Moderator: Moderators
You've lost me there. Sure there are winners and losers in Rio right now, but that doesn't apply to Christianity, there is no earthy way to know who is winning and who is losing.theStudent wrote: Your point hasn't changed, neither has mine. There are winners, and there are losers. There are rules.
That's being played out in Rio, right now.
The laws of logic:
identity - A is A.
non-contradictory - A cannot be A, and yet not be A.
excluded middle - A is either A, or it is not.
That doesn't help you one bit - you claimed scientists are fine with Greek and Roman gods but not okay with the Christian God. That is clearly false, all the more so if they can be proven to be mythical.All Greek and Roman gods, can be proven to be mythical.
Not sure you are trying to say here.So now you are saying, you know?
Okay, there is no gain in touching this. I can't know for you.
Well how about sticking to the common views of what science is instead of making up new meanings?I already acknowledged your view on that.
However, in my thread, I referred to what science is.
As regards what's natural, persons have their views on that too.
Yes, a very high possibility actually.Concerning energy/matter...
Carl Sagan says:At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.
He refers to the change from that state to the present universe asSo there is a possible theory that the universe could have come into existence through a transformation of energy and matter. That is a possibility, is it?the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.
The word "create" implies a creator. You are already predispose towards a god with that claim.That could be considered scientific evidence - that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe.
But the universe has became more and more chaotic as time passes.Also, the universe started organized, and continues ordered.
Astrophysicist Alan Lightman acknowledged that scientists— why the universe has not become chaotic....find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.
...any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem
A very dense state.Reason and logic tells us that a mere explosion doesn't produce such results. (although they claim there was no bang, just expansion - expansion from what?
Spec-spec-speculation, backed up with empirical evidence. That's what makes it scientific.A speck smaller than the smallest part of an atom. How do they know this? The same way they "know" there was a LUCA. Spec-spec-speculation... as usual.)
Don't see how you jumped to that conclusion.Hence, there is scientific evidence that a lawgiver would be the source of the laws, and order, that govern the universe.
There is therefore, a wealth of scientific evidence that supports an intelligent creator/designer.
That's moot since none of them can come up with any scientific evidence for their claim.Such evidence has moved many leading scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and a Creator...
This isn't a matter of opinion. That's what makes science the best tool we have for explaining the universe we live in, that's what makes science the greatest endeavour humanity have partake in.If this is not scientific evidence, then it is clear... we have none.
However, in our view, we do have scientific evidence of a creator.
It's of course, not my intention to change the views of others who hold to a different view.
I think you and I have a different views on what facts are too. I suggest you stick to dictionary definitions.The FACTS show that we do.
Look in the NASA article, it goes into enough detail on what they have actually measured empirically re: gravitational lensing. Re: cause of the big bang, we don't know, cosmology is still in the hypothesis state.What's the empirical evidence for dark matter? Gravitational laws?
What's the empirical evidence for the cause of the Big Bang Theory? A natural cause?
Whatever gave you the impression that I've forgetting the multiverse theory? Yes they have came up with a falsifiable hypothesis that our universe spun off of multiple universes. What of it?You're forgetting the multiverse theory.
Our universe began.
Yet they come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that our universe spun off of multiple universes?
That depends on exactly which particular hypothesis you are talking about, but basically, the same way this universe begin.Did those universes begin?
All you need to convince scientists of God, IS empirical evidence, they WILL accept it no matter how much they dislike the idea. Was multiverses supposed to somehow debunk that?Sounds to me like a "where did God come from" situation.
So[strike]All you need to convince scientists of God, is empirical evidence, they will accept it no matter how much they dislike the idea.[/strike]
We are moving on, hence multiverse.We do not know how the first cause always existed. Nor do we need to know imho, and I believe, nor can we know, because that would mean that we are no longer human. Since we would need super intelligence to comprehend.
So scientists, imo, are "chasing the wind".
Imo, they should accept the facts.
The facts are, the first cause is, and it is the source of dynamic energy, responsible for our existence. Now they should move on.
Let just say the general population isn't as good as discerning knowledge from mere beliefs than those other 10%.Why is it that persons refer to the first cause as God?
Is it because it rolled off the top of their head, and it sounded nice - hence God?
Nada.
It is because, the Bible, which is available to +90% of the world's population, and which people came to trust, because of it proving to be reliable, said "God did it." The Bible says God is the first cause.
It also says a whole lot of other things, which many people realize to be reliable.
Hence, people believe what the Bible says, and are convinced it contains the answers to the scientists - "don't know"s.
