God can not be disproven by science

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? How does someone saying homeopathy works affect you? Is there a concern that you might believe it?

Empathy is a thing; we can care about an unfortunate outcome even if it doesn't affect us directly.

When someone, say, dies of preventable cancer because they were duped into believing that sugar pills were real treatment, this is a tragedy... even if I didn't know the person myself.

The mind controls the body. The placebo effect is a thing. If homeopathy worked for that person, it's possible it can work for someone else. Does your challenge help the person that it might have worked for?

You're overstating the placebo effect. I don't blame you, because that (mis)interpretation gets used a lot.

The placebo effect is almost entirely about these issues:

- selection bias: the type of people who would want to participate in (or would be eligible for) a medical study are often not perfectly reflective of the overall population.

- experimenter interference: the team running a trial may try to push for a favourable result, either consciously or unconsciously. If the study is properly blinded, then this push will affect the control group as well as the treatment group.

- a "helpfulness" bias: many people like to help others or feel pressure to meet exprctations. In clinical trials, this can mean the participants will try to provide the result that they think is expected of them (e.g. report lower pain levels after a treatment).

- effects of the trial itself: when someone goes to a clinic twice and week and gets peppered with health-related questions, this can put their health front-of-mind and prompt them to make lifestyle changes (e.g. improving their diet).

- statistical noise: every sample will vary from the true mean a bit.

Citing the placebo effect as evidence of the "healing power of the mind" is, IMO, dishonest... though I certainly don't think that dishonesty originates from you.

 

[Firenze]

Would you happen to have any resources to support this claim?

It’s simple logic. Countries with sufficient fertile soil should be able to feed themselves. The obvious barrier to doing that is when science is ignored in favor of the mystical that looks for manna to come from heaven.

 

[Quintessence]

It’s simple logic. Countries with sufficient fertile soil should be able to feed themselves. The obvious barrier to doing that is when science is ignored in favor of the mystical that looks for manna to come from heaven.

What I find really ironic about this is that indigenous cultures - in Africa or otherwise - practiced self-sufficient and sustainable farming until colonists came and taught them otherwise. Then, they started destroying the lands and making them unable to sustain the population.

But sure, let's blame religion. Because reasons.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Time = change. For something to occur, something has to change. No change/time = no occurrence.
Space is simple separation. For you to interact with something other than yourself it must be separate from you. No space, no separation, nothing to interact with.

Okay, let’s take those definitions. You seem to be saying that time and space are the dimensions of the stage on which the drama of existence plays out, is that fair?

And are you sure than can be no noises off, no unseen influences on the players, as they strut the stage and deliver their lines?

 

[Link]

Science has potential to prove a designer to the universe. It also potential to prove no need of a designer as far the outward material realm is concerned. What I mean by this is not that it can have a say on first cause or moral arguments or ontological, etc, but that it can refute that seeing of design in material realm as a necessity.

I however, believe, science has proven a designer. I've stated my reasons many times. No need to repeat.

 

[sun rise]

Empathy is a thing; we can care about an unfortunate outcome even if it doesn't affect us directly.

When someone, say, dies of preventable cancer because they were duped into believing that sugar pills were real treatment, this is a tragedy... even if I didn't know the person myself.



You're overstating the placebo effect. I don't blame you, because that (mis)interpretation gets used a lot.

The placebo effect is almost entirely about these issues:

- selection bias: the type of people who would want to participate in (or would be eligible for) a medical study are often not perfectly reflective of the overall population.

- experimenter interference: the team running a trial may try to push for a favourable result, either consciously or unconsciously. If the study is properly blinded, then this push will affect the control group as well as the treatment group.

- a "helpfulness" bias: many people like to help others or feel pressure to meet exprctations. In clinical trials, this can mean the participants will try to provide the result that they think is expected of them (e.g. report lower pain levels after a treatment).

- effects of the trial itself: when someone goes to a clinic twice and week and gets peppered with health-related questions, this can put their health front-of-mind and prompt them to make lifestyle changes (e.g. improving their diet).

- statistical noise: every sample will vary from the true mean a bit.

Citing the placebo effect as evidence of the "healing power of the mind" is, IMO, dishonest... though I certainly don't think that dishonesty originates from you.

