Preternatural vs Dark Matter

[Polymath257]

That is a science based channel through PBS. No hysterical jumping to claim that "This is the new solution". It goes over quite a bit of cutting edge science and they try to give as full of a story as possible in a short video.

Agreed. They pointed out the flaws quite well.

 

[nPeace]

The timing of a radioactive decay is uncaused. There is nothing different in a nucleus about to decay from one that won't decay for another billion years.

It's not reasonable to think that a clock requires winding up every second. It nonetheless required a cause to get it started, so I fail to see how that supports an argument for an uncaused event.

Well, I don't believe in circular causation. But the mere definition shows that there is no first cause in that case.

Good 'cause you are the one who suggested it was possible.
So indeed it seems you were not only speculating, but you threw in something you don't believe in. Why was that... for argument sake?

You seemed to ignore or misunderstand what was said.

Please explain what gave you that impression.

 

[nPeace]

Some things on that list are ordinary and easily explained (missing people, for example). Others are hoaxes (ghosts and ESP).


Fake, legends, misunderstandings, or hoaxes. Yes. Provide actual evidence as opposed to stories and fables.


Please give *all* of the evidence and we shall see what needs to be explained. yes the scientific method is, as far as I can see, the only way to knowledge: justified true belief.

And, let's look at things under controlled conditions, with full access to all the evidence, and using correct statistics.

For example, people disappear (meaning their friends and family don't know where they are) in very ordinary circumstances all the time. That doens't imply a paranormal.

You haven't explained or shown any evidence for why you say these are hoaxes, nor have you given any scientific explanation for them.
You have just made claims.

So you don't believe the scientific method is the path to all truth. Good. You had given me the impression that you were of that opinion.
I don't understand your last statement. Are you requesting something, or just stating something?

 

[nPeace]

Contemporary physicists and cosmologists do not believe that the Laws of Nature are necessarily fixed or not, because the contemporary theories, hypothesis, theorems, and the Laws of Science are not dependent on them being true or not. This is basically unknown.



The Laws of Nature may or may not be fixed. Contemporary Physics and cosmology is not dependent on either view being true.



Scientists do not believe the Laws of Nature are fixed, tit is basically unknown, and the scientific theories, hypothesis. theorems and the laws of science are not fixed either in contemporary science, and they are all subject to change and falsification when new knowledge becomes available.



Over whelming fundamentalist biased agenda against science. The science of evolution has no significant problems, and fundamentally has been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt,



I do not support these views, because it is not remotely science.



Likewise these views do not reflect sound science, and a distinct fundamentalist Christian agenda and not remotely supported by objective verifiable evidence.



There is likely a universal law or laws that govern all laws, but the reality is it remains unknown that the ultimate laws are fixed.



Not related to above assumptions, and the science of evolution is based on sound science,, and falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.



The eternal timeless Laws.of Nature.



Laws of Nature caused the evolution process, there is no other evidence of any cause.



Unknown assumption



It is possible that the eternal timeless Laws of Nature may be the first cause.

'. . . as far as I can see" Ah . . . well you likely need glasses.

There is absolutely no falsifiable theory, nor hypothesis for Intelligent Design.


Unsupported assumption without evidence.



Not one, but virtually all physicists and cosmologist support the falsifiability of Quantum Mechanics based on objective verifiable evidence.

Likewise. 98%+ of scientists within the disciplines related to evolution support the science of evolution. 95% of all scientists support the science of evolution. This does not indicte that there is a significant problem with the science of evolution.



The multiverse is not falsified by objective verifiable evidence, but it has considerable support and advocates and is the dominant view in physics and cosmology. Morphic Resonance is not even remotely science.

No the concept of the multiverse does not push back the 'problem of causality.' The Laws of Nature are the timeless eternal cause.

I accept that scientist make many assumptions. Whether they assume that the laws are fixed, or whether they assume not doesn't matter to me,
That's a "dark matter" for them... not me.
Contrary to what you say though, many scientists agree on fixed laws.

Whether you admit it or not, there are problems with all evolutionary models. How significant those problems are does not matter to my argument, and I am not even focusing on biological evolution.
Everyone, by now, knows that evolution is not restricted to one field.
There was mention of one in the video, and I focused on that.

What you are describing, seems to me, to be exactly what was being looked at in the debate - What science would look like without evidence.
I agree too with what was said - some scientists are "pig headed". Like for example, when they insist their views about something is right, despite the fact that they cannot test and observe these concepts.
Yet, they are happy to dismiss logical argument that can't be tested and observed.

How do we tell the difference between science and "science"?
What is your opinion on the question raised... Is it true that "Evidence used to mean everything in science"?

 

[Polymath257]

It's not reasonable to think that a clock requires winding up every second. It nonetheless required a cause to get it started, so I fail to see how that supports an argument for an uncaused event.

The uncaused event is the decay itself: the timing of that event is completely underdtemined. This is in contrast to ordinary clocks where the ordinary laws of physics *do* determine when they will strike.

maybe the issue is the definition of the word 'caused'. how do you define it? By my definition, if A causes B, then every time A happens, B will happen.

Good 'cause you are the one who suggested it was possible.
So indeed it seems you were not only speculating, but you threw in something you don't believe in. Why was that... for argument sake?

I said it is *possible*. I don't think it is the case, but it is still a possibility.I see infinite regress as the most likely case.

Please explain what gave you that impression.

Well, you never acknowledgd the content of the post, for one. You went off in what I see as a completely different direction, ignoring the relevance of what I said, for another.

You haven't explained or shown any evidence for why you say these are hoaxes, nor have you given any scientific explanation for them.
You have just made claims.

And you haven't given nay reason to take the claims seriously at all. Instead of anecdotal statements, what actual evidence do you have?

So you don't believe the scientific method is the path to all truth. Good. You had given me the impression that you were of that opinion.

No, the scientific method is the path for all *knowledge* about the real world. If the method cannot be used, then we cannot have knowledge.

I don't understand your last statement. Are you requesting something, or just stating something?

I am addressing one of the types of claims in one of your links.

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept that scientist make many assumptions. Whether they assume that the laws are fixed, or whether they assume not doesn't matter to me,
That's a "dark matter" for them... not me.
Contrary to what you say though, many scientists agree on fixed laws.

Whether you admit it or not, there are problems with all evolutionary models. How significant those problems are does not matter to my argument, and I am not even focusing on biological evolution.
Everyone, by now, knows that evolution is not restricted to one field.
There was mention of one in the video, and I focused on that.

If you consider evolution 'not a matter for your argument, why bring it up? No there are no significant problems with science of evolution. If you fell there are cite the problems from peer reviewed scientific sources.

What you are describing, seems to me, to be exactly what was being looked at in the debate - What science would look like without evidence.
I agree too with what was said - some scientists are "pig headed". Like for example, when they insist their views about something is right, despite the fact that they cannot test and observe these concepts.
Yet, they are happy to dismiss logical argument that can't be tested and observed.

How do we tell the difference between science and "science"?
What is your opinion on the question raised... Is it true that "Evidence used to mean everything in science"?

There should be no difference between science and "science" The theories, hypothesis and theorems that are well supported by falsifiable verifiable evidence, like the science of evolution, have a sound foundation universally accepted in science. Theories and hypothesis that have limited or no evidence may be conditionally accepted or put on hold until more evidence, information and research becomes available, or later discarded, or modified into a more viable hypothesis.

Science is most definitely evidence based in falsifying theories, hypothesis, and theorems.

 

[nPeace]

The uncaused event is the decay itself: the timing of that event is completely underdtemined. This is in contrast to ordinary clocks where the ordinary laws of physics *do* determine when they will strike.

maybe the issue is the definition of the word 'caused'. how do you define it? By my definition, if A causes B, then every time A happens, B will happen.

I don't think the issue has to do with definition.
We both know what 'first' means, and what 'cause' means.
We both understand there is a first of everything, or do you see things differently?

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.

Can you identify the first cause in the animation below?

Of course, if you like, you can create a repeatable cause within, but it's not the first cause, nor will it lie in the past, if it is repeatable, and required to produce the effect. Unless you want to get technical. In that case, i am technically referring to the beginning of all beginnings... but let's leave out the technicalities for now.

