Common Sense Deactivated?

[shunyadragon]

Well, dang! I must have missed all those "answers" (unless you just mean "responses"?)......I haven't seen anything validated yet. I see lots of whining about the man asking the questions but not much in the way of answering the ones he posed.
Shooting the messenger isn't working.....sorry.

You have not responded to mine and they are specific:

Common sense and science go hand in hand to falsify (not prove) the nature of our physical existence. Religious beliefs are off the table as far as science is concerned, and in reality cannot be proved.

Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and cannot be falsified by science.

Science does not 'know' there was a beginning of our physical existence.

As far as herbal science goes. The advances in the past 30 to 40 years has gone along way to not only restoring ancient herbal practices, but discovering new applications. It is mostly culture that has biases against herbal use such as Marijuana and other herbs. Actually some herbs have become a part of our pharmaceutical medicines.

I have studied herbs for many years, and there are problems with many claims of herbs, and in fact some have been found ineffective, harmful, and on occasion deadly.

 

[james bond]

Do not accept "1. The universe had a beginning according to the BBT and began to exist.", because the BBT is only one of a number of hypothesis concerning the origin of our universe, and does not address the question of the origin of our physical existence.

What does your last sentence have to do with falsification and science? The argument shows that God can be a hypothesis in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does your last sentence have to do with falsification and science? The argument shows that God can be a hypothesis in science.

Can be?? Maybe a hypothesis, but this hypothesis cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence. Until it can I reject it, also . . . IF our universe had a beginning the beginning can possibly be due to natural causes.

The argument is only valid if it can be falsified as not having a possible natural origin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a way to "falsify" God:

1. The universe had a beginning according to the BBT and began to exist.
2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
3. The universe began to exist.
4. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That neither falsifies nor supports a god. And it is poorly worded to boot. Let me correct it for you:

1. The universe as we know it had a beginning according to the BBT and began to exist.
2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
3. The as we know it universe began to exist.
4. Therefore, the as we know it universe has a cause.

You see right now we can know nothing of what happened before the Big Bang. An understanding of what caused the Big Bang is being developed. No God has been found to be necessary yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does your last sentence have to do with falsification and science? The argument shows that God can be a hypothesis in science.

No, it doesn't. Your "hypothesis" did not even mention nor even imply a god.

 

[Deeje]

We also have opioid receptors in our brains, spinal cord, and digestive tract. Something to think about.

Opioids such as cocaine have been used in medicine for probably as long as cannabis has over the millennia, but not in pharmaceutical concoctions with who knows what else added. People die from opioid overdoses by the hundreds of thousands each year....no one has ever died from a cannabis overdose...yet which is a legal medicine and which isn't in many places?
We in Australia are fighting the idiots who want to keep it tied up in red tape due to propaganda and pressure from big pharma. Canadians have better access and parts of the US do too. California, I believe has even legalized it recreationally. I would be happy just to be able to use it as medicine.
There is only one thing standing in the way....

Big Pharma want the profits but they also want to alter the composition of the drug so that they can patent it and make even more money from a medicine that they have altered, so that doesn't work at full capacity. They don't want drugs to cure people....they want drugs to treat symptoms that recur so that you will be their customer for life.....however short that life may be.

 

[Deeje]

I personally don't believe functional, logical intelligence can come from absolute nothing.

Me either.

Intelligence must pre exist for intelligence to form. And that makes eternal life possible.

Exactly.....Just as all life must come from pre-existing life....so intelligence must come from a pre-existing intelligence.....otherwise it makes no sense. How do you evaluate intelligence without intelligence setting a reference or a precedent?

But to say that this existence is ideal for it's purposes of saving mankind is a huge stretch of the imagination that is outside of reality. Thus there is no God.

Who said this existence is anyone's "ideal"? The Bible explains what the Creator had in mind in the beginning....what derailed that first purpose and how God handled the situation to create precedents for all time to come.....and then how he brings us back to square one to give us back what disobedient rebels stole from us.

Its an amazing story that has been unfolding for thousands of years.....but God does not operate by Earth time. The first rebel was not human, so the issues raised are settled in universal time. (2 Peter 3:8)

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly.....Just as all life must come from pre-existing life....so intelligence must come from a pre-existing intelligence.....otherwise it makes no sense. How do you evaluate intelligence without intelligence setting a reference or a precedent?

You 'believe' this is true, but . . .

Problem, this is a Theistic assumption based on the belief of 'Intelligent Design,' and not falsifiable by scientific methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Common Sense' is not so common when science is rejected, unethically manipulated and jerrymandered.

 

[osgart]

You 'believe' this is true, but . . .

Problem, this is a Theistic assumption based on the belief of 'Intelligent Design,' and not falsifiable by scientific methods.

That assumes science is the only way of knowing. Science can only answer material/physical questions. I don't see infallibility in science, although I have limited exposure to it. I'd have to say that humans come from knowing nothing, and that trial and error are the norms of human life. As extensive as human knowledge is, I have the opinion that it is fallible, and tiny compared to what's out there. Science does come to paradoxs, and is the best way of making use of the material world, not necessarily explaining it as it truly is.

Experience does give reason, and reason a way of knowing something. People like me take the watchmaker analogy to the human body as fact, even in light of the alternatives to it. That humans come by way of intelligent means is equivalent to saying that an Apple is an apple to us.

 

[shunyadragon]

That assumes science is the only way of knowing.

I did not say that science is the only way of 'knowing.' Though the use of the word 'knowing' in this context.

Science can only answer material/physical questions.

That is the whole point of my posts.

I don't see infallibility in science, although I have limited exposure to it. I'd have to say that humans come from knowing nothing, and that trial and error are the norms of human life. As extensive as human knowledge is, I have the opinion that it is fallible, and tiny compared to what's out there. Science does come to paradoxes, and is the best way of making use of the material world, not necessarily explaining it as it truly is.

Again . . . If you follow my posts this what I believe.

Experience does give reason, and reason a way of knowing something.

Disagree. experience does not relate necessarily to reason nor logic. Reason and logic may lead to better understanding of one's experience and relationships to the world around us, but considering the fallibility of human nature this not necessarily the case.

 

[james bond]

Do not accept "1. The universe had a beginning according to the BBT and began to exist.", because the BBT is only one of a number of hypothesis concerning the origin of our universe, and does not address the question of the origin of our physical existence.

Also, IF our universe had a beginning it is possible that it had a natural origin.

If you do not accept the BBT as science, then I'll rephrase:

1. The universe had a beginning.

If that's not the case, then it just existed and we know this is pseudoscience.

As for origin of our physical existence,

1. The origin of our physical existence had a beginning.

If we add the rest of the argument, then we have a way to falsify God or creator.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you do not accept the BBT as science, then I'll rephrase:

No need to rephrase. I do accept BBT as science, but like most scientists BBT does not falsify that our physical existence has a beginning. It is only one of a number of hypothesis concerning possible origins of the universe. It is possible that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes in an multi-verse cosmology, it is possible that our universe is cyclic without beginning nor end, and it is possible that our universe began as exploding Black Hole, one of an infinite number of universes.

1. The universe had a beginning.

If that's not the case, then it just existed and we know this is pseudoscience.

Incomplete, none of the hypothesis and/or theories of the origins of our universe propose that the universe 'just exists.'

As for origin of our physical existence,

1. The origin of our physical existence had a beginning.

Not necessarily so based on the present objective evidence of sciences of physics and cosmology.

I fact, I sincerely believe that science will unlikely ever answer the question.

 

[Deeje]

Common sense and science go hand in hand to falsify (not prove) the nature of our physical existence. Religious beliefs are off the table as far as science is concerned, and in reality cannot be proved.

How on earth can science falsify something for which it has no test? The Creator invented what scientists study. Without the Creator, science would not exist. Can you falsify that?

If science is your god, why do you profess faith in any religion? Why are you not an atheist? You can't prove anything in your faith scientifically so I smell hypocrisy.

Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and cannot be falsified by science.

Are the writings of a human prophet "falsifiable? Where does science end and faith begin for you? It seems you have painted yourself into a corner.

Is Bahá’u’lláh God's prophet?

If so, how do you know? Why do you believe what he wrote if you cannot prove that he is anything other than just another deluded human being claiming to be something he is not?

Where is the science attached to your beliefs?

Science does not 'know' there was a beginning of our physical existence.

I believe it does. Take uranium for example....."Radioactive Decay. Each radioactive isotope will continue to undergo radioactive decay into other isotopes until it is stable (e.g., no longer radioactive). ... Uranium-238, for example, will undergo 14 radioactive decays to eventually become lead-206 which is stable and no longer radioactive."

"Frequently, the quantity of uranium 238 and lead 206 are measured for radiometric determination of the age of rocks. The half-life with which uranium 238 decays to form lead 206 is 4.46 billion years. ... However, in reality, there is more lead than uranium."

does uranium turn to lead? - Google Search

Since uranium eventually turns to lead, the fact that there is still radioactive uranium in the earth that hasn't turned to lead must mean that the earth did not always exist. Since the "Big Bang suggests that the whole universe was the result of one massive "explosion"....obviously there was a time when the universe did not exist either.

Since when does a random explosion result in the kind of order observed in the universe?

I have studied herbs for many years, and there are problems with many claims of herbs, and in fact some have been found ineffective, harmful, and on occasion deadly.

Studied herbs? No one suggested that they are harmless as medicine, or even deadly if taken in the wrong quantity or frequency. The ancients knew how to dispense herbs to cure their ailments. Pharma drugs kill more people than herbs...believe me.

IF our universe had a beginning the beginning can possibly be due to natural causes.

What "natural causes" might these be? What if God naturally caused the existence of everything because of who he is? You have no way of knowing anything except by knowledge or faith. Science like religion, requires both. Whoever told you that faith is not required by science is lying. Everything they suggest regarding the origin of species is based on faith, not real evidence.

The argument is only valid if it can be falsified as not having a possible natural origin.

Rubbish...that is a man made requirement that cannot be applied to a powerful being who exists outside of the physical realm.
We can either be a slave to science or a slave to God....we cannot be fully committed to both.

The existence of my Creator explains what science cannot. The existence of his adversary explains a lot as well. You are free to accept or to deny whatever you wish. But the "evidence" that science relies on can be misinterpreted, just as easily as the Bible is. It has no superiority over ID at all as far as I can see....each requires faith and belief.

You 'believe' this is true, but . . .

Problem, this is a Theistic assumption based on the belief of 'Intelligent Design,' and not falsifiable by scientific methods.

I put no great store by the "scientific methods" developed by men with little or no faith. The bias involved would lean too far in their own direction IMO. You can believe them if you wish. I trust God, not men.

'Common Sense' is not so common when science is rejected, unethically manipulated and jerrymandered.

It isn't "science" that is rejected.....God is responsible for all that science studies....what is rejected are the suggestions masquerading as facts when it is clear that in theoretical science, no facts can ever be presented. Suggestions are not facts. These are what are rejected. Do you not know the difference?

That is why God requires faith......many choose to put their faith in the wrong people and in the wrong interpretation.

We will all know one way or the other one day...won't we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you do not accept the BBT as science, then I'll rephrase:

1. The universe had a beginning.

If that's not the case, then it just existed and we know this is pseudoscience.

As for origin of our physical existence,

1. The origin of our physical existence had a beginning.

If we add the rest of the argument, then we have a way to falsify God or creator.

Now you made it worse. You substituted false and ignorant claims for testable ideas. The testable ideas did not support or oppose the concept of a god, but this is just nonsense on your part.

 

[Sapiens]

Opioids such as cocaine ...

Cocaine is not an opioid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How on earth can science falsify something for which it has no test? The Creator invented what scientists study. Without the Creator, science would not exist. Can you falsify that?

Science can't, but some gods can be refuted with logic. And if you want to claim that a creator exists the burden of proof is upon you. Getting back to logic a god that contradicts itself is refutable by the Law of the Excluded Middle:

template.1

If science is your god, why do you profess faith in any religion? Why are you not an atheist? You can't prove anything in your faith scientifically so I smell hypocrisy.

I am not sure of his faith, but one does not have faith in the sciences. Faith is a religious error.

Are the writings of a human prophet "falsifiable? Where does science end and faith begin for you? It seems you have painted yourself into a corner.
Is Bahá’u’lláh God's prophet? If so, how do you know? Why do you believe what he wrote if you cannot prove that he is anything other than just another deluded human being claiming to be something he is not? Where is the science attached to your beliefs?