That's not what the Harvard Health Publishing arm of Harvard Medical School states The power of the placebo effect - Harvard Health

How placebos work is still not quite understood, but it involves a complex neurobiological reaction that includes everything from increases in feel-good neurotransmitters, like endorphins and dopamine, to greater activity in certain brain regions linked to moods, emotional reactions, and self-awareness. All of it can have therapeutic benefit. "The placebo effect is a way for your brain to tell the body what it needs to feel better," says Kaptchuk.

But placebos are not all about releasing brainpower. You also need the ritual of treatment. "When you look at these studies that compare drugs with placebos, there is the entire environmental and ritual factor at work," says Kaptchuk. "You have to go to a clinic at certain times and be examined by medical professionals in white coats. You receive all kinds of exotic pills and undergo strange procedures. All this can have a profound impact on how the body perceives symptoms because you feel you are getting attention and care."
,,,
A study published online by PLOS Biology may have identified what goes on in the brain during a placebo effect. Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging to scan the brains of people with chronic pain from knee osteoarthritis. Then everyone was given a placebo and had another brain scan. The researchers noticed that those who felt pain relief had greater activity in the middle frontal gyrus brain region, which makes up about one-third of the frontal lobe.

 

[Bthoth]

Science has potential to prove a designer to the universe. It also potential to prove no need of a designer as far the outward material realm is concerned. What I mean by this is not that it can have a say on first cause or moral arguments or ontological, etc, but that it can refute that seeing of design in material realm as a necessity.

I however, believe, science has proven a designer. I've stated my reasons many times. No need to repeat.

Technically speaking sciences will define and prove god well before any religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Technically speaking sciences will define and prove god well before any religion.

Huh?

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 87916

Yep, that looks like a black swan.

 

[Firenze]

What I find really ironic about this is that indigenous cultures - in Africa or otherwise - practiced self-sufficient and sustainable farming until colonists came and taught them otherwise. Then, they started destroying the lands and making them unable to sustain the population.

But sure, let's blame religion. Because reasons.

You mean the colonists that brought their religion with its lack of respect for the land?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It’s simple logic. Countries with sufficient fertile soil should be able to feed themselves. The obvious barrier to doing that is when science is ignored in favor of the mystical that looks for manna to come from heaven.

So no, then.

I always love it when people support claims with "it's simple logic" when they can't find a suitable resource.

You'll forgive me if I doubt your simple logic.

 

[Quintessence]

You mean the colonists that brought their religion with its lack of respect for the land?

That's oversimplifying the issue, but sure. Colonialism displaced indigenous cultures and religions to replace them (or hybridize them with) their own. Therefore, using simple logic, the problem is not religion. Or if we want to say the problem is somehow the extremely heterogenous and vaguely-defined phenomena that is "religion" we might as well just say the problem is humans just in general.

 

[Firenze]

So no, then.

I always love it when people support claims with "it's simple logic" when they can't find a suitable resource.

You'll forgive me if I doubt your simple logic.

You’re welcome to reject anything anyone posts.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You’re welcome to reject anything anyone posts.

Thank you for your permission.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have to either present your case or accept that people will gladly reject your premises - and should.

@Nakosis said "That's fine since I take that to mean we can't interact with God and God can't interact with us as interaction requires both space and time.."

I am merely saying that this is false. I rejected his premises.

 

[Firenze]

Thank you for your permission.

You’re welcome.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know about him, but I sure have a problem with those claims..

@TagliatelliMonster said "..Something exists in "no place" and at "no time".... that's pretty consistent with something that doesn't exist.."

..but an alternative universe (as part of a multiverse) does NOT share the same "time and space".
.so can it not exist?

..it is wrong and dangerous to simply presume an Abrahamic god..

I don't think that this thread is about such presumptions .. more about "is it theoretically possible?".

 

[muhammad_isa]

If God can function in space and time, even temporarily then God is at that point as least observable/empirical which means scientifically falsifiable..

Not at all.
Space and time are merely perceptions .. we call them "reality" .. as they are of course, from our
perspective in this universe.
G-d does not have to be "observable" .. G-d is NOT PART of the physical universe.

The mistake you are making, is in thinking that what we can/have observe(d) is all there is !
That cannot be proved, nor is it likely.

 

[ChristineM]

but an alternative universe (as part of a multiverse) does NOT share the same "time and space".
.so can it not exist

Doesn't follow.
Another universe will (or may) have its own space and time,

 

[ChristineM]

G-d is NOT PART of the physical universe.

In your opinion

The mistake you are making,

The mistake you are making is presenting woo as reality