I love reading athiest drivel. These people are so quick to point out "scientific method" when Physics can't even explain gravity on a sub-atomic level. There are 5 proofs for super string theory, all of which give different answers. And they want to argue about the existence of reality?!? As Science knows it? There is no reality. We taint it with our perception. And if You take the time to look at quantum physics, Quantum physicists are admitting that there may not be any hard and fast evidence that anything in reality actually exists in a steady, observable state. If you think You know, then take a look at the two-slit experiment. Please explain why light acts as both a wave and a particle. And while you're at it, please feel free to explain how probability fits into this? There comes a time when science makes no sense. When the tools are no longer relevant, because they are incapable of observing the experiment, or the output is ambiguous at best. Read this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes sense to Me. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
Duh, to prove my existence, I hook myself up to a heart rate monitor, a brainwave monitor, a heat camera, whatever technical device you can come up with and have 10 scientists look at the displays. They will then conclude my existence based on tangible evidence and anyone would have a hard time disproving them. Falsifiabilty is the ability to even think of an outcome that would disprove a god, not to actually do so. This is what the scientific method requires. If you say "All swans are white", that statement is falsifiable by providing a black swan. The person making the claim has to provide a falsifying statement as well, otherwise the claim is unprovable and can't be taken seriously. How could you even disprove "a god exists"? Any falsifiable statement is sucked into the claim as e.g. "God's will to not reveal himself" etc. Any explanation that suggests no god actually exists is sucked into the claim as being "God's plan". This is not science, this is fairytales.
I find this post funny to a point. Not everything is explained by science but it is a proper tool to try as opposed to just using fairy dust to assume everything.
Sigh. If there came a time when science doesn't make sense, that would mean all current technology stops working, no scientific method works anymore and then what? People like you who don't understand science seem to think that science is set to arrive at an absolute truth at which point there is nothing more to know. Science lives on the fact that it has to be disproven to advance forward. When new observations don't fit the models, the scientific method is in full effect to provide new explanations and try to disprove them. That doesn't mean it's right to fill in any blanks with outlandish claims that go against all current knowledge. Sitting back and claiming to know what nobody else knows is the pinnacle of laziness and a cop-out. It's no wonder that religious thinking is favored by the intellectually lazy and low IQ population. And again, the hilarity of reading such a bashing of science on my monitor when you could be half across the globe, all made possible by the fact that science must work, otherwise it wouldn't be so.
@R29k: I'm not talking about "fairy dust". I'm pointing out scientific hypotheses made by nobel prize winning scientists. Have you read the article? I'll post a link again, because I don't believe that either you or TCM read the story. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god Science only goes so far. Reality is only real to a point. "Machines made of Meat"
Again, this assumes that the reader is a type of person who rests on knowledge instead of trying to acquire more of it. If, tomorrow, there was real evidence suggesting that we are all just mice in a lab of a part-time lab assistent who is playing with multiple universes in a petri dish to see how they turn out, I would be the first to welcome our newly-discovered overlord. However, since it's such an extraordinay claim and discovery, the evidence must be overwhelming. But if it were so, scientists would be the first to accept it. This is in contrast to people with a fixed set of beliefs, who aren't shaken by any facts that go against it. They sit on their mountain of fake knowledge and ignore reality.
Quantum Mechanics is queer at best, no one really understands it. I read that article ages ago. You see this bit. It's the queer impression that people get that Science is the anti-religion. It isn't for or against religion but is dependent on facts supporting whatever theory. Where there is no fact then no theory can stand, hence God can't stand as a theory in science. But it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it's just an unknown. Also you can't have a serious argument without proving facts and this thread is largely devoid of that.
science is nothing.. and hooking up to a heart monitor proves nothing at all... this morning my neighbour died.. good old guy, ~70+.. with the ugliest black gf you ever saw.. we said good morning only two days ago.. now hooking him up to a heart monitor proves he does not exist... but he was good one. where do you think i think he is now? in heaven? nope. in the refridgerated morgue... which goes to show that life is always one step ahead of science, and religion. just my 2 cents. sorry if the last few posts made me a bit cynical.
The most important field of science to understand why there probably is no god is not cosmology or physics, it's evolutionary science and biology. The need to see acting agents comes from times when we were apes in trees. Those apes who saw a predator when there was none and fled anyway, were more likely to survive than those who saw no predator when there really was one, and got eaten. So it's prefectly explainable why we have a tendency to see acting agents when there most likely are none. This is why science requires such rigorous methods to actually prove something. Search for confirmation bias, double blind tests and statistical mathematics etc. that are perfectly understood and highlight the flawed nature of humans and why real science must be aware of those flaws when coming to truth. And you want to tell me you don't have those flaws and see an absolute reality that no one can show evidence for. Yeah, that's likely...