It would depend upon what the "prophet" wrote. I don't believe that Bahá’u’lláh is God's prophet, but I would assume that a Bahai would.

I believe it does. Take uranium for example....."Radioactive Decay. Each radioactive isotope will continue to undergo radioactive decay into other isotopes until it is stable (e.g., no longer radioactive). ... Uranium-238, for example, will undergo 14 radioactive decays to eventually become lead-206 which is stable and no longer radioactive."

"Frequently, the quantity of uranium 238 and lead 206 are measured for radiometric determination of the age of rocks. The half-life with which uranium 238 decays to form lead 206 is 4.46 billion years. ... However, in reality, there is more lead than uranium."

does uranium turn to lead? - Google Search

Since uranium eventually turns to lead, the fact that there is still radioactive uranium in the earth that hasn't turned to lead must mean that the earth did not always exist. Since the "Big Bang suggests that the whole universe was the result of one massive "explosion"....obviously there was a time when the universe did not exist either.

The Earth is not the universe. And the Big Bang only applies to the universe as we know it. Right now we can't really say anything about "before the Big Bang". Also, uranium on the Earth only means that the elements that formed the Earth can be traced back to a beginning. A universe could exist forever if there was a constant state of expansion and a constant source of new matter. That is now what is supported by the sciences, but it does show that your conclusion was not justified.

Since when does a random explosion result in the kind of order observed in the universe?

Never. But then the Big Bang was not a random explosion. It was not even an explosion in the classic sense.

Studied herbs? No one suggested that they are harmless as medicine, or even deadly if taken in the wrong quantity or frequency. The ancients knew how to dispense herbs to cure their ailments. Pharma drugs kill more people than herbs...believe me.

That might be. But again, your logic is not working correctly. If more people rely on pharma drugs some will die regardless. If very few people rely on witch doctors very few people will die from witch doctors.

What "natural causes" might these be? What if God naturally caused the existence of everything because of who he is? You have no way of knowing anything except by knowledge or faith. Science like religion, requires both. Whoever told you that faith is not required by science is lying. Everything they suggest regarding the origin of species is based on faith, not real evidence.

One cannot know anything through faith. One can only believe. And no, faith is not allowed in the sciences. That is one reason that it works so well.

Rubbish...that is a man made requirement that cannot be applied to a powerful being who exists outside of the physical realm.
We can either be a slave to science or a slave to God....we cannot be fully committed to both.

The existence of my Creator explains what science cannot. The existence of his adversary explains a lot as well. You are free to accept or to deny whatever you wish. But the "evidence" that science relies on can be misinterpreted, just as easily as the Bible is. It has no superiority over ID at all as far as I can see....each requires faith and belief.

Nope. "God did it" is never an explanation.

I put no great store by the "scientific methods" developed by men with little or no faith. The bias involved would lean too far in their own direction IMO. You can believe them if you wish. I trust God, not men.

You appear to be projecting your flaws upon others. And the reason that scientific methods work is because scientists do not trust each other either. When a new idea comes out it is tested and tested. Like I said, science does not work on the weakness of faith.

It isn't "science" that is rejected.....God is responsible for all that science studies....what is rejected are the suggestions masquerading as facts when it is clear that in theoretical science, no facts can ever be presented. Suggestions are not facts. These are what are rejected. Do you not know the difference?

Again, this claim is worthless if you cannot support the existence of your god. Science makes no assumptions about gods.

That is why God requires faith......many choose to put their faith in the wrong people and in the wrong interpretation.

We will all know one way or the other one day...won't we?

Why would a God require faith? That makes no sense. Faith is the worst way to prove anything. There is just as must "proof" for Bahai, Hindu, Islam, as there is for Christianity. Your version of God has no excuse for putting people in hell that do not believe in him.

 

[Deeje]

Cocaine is not an opioid.

Well, if you want to get pedantic about it.....This is from Wiki....

"The terms opiate and narcotic are sometimes encountered as synonyms for opioid. Opiate is properly limited to the natural alkaloids found in the resin of the opium poppy although some include semi-synthetic derivatives.[14][16]Narcotic, derived from words meaning 'numbness' or 'sleep', as an American legal term, refers to cocaine and opioids, and their source materials; it is also loosely applied to any illegal or controlled psychoactive drug.[17][18] In some jurisdictions all controlled drugs are legally classified as narcotics. The term can have pejorative connotations and its use is generally discouraged where that is the case.[19][20]"

Opioids and cocaine share the same legal definition. Cocaine has been used as a medicine and a "pick-me-up" for centuries.
It is the "Coke" in original Coka-Cola".