You are moving away form your topic, which is about being scientific.I have already demonstrated that the Bible is credible, by using two major kinds of sources, to establish the facts and information that represent the most accurate version of events.
These are the primary sources - accounts of people who were there, and secondary sources - documentation and analysis of primary sources and other relevant information after the fact.
Zeus, Hercules, Thor and most other gods are depicted not creator gods, compare apples to apples and focus on the ones who are said to be creators.With regard to the questions on why the creator cannot be gods such as Zeus, Hercules, Thor, and all the other Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian gods, etc.
The God of the Bible is not said to be created, nor is the God of the Bible said to be a material deity, such as the sun moon stars, or other elements.
The Bible says that God is the only true and living God, unlike the mythological gods, created and attended to by mortals.
Metaphysics.Which of the following is not science.
- Neurophysiology
- Neuroscience
- Psychology
- Metaphysics
I have as much evidence that any GOD exists as SANTA exists.theStudent wrote:
For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:
[*]God does not exist.
Oh, in books, too.
Show me a miracle happening, and that it's not REALLY a natural event... then I will bother to consider the claim that miracles do actually occur.. ( or did )
It reads like a book of myths and... other kinds of stories.
Really? Go aheadtheStudent wrote: All Greek and Roman gods, can be proven to be mythical.
Please respond to the above.
I'm still waiting on your reply to my post 189 below:
RonE wrote:
[Replying to post 183 by theStudent]
Why would you say "you already got it"? When you recognize that what you presented is not scientifically credible?theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 173 by RonE]
If this is all you want, you already got it.scientifically credible evidence
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.Actually, where we are is with you having failed to provide evidence to back up your claims of a supernatural, all powerful god who is the "intelligent designer". So there are two options for you, either retract your claims or support them with the evidence I requested.I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.
Perhaps there might be a time when more can be said after a few things are presented.
But for now, we are at a sort of... I don't know... back and forth?
It's time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof of your claims.
While I get a thrill to see someone quoting Carl, even his opinion on what might have occurred in the big bang does not scientific evidence.So there is a possible theory that the universe could have come into existence through a transformation of energy and matter. That is a possibility, is it?
That could be considered scientific evidence - that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe.
Wow, sure has become an "upside-down" world where people have to apologize for saying the truth!Kenisaw wrote:This is a blatant lie, and you ought to apologize to everyone for making it...theStudent wrote:
The Bible is only an arms length away, and we don't have to wait years to get solid reliable facts, that do not change, over time. Christians know full well, why that is the case.
They have the evidence.
Oh yes there is.Bust Nak wrote:You've lost me there. Sure there are winners and losers in Rio right now, but that doesn't apply to Christianity, there is no earthy way to know who is winning and who is losing.
I don't know why you think I need help.Bust Nak wrote:That doesn't help you one bit - you claimed scientists are fine with Greek and Roman gods but not okay with the Christian God. That is clearly false, all the more so if they can be proven to be mythical.
I simply made a general statement. It was not specifying any particular gods.scientists are fine with Greek and Roman gods but not okay with the Christian God
I have done my research.Gather all their interviews, and listen to them. They do have a god and religion, but not - definitely not the "Judeo-Christian God and religion. Any other god and religion is fine.
Bust Nak wrote:Well how about sticking to the common views of what science is instead of making up new meanings?
Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasize the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.
The English word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century.
Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers.
While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others)...
Are you applying this to the scientists that speak of the creation of the universe, who don't even believe in a God creator?Bust Nak wrote:The word "create" implies a creator. You are already predispose towards a god with that claim.
Could you provide evidence of this please.Bust Nak wrote:But the universe has became more and more chaotic as time passes.
Where is the empirical evidence?Bust Nak wrote:Spec-spec-speculation, backed up with empirical evidence. That's what makes it scientific.
Pardon me?Bust Nak wrote:Zeus, Hercules, Thor and most other gods are depicted not creator gods, compare apples to apples and focus on the ones who are said to be creators.
Fine. Thanks.Bust Nak wrote:Metaphysics.
Psychology is a Hub ScienceNeuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. Traditionally, neuroscience is recognized as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, cognitive science, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine (including neurology), genetics, and allied disciplines including philosophy, physics, and psychology. It also exerts influence on other fields, such as neuroeducation, neuroethics, and neurolaw. The term neurobiology is often used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system, whereas the latter refers to the entire science of the nervous system (thus can include elements of psychology as well as the purely physical sciences).
Dualism (philosophy of mind)
Argument from neuroscience
In some contexts, the decisions that a person makes can be detected up to 10 seconds in advance by means of scanning their brain activity. Furthermore, subjective experiences and covert attitudes can be detected, as can mental imagery. This is strong empirical evidence that cognitive processes have a physical basis in the brain.
Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.[
[quote][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w ... ve science is the interdisciplinary, scientific study of the mind and its processes. It examines the nature, the tasks, and the functions of cognition. Cognitive scientists study intelligence and behavior, with a focus on how nervous systems represent, process, and transform information. Mental faculties of concern to cognitive scientists include perception, language, memory, attention, reasoning, and emotion; to understand these faculties, cognitive scientists borrow from fields such as psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology. The analyses typical of cognitive science span many levels of organization, from learning and decision to logic and planning; from neural circuitry to modular brain organization. The fundamental concept of cognitive science is that "thinking can best be understood in terms of representational structures in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures."Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind. Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists — at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. Psychology has been described as a "hub science", with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, humanities, and philosophy.
Psychologists take an empirical approach to causality, investigating how people and non-human animals detect or infer causation from sensory information, prior experience and innate knowledge.
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature. Reason, or as aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality. And a distinction is sometimes made between discursive reason, reason proper, and intuitive reason.
Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.
A thought experiment considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.
The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).
Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Discovery (observation) is the act of detecting something new, or something "old" that had been unknown. With reference to sciences and academic disciplines, discovery is the observation of new phenomena, new actions, or new events and providing new reasoning to explain the knowledge gathered through such observations with previously acquired knowledge from abstract thought and everyday experiences. A discovery may sometimes be based on earlier discoveries, collaborations, or ideas. Some discoveries represent a radical breakthrough in knowledge or technology.
History of anthropology
There was a tendency in late eighteenth century Enlightenment thought to understand human society as natural phenomena that behaved according to certain principles and that could be observed empirically. In some ways, studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was not unlike studying the flora and fauna of those places.
Anthropology, that is to say the science that treats of man, is divided ordinarily and with reason into Anatomy, which considers the body and the parts, and Psychology, which speaks of the soul.
Waitz defined anthropology as "the science of the nature of man". By nature he meant matter animated by "the Divine breath"; i.e., he was an animist. Following Broca's lead, Waitz points out that anthropology is a new field, which would gather material from other fields, but would differ from them in the use of comparative anatomy, physiology, and psychology to differentiate man from "the animals nearest to him". He stresses that the data of comparison must be empirical, gathered by experimentation. The history of civilization as well as ethnology are to be brought into the comparison. It is to be presumed fundamentally that the species, man, is a unity, and that "the same laws of thought are applicable to all men".
I'll use a very basic explanation for this:Procedural knowledge, also known as imperative knowledge, is the knowledge exercised in the performance of some task. See below for the specific meaning of this term in cognitive psychology and intellectual property law.
Procedural knowledge is different from other kinds of knowledge, such as declarative knowledge, in that it can be directly applied to a task. For instance, the procedural knowledge one uses to solve problems differs from the declarative knowledge one possesses about problem solving because this knowledge is formed by doing.
Artificial intelligence
In artificial intelligence, procedural knowledge is one type of knowledge that can be possessed by an intelligent agent. Such knowledge is often represented as a partial or complete finite-state machine or computer program. A well-known example is the Procedural Reasoning System, which might, in the case of a mobile robot that navigates in a building, contain procedures such as "navigate to a room" or "plan a path".
In artificial intelligence, a procedural reasoning system (PRS) is a framework for constructing real-time reasoning systems that can perform complex tasks in dynamic environments. It is based on the notion of a rational agent or intelligent agent using the belief–desire–intention software model.
So they are building robots with a "mind" - an "intelligence".Intelligent agents in artificial intelligence are closely related to agents in economics, and versions of the intelligent agent paradigm are studied in cognitive science, ethics, the philosophy of practical reason, as well as in many interdisciplinary socio-cognitive modeling and computer social simulations.
Experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it. Terms in philosophy, such as "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge," are used to refer to knowledge based on experience. A person with considerable experience in a specific field can gain a reputation as an expert.The concept of experience generally refers to know-how or procedural knowledge, rather than propositional knowledge: on-the-job training rather than book-learning.
It gives clear evidence of the reliability of Biblical statements such as the one found at Hebrews 3:4.A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.
Just keep reading the post.Justin108 wrote:Really? Go aheadtheStudent wrote: All Greek and Roman gods, can be proven to be mythical.