On this topic, I was listening to an interesting interview - very interesting,
The video is here, if you are interested.

My question is this though, if you don't mind.
If time had a beginning, in your opinion, would that not mean that automatically time existed from the beginning, that is, if we are viewing time as - to our best understanding - the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.?

I said it is *possible*. I don't think it is the case, but it is still a possibility.I see infinite regress as the most likely case.

Would you mind giving a little explanation and demonstration of what you mean by that, please?

Well, you never acknowledgd the content of the post, for one. You went off in what I see as a completely different direction, ignoring the relevance of what I said, for another.

Sorry if you think I ignored the post. What should I have said?
I acknowledged that, according to scientists "something is there / not there. They call it Dark Matter." Then I went on to show the comparison of our observations that something is there / not there, and we call it God, and I gave an example of events that are not explained by naturalistic, or scientific methods - these are what you claimed are not real, or have been shown to be explained naturally.
I am yet to see support for those claims.

And you haven't given nay reason to take the claims seriously at all. Instead of anecdotal statements, what actual evidence do you have?

I gave many. Some with many eyewitnesses, and testimonies.
Did I give too may at once. Would you like me to isolate one at a time?

No, the scientific method is the path for all *knowledge* about the real world. If the method cannot be used, then we cannot have knowledge.

By the real world, you mean the world around us - natural things. Understood.

I am addressing one of the types of claims in one of your links.

Which one?

 

[nPeace]

If you consider evolution 'not a matter for your argument, why bring it up? No there are no significant problems with science of evolution. If you fell there are cite the problems from peer reviewed scientific sources.


There should be no difference between science and "science" The theories, hypothesis and theorems that are well supported by falsifiable verifiable evidence, like the science of evolution, have a sound foundation universally accepted in science. Theories and hypothesis that have limited or no evidence may be conditionally accepted or put on hold until more evidence, information and research becomes available, or later discarded, or modified into a more viable hypothesis.

Science is most definitely evidence based in falsifying theories, hypothesis, and theorems.

I have no interest in discussing biological evolution on this thread.

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
Multiverse - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think the issue has to do with definition.
We both know what 'first' means, and what 'cause' means.
We both understand there is a first of everything, or do you see things differently?

I see things differently. I don't think there has to be a first when it comes to things in the universe. or, for that matter, for the universe itself.

if time extends infinitely into the past, there was no first point in time.

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.

Good, although I disagree with the last statement. In particular, causality only makes sense when there is some sort of 'connection' and these connections are defined by physical laws. That means that the physical laws themselves cannot be caused. It also means that all causes are *physical* causes and occur within the universe. And, finally, that means that it makes no sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe'.

Can you identify the first cause in the animation below?

Limited to that animation? Sure. The finger flick. But more generally? The cause was someone programming this video, or their being born, or teir parents being born, or, going back further, the multiple events constituting the Big Bang. We don't know if time goes back before that, but if it did, so might causality.

Of course, if you like, you can create a repeatable cause within, but it's not the first cause, nor will it lie in the past, if it is repeatable, and required to produce the effect. Unless you want to get technical. In that case, i am technically referring to the beginning of all beginnings... but let's leave out the technicalities for now.

Why do you think there was a 'beginning for all things'? That is the crucial issue here, after all.

On this topic, I was listening to an interesting interview - very interesting,
The video is here, if you are interested.

My question is this though, if you don't mind.
If time had a beginning, in your opinion, would that not mean that automatically time existed from the beginning, that is, if we are viewing time as - to our best understanding - the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.?

I'm having some trouble figuring out what you are asking. But we can look at the totality of all space and all time as a single entity (called spacetime). That entity is uncaused (because causalion is within it), so it 'just exists'.

Would you mind giving a little explanation and demonstration of what you mean by that, please?

Sure, i see it as likely that time did not have a beginning (that the Big bang was a transition stage and not the actual beginning of time). In this case, time goes infinitely into the past, as does the physical universe, matter, energy, and causation. There would be an infinite sequence of causes with no beginning.