 

[shunyadragon]

How on earth can science falsify something for which it has no test? The Creator invented what scientists study. Without the Creator, science would not exist. Can you falsify that?

If science is your god, why do you profess faith in any religion? Why are you not an atheist? You can't prove anything in your faith scientifically so I smell hypocrisy.



Are the writings of a human prophet "falsifiable? Where does science end and faith begin for you? It seems you have painted yourself into a corner.

Is Bahá’u’lláh God's prophet?

If so, how do you know? Why do you believe what he wrote if you cannot prove that he is anything other than just another deluded human being claiming to be something he is not?

Where is the science attached to your beliefs?



I believe it does. Take uranium for example....."Radioactive Decay. Each radioactive isotope will continue to undergo radioactive decay into other isotopes until it is stable (e.g., no longer radioactive). ... Uranium-238, for example, will undergo 14 radioactive decays to eventually become lead-206 which is stable and no longer radioactive."

"Frequently, the quantity of uranium 238 and lead 206 are measured for radiometric determination of the age of rocks. The half-life with which uranium 238 decays to form lead 206 is 4.46 billion years. ... However, in reality, there is more lead than uranium."

does uranium turn to lead? - Google Search

Since uranium eventually turns to lead, the fact that there is still radioactive uranium in the earth that hasn't turned to lead must mean that the earth did not always exist. Since the "Big Bang suggests that the whole universe was the result of one massive "explosion"....obviously there was a time when the universe did not exist either.

Since when does a random explosion result in the kind of order observed in the universe?



Studied herbs? No one suggested that they are harmless as medicine, or even deadly if taken in the wrong quantity or frequency. The ancients knew how to dispense herbs to cure their ailments. Pharma drugs kill more people than herbs...believe me.



What "natural causes" might these be? What if God naturally caused the existence of everything because of who he is? You have no way of knowing anything except by knowledge or faith. Science like religion, requires both. Whoever told you that faith is not required by science is lying. Everything they suggest regarding the origin of species is based on faith, not real evidence.



Rubbish...that is a man made requirement that cannot be applied to a powerful being who exists outside of the physical realm.
We can either be a slave to science or a slave to God....we cannot be fully committed to both.

The existence of my Creator explains what science cannot. The existence of his adversary explains a lot as well. You are free to accept or to deny whatever you wish. But the "evidence" that science relies on can be misinterpreted, just as easily as the Bible is. It has no superiority over ID at all as far as I can see....each requires faith and belief.



I put no great store by the "scientific methods" developed by men with little or no faith. The bias involved would lean too far in their own direction IMO. You can believe them if you wish. I trust God, not men.



It isn't "science" that is rejected.....God is responsible for all that science studies....what is rejected are the suggestions masquerading as facts when it is clear that in theoretical science, no facts can ever be presented. Suggestions are not facts. These are what are rejected. Do you not know the difference?

That is why God requires faith......many choose to put their faith in the wrong people and in the wrong interpretation.

We will all know one way or the other one day...won't we?

This far too long and rambling. and did not address the specific asertion you previously proposed:

Science seems to think so. They know that the universe had a beginning so what was before that?

My point is very clear, simple and straight forward. Science does not 'know' the universe had a beginning. In fact, it is unlikely that science will ever falsify the hypothesis either our physical existence universe had a beginning or not.

I will also challenge your contention questioning science because scientific knowledge changes over time. This is only partly true. Yes science changes and advances over time as more discoveries are made, and evidence is gathered, but as time passes, particularly recently the foundations of the sciences of evolution, genetics, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology build on the foundation adding information, and do not radically change. Change in terms of science is a healthy positive process.

Simple important point; I do not believe any religion, belief system, nor non-belief system can be proven. I consider the belief in 'Intelligent Design' a religious belief, and not falsifiable by scientific methods.

 

[Deeje]

This far too long and rambling. and did not address the specific asertion you previously proposed:

Nice dodge. All I did was address the points you made in your posts.