Oh yes, .. do you know how many forces (electromagnetic) are present while your doing that?Bust Nak wrote:Easy enough, get three heavy lead balls and mount two on the ends of a bar, then balance the bar by hanging it from a fishing line. Wait until the hanging balls settle down and stop moving. Move the last lead ball close to one of them without touching. Observe the twisting movement of the hanging apparatus.arian wrote: Fine, then prove that "gravity" exists, scientifically I mean?
Hmm, .. so let's put a bunch of tiny steel bearings under a handkerchief, than take a huge magnet, and slowly move over the handkerchief and see how the magnet pulls up the bearings on the far said of it, .. that should prove the second smaller tide, right?Bust Nak wrote:With simple science, the tide near side is caused by the moon pulling on water, the tide far side is caused by gravity from the moon being weaker due to the extra distance. That's why one tile is higher than the other one in the same day.arian wrote:Gravity?
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time?
Hmm again! What is the scientific significant of a story based on "assuming things" (like a massive collision between two large clusters of galaxies millions and millions of LIGHT YEARS away) happening based NOT on observation, but someone's "assumption" that gravity exists and does certain things, but not other "things"?Bust Nak wrote:Well there you go. Rhetorical questions works better if you don't give away the answerarian wrote:OR, scientific evidence for dark matter?
A team of researchers has found the first direct proof for the existence of dark matter, the mysterious and almost invisible substance thought to make up almost a quarter of the universe.
Dark matter does not absorb or emit light. So far, astronomers have inferred its presence only indirectly by measuring the effects of its gravity.
Really, what does this sound like: "We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God who is as close to everyone as their mind is", .. huh Bust Nak?Bust Nak wrote:Doesn't look good for God, does it? We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God.arian wrote:NOT God, because no signature of a Creator could be found in ANYTHING science has observed so far, .. BUT, .. a massive collision between two large clusters of galaxies millions and millions of LIGHT YEARS away, astronomers have detected what they say could only be the signature of dark matter
First, how would you measure Infinite who has no boarders?Bust Nak wrote:Actually, we don't know that. The universe could be infinite.arian wrote:Oh, .. and there is no Infinite either, .. no evidence. Just because we have gazillion galaxies out there does not mean it is IN Infinite.
Yeah I used to use that same excuse in my younger days about my hand wondering. But she slapped me anyways, .. in my face too not my hand!?How about no. Our brain can and does wonder about stuff all the timeHow about: If you can believe in any "thing", you have to believe in a "Conscious Infinite Creator God" first. If you can "observe, reason anything", you have to believe you have a mind behind it all. Our brain, like our Gluteus Maximus will not wonder about anything, never did, and never will.
What, .. it's not hard to understand Infinite? You guys keep limiting it to a size, how is that understanding Infinite? If you even remotely understood Infinite, you would right away find the ONLY example of it, your mind. Your mind is the only thing, actually the only existence that is beyond any "thing", and contains all "things", all the universes you want, and expanding as fast as you want, right there in your mind.It's not that hard to understand infinity. So where is your definition of a scientifically testable God?arian wrote:Sure, .. all you have to do is come to know, .. come to understand what Infinite IS by what Infinite means? I mean how many boundless, borderless immeasurable Infinites are there anyways, .. right? You guys understand "gravity", and how it reacts on galaxies millions and millions of light years away that creates dark matter, so what is soo darn hard about understanding such an obvious existence as you mind, .. Infinite??
Exactly, we are all walking miracles and don't even realize!Bust Nak wrote:Already addressed that point, and I quote "Well, those kinds of miracles happens every day. Why would you expect us to provide evidence that they do not happen?"arian wrote:Miracles? if anyone who done robotic or CNC programming, watching an illiterate high school dropout play basketball will attest to a miracle, especially knowing that he done no arithmetic, no calculation on how much electricity he should send to the hundreds of muscles before he threw the ball, but that this guys mind sends all the millions of information through his brain through his bodies nervous system in matter of split seconds, and makes that basket swoooshh, every time, nothing but net, .. now that to me (who done CNC/robotic programming) is a miracle!
How exactly has the Bible proven to be reliable?theStudent wrote: It is because, the Bible, which is available to +90% of the world's population, and which people came to trust, because of it proving to be reliable, said "God did it." The Bible says God is the first cause.
So it's true because "many people believe it"?theStudent wrote:Hence, people believe what the Bible says, and are convinced it contains the answers to the scientists - "don't know"s.
Do you always believe in eye-witness testimony? Do you also believe in UFO's, Bigfoot and alien abduction - all having numerous eye-witness accounts?theStudent wrote:These are the primary sources - accounts of people who were there
What other relevant information after the fact exactly?theStudent wrote:and secondary sources - documentation and analysis of primary sources and other relevant information after the fact.
