe hasn't always existed, again you have to ask the question what created matter and go backwards from there until you feel the logical need to stop the impossible infinite regress with a non-contingent being. By the way, even if you posit that somehow matter has always existed and is eternal you need to still answer why it is moving, changing, and literally vibrating with energy? This will take you down the tired and true path towards, you guessed it...an infinite regress unless you recognize the logical necessity of an unmoved mover. By the way we live in an unprecedented time in history when we have never had so much evidence that points to the universe having a beginning and a cause. These efforts to claim the Universe is eternal matter harkens back to the middle ages when with the lack of knowledge it was almost accepted that the Universe has always existed by scientists and theologians alike. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |