Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physics followed by chemistry followed by biology.
...

No, methodological naturalism, physics, chemistry, biology, cognition/psychology, culture. And because of the replication of the best fitted genes you get limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective/existential relativism in the end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just as theoretical physics, in that there is no time, space and so on "before " the Big Bang, is a story

Not so much a "story" as it is an equation and the logical consequence of said equation.

For all we know to date, that seems to be the case.

Then again, we know for a fact that we "miss" stuff in physics, since classical physics and quantum physics are like two different worlds that don't get along nicely, to the point of physics as currently understood breaking down at T = 0.

So the jury is still out. It's simply the best we can do at this point in time. We'll have to see in the future if it continues to hold up.

You can't observe that, just as you can't observe God.

Things don't need to be directly observable in order to be knowable.
Nobody alive today observed Pompeï being burried by a volcano eruption some 2000 years ago, but nobody doubts it happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not so much a "story" as it is an equation and the logical consequence of said equation.
...

So it is the brains of some humans. Got you. Now you just have to supply the observation to back it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, methodological naturalism, physics, chemistry, biology, cognition/psychology, culture. And because of the replication of the best fitted genes you get limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective/existential relativism in the end.

No.

Methodological naturalism, for starters, is a method of inquiry. It makes no sense as an answer to the question I was answering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it is the brains of some humans.

No, these equations were not just dreamed up by someone after having to much coffee late at night.

Got you

Most certainly not. Instead, you're playing your silly game again.

Now you just have to supply the observation to back it up.

This makes no sense at all in light of what you are replying to.
Also quite dishonest of you to exclude the part where I talked about how "observation" is not a necessary pre-requisite for "knowing" and then include the above quote as if I never said what I said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

Methodological naturalism, for starters, is a method of inquiry. It makes no sense as an answer to the question I was answering.

Which has a limit:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, these equations were not just dreamed up by someone after having to much coffee late at night.





Most certainly not. Instead, you're playing your silly game again.




This makes no sense at all in light of what you are replying to.
Also quite dishonest of you to exclude the part where I talked about how "observation" is not a necessary pre-requisite for "knowing" and then include the above quote as if I never said what I said.

To test a hypothesis you need observation. If there is no observation, it is not a fact. It is a hypothesis. There is a reason it is called theoretical physics and not just physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which has a limit:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Nobody said otherwise.
Either way, not that it matters in context of the post are you replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To test a hypothesis you need observation.

But not of the event itself.
Take Pompeï. The hypothesis is that it was burried after an eruption 2 millenia ago.
We can't test that by going back in time and "observe" the event happening.

But we surely can observe all the evidence the event left behind and work our way back.
Events of the past, leave evidence in the present.

Like how the observation of the microwave background supports the Big Bang model.

If there is no observation, it is not a fact. It is a hypothesis

Hypothesis / theories explain / address facts. They don't "become" facts.

Learn2science.

There is a reason it is called theoretical physics and not just physics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody said otherwise.
Either way, not that it matters in context of the post are you replying to.

Well, it matters of what the world is in the ontological/metaphysical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But not of the event itself.
Take Pompeï. The hypothesis is that it was burried after an eruption 2 millenia ago.
We can't test that by going back in time and "observe" the event happening.

But we surely can observe all the evidence the event left behind and work our way back.
Events of the past, leave evidence in the present.

Like how the observation of the microwave background supports the Big Bang model.





Hypothesis / theories explain / address facts. They don't "become" facts.

Learn2science.



View attachment 46613

Yes, but we can observe volcanic eruptions or the microwave background. But nobody has ever observed a singularity. That is only found as an idea in the brains of some humans. I have no problem with using prior theory and hypothesis to figure out how to test something new. But if there is no observation at all, then it is nothing but a hypothesis and a scientific equation in the brains of some humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it matters of what the world is in the ontological/metaphysical.

Your question was about how impersonal forces gave rise to personal entities.

Whatever direction you are desperately trying to steer my answer to that, it is not the direction of my response at all.

You can presuppose other people's answers and engage those instead of what people actually say, if that pleases you, but in that case I'm out of the conversation as that makes it kind of pointless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but we can observe volcanic eruptions or the microwave background. But nobody has ever observed a singularity.

That doesn't matter at all, as the point was about what the implications are of current theories like relativity etc.
One of those implications, is that time is an inherent part of the universe and that for all we currently know, talking about "before" the universe might not at all be sensical.

I have no idea why you feel the need to go on this rambling red-herring.

That is only found as an idea in the brains of some humans. I have no problem with using prior theory and hypothesis to figure out how to test something new. But if there is no observation at all, then it is nothing but a hypothesis and a scientific equation in the brains of some humans.

Relativity is not only very testable, it is applied in engineering all the time.
GPS satellites won't work without accounting for relativity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your question was about how impersonal forces gave rise to personal entities.

Whatever direction you are desperately trying to steer my answer to that, it is not the direction of my response at all.

You can presuppose other people's answers and engage those instead of what people actually say, if that pleases you, but in that case I'm out of the conversation as that makes it kind of pointless.

Well, is the world physical or one other such one category answer. Or is the world more complex than that and you can't reduce to personal down to the impersonal, though the impersonal gives "rise" to the personal?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That doesn't matter at all, as the point was about what the implications are of current theories like relativity etc.
One of those implications, is that time is an inherent part of the universe and that for all we currently know, talking about "before" the universe might not at all be sensical.
...

Yeah, you admit yourself. That is a first person subjective process.

 

[PruePhillip]

Then by the same token, it follows that asking "who created the universe" is an equally nonsensical question.
That is, unless you wish to engage in special pleading next to your ginormous argument from ignorance off course...

Kind of like "doubling down" on the fallacies.



False dichotomy.

Well, we CAN ask 'who or what created the universe' because the universe is HERE.
Physicists say what was BEFORE is a nonsensical question - that's why I say asking
'who created God' is itself nonsensical.

 

[thomas t]

LOL! Sorry, but you are of course wrong. You demonstrated that in your first red quote. In post 251 you demonstrated a complete lack of education of evolution, evidence, and logic. All you had was denial. Would you like to go over that post.

Perhaps you do not know what an empty claim is. It is not just a.claim that one did not support with evidence. It is one that cannot be supported by evidence. So let's discuss that one post and how badly it failed.

well, I wasn't wrong I think,
the red part of the quote again: it is substanciated by nothing. It's an empty claim, I think.
I provided decent arguments and that post did not fail, in my opinion.

I'd like to end this merry go round now.

If you reply (and if you do without resorting to anything on the personal level)... please be assured: I don't agree with you even if I don't explicitely state that I disagree with you here.
So go ahead and have the last word (with which I disagree on the subject level).
If you resort to personal attacks I'd feel pressured to answer, even if I don't like.

 

[Valjean]

That's right, but if he claimed to be and wasn't he would either be lying, thus not sincere, or he would be delusional.

A lot of people are delusional, even kind, sincere, well-intentioned people.

"Had there been a lunatic asylum in the suburbs of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ would infallibly have been shut up in it at the outset of his public career. The interview with Satan on a pinnacle of the temple would alone have damned him, and everything that happened after could but have confirmed the diagnosis. The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum." -- Havelock Ellis.

 

[Valjean]

However, there is no evidence that religions or civilizations were established by pixies, who cannot even be proven to exist.

But... but.... ＊【 Real fairies: proofs that prove their existence 】＊

 

[thomas t]

Then you admit that your so-called 'evidence' for god is pretty worthless, since it could JUST AS EASILY be evidence for magical pixies. And you understand perfectly why I lack any belief in any gods.

actually it is evidence for a creator force behind, I think. So it isn't worthless, in my view.
Evidence for such a force is better than nothing, I think.
I leave it open whether it is pixies or God, for now.