What are you actually saying here? Yes, people die and it's sad. Yes, people die despite science. A lot more people don't die because of science. It's the way things currently are. Should we stop science because your neighbor died? I don't get the point. And yes, his body is in the morgue and nothing else. This might be frightening for some people, but for him, there is nothing more to worry about. Do you sometimes have sleep where you don't dream? You can't remember the exact moment you fell asleep and suddenly, hours later you wake up with no memory whatsoever of those hours, no dream, nothing, not even a dream you can't remember in detail but which you had anyway, not even that. This is what death is like, only without the waking part. I'm not afraid of death. Of dying maybe, but death? No.
oh, never mind, tcm.. my point was that all this talk about science seems a bit futile to me at the moment. sorry if i got off topic.
I do not argue to convince people that god is real. I argue to illustrate that people who deny a concept of god and think science has more affinity to reality/truth are not able to argue reasonable. They have nothing but an opinion. Science has determined itself what is real and whatnot. In fact it is a restriction per se. Science applies there where it has its sense. This has absolutely nothing to do with reality/truth though. BTW: That is not a prove of your existence. You are observing a heart rate monitor, a brainwave monitor, a heat camera, whatever technical device ......10 scientists who look at the displays saying that you exist, also pointing on objects which are not you. All these things observed are not you, the observer.
Your implied claim is that "you" are not just a function of your body and signals in your brain, that you are somehow a universal observer capable of functioning outside your body, which - again- is contrary to all current knowledge. If you hate your body so much that you want to be distinct from it, that seems to be a medical condition worth treating, but not a hint at some outside universal truth with no evidence. I, however, see myself proven by looking in the mirror and having my bio signals checked by independent observers whose existence I also acknowledge.
Ah the boundaries of our reality and the amazing predicament we find ourselves in ... Take smallness for example. The subatomic world. Consider the simplest atom of all, the hydrogen atom. Represented by a nucleus of a single proton, surrounded by a single electron. The hydrogen atom is approximately 10-8 cm in diameter. Its nucleus is approximately 10-13 cm in diameter. The ratio of these diameters is 10-8/10-13, or 105. The diameter of the atom, thus, is about 100,000 times larger than that of its nucleus. If you were making this model to scale, using a golf ball to represent the nucleus, the electron would have to be over three miles away! For the area covered, that length needs to be squared: (105)2; for the volume involved, it must be cubed: (105)3 or 1015!!!!!!! The significance of this volume is extremely difficult for anyone to fully grasp: the nucleus of the atom has the same relationship to the space that the atom occupies as one second has to 30 MILLION YEARS!!!! The ostensible solidity of matter (the very chair you’re sitting on) simply results from the electrical collisions of the molecules involved. Our apparent virtual “reality” actually results from an electrical simulation. We inherently assume that we can always divide any length, no matter how small. If we take a length of string (or whatever) and cut it in half, we can take the remaining half and divide it again. We assume that we could do that indefinitely, always dividing the remainder. Even when it becomes too small to actually divide it in practice, we presume that (conceptually at least) this could go on indefinitely. When it gets down to 10-33 cm., it loses a property that physicists call locality. The minimum unit Planck length. The insights of Dr. Albert Einstein (that time itself is a physical property) and that it is not uniform, nor absolute, nor linear. That time varies with mass, acceleration and gravity is astounding and REALLY opens up Pandora's Box ... It was Einstein’s realization that we don’t live only in our familiar three dimensions, but we live in at least four. (Three spatial dimensions plus time) Advanced physicists now suggest that we apparently live in 10 dimensions. Four are directly measurable, six are "curled" in such a way that they are only inferable by indirect means. Science now knows that length, mass, energy, and even time itself, are all composed of indivisible units, called quanta. (quantum physics) It appears that we may indeed be entrapped within a finite envelope which is, itself, simply an elaborate digital, simulated, virtual reality.
And when you add quantum mechanics to the mix, things get really wierd. For instance, take Gravity. On a macro-cosmic level, newtons equations make perfect sense. However, on an atomic scale, Newtons laws fall apart where gravity is concerned. To this day, We still have not been able to unify the 4 forces in one all-encompassing theorem. Quantum gravity show promise, but is by no means complete http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/ http://www.aei.mpg.de/18228/03_Quantum_Gravity_and_Unified_Theories http://aeon.co/magazine/science/the-search-for-quantum-gravity/
@ausernamenoonehas: please don't go further or TCM will realize that "science" as he knows it is just a...fairy tale. You just "broke" his mirrors. That's not fair. @Michaela Joy: please don't put another "nail in the coffin". @TCM: sir, please ignore these "rants" and continue your "scientific" discourse.