Sorry if you think I ignored the post. What should I have said?
I acknowledged that, according to scientists "something is there / not there. They call it Dark Matter." Then I went on to show the comparison of our observations that something is there / not there, and we call it God, and I gave an example of events that are not explained by naturalistic, or scientific methods - these are what you claimed are not real, or have been shown to be explained naturally.
I am yet to see support for those claims.

I showed the distinction is given a number of different lines of evidence, supported by observation and testing, for the existence of dark matter.

The events you gave are poorly reported (only personal testimony, not detailed observations) with poor understanding of surrounding forces and events. As such, the evidence is, at best, questionable and, given the context, completely insufficient to show that there is anything unusual going on.

I gave many. Some with many eyewitnesses, and testimonies.
Did I give too may at once. Would you like me to isolate one at a time?

Sorry, eye-witnesses, especially those not trained for observation, who do not know the more general context, and are ignorant of the laws of physics are NOT reliable in such situations.

By the real world, you mean the world around us - natural things. Understood.


Which one?

The claim that people 'mysteriously disappear'.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no interest in discussing biological evolution on this thread.

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
Multiverse - Wikipedia

And I think it a good idea to ask for some sort of observational test for at least the underlying theory that uses one of the multiverse concepts. I've seen one model that allows for observational tests (because of gravitational influences between 'universes'). I also find it interesting that most attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity lead naturally to some sort of multiverse. Those attempts can, in some cases, be tested in *other* aspects and that can give some weight to those proposals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What? Dark Matter?
God and the concept of God was around before the word science was coined, so God can't fill any Gaps.
The argument for God precedes any argument. So it's not a filler.

Would you like to address the questions?

Of course gods are used to fill in the gaps, and always have been.

Where does lightning come from? Indra / Zeus / Perun / Thor
How does the sun rise and set everyday? Apollo rides it across the sky in his chariot / Jóhonaa'éí carries the sun across the sky on his back / Ra travels across the sky in his sun boat
Where does rain come from? Horus / Adad / Yu Shi / Tlaloc
Why is that person acting erratically? They're possessed by demons / God is punishing them for past sins
I could go on and on and on ....

One can't help but notice that thanks to scientific investigation, we have discovered natural explanations for these things that don't require any gods whatsoever.

It is a filler.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In controlled setting, where consultation with people who know how to fool others (illusionists) are done, there have been no established observations of paranormal phenomena.

Many people are easy to fool. That often includes scientists. But when the possible 'tricks' are known and accounted for, no phenomena are left to explain.

A couple of years ago, I went to see Penn & Teller's show in Vegas. It was one of the best I've ever seen.
They showed us how they could read the minds of random audience members. They appeared to accurately read the minds of several audience members. One after the other and they were right every time! Then they showed how they had merely tricked us into thinking they'd read our minds, just using some very simple skills and suggestions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no interest in discussing biological evolution on this thread.

Than do not mention it.

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
Multiverse - Wikipedia

Actually, by far most physicists and cosmologists support the multiverse hypothesis, but also realize the limits of the presence evidence, The following is a fairly complete list of those for or against the multiverse, and some alternatives.

Scientists support in the multiverse – All published in peer reviewed journals in physics and cosmology

Alexander A. Antonov
Arvind Borde
Sean M. Carroll
Jean Dalibard
David Gross university of California Santa Barbara
John Donoghue of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hugh Everett III
Brian Greene
Ben Gripaios
Griffiths, David J
Alan Guth
Stephan Hawking
Thomas Hertog Belgian cosmologist at KU Leuven University
Sabine Hossenfelder Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
Dmitri Kazakov
Greg Kestin Harvard University,
Stéphane Laving
Audrey Mithani
Hitoshi Murayama
Yasunori Nomura Berkley Center for Theoretical Physics.
Sir Martin Rees Britain’s astronomer royal
Veronica Sasnz
Tom Shanks of Durham University
Leonard Susskind of Stanford
Max Tegmmax
Alexander Vilenkin
David Wallace
Frank Wilczek

Clara Moskowitz - Senior editor American Scientific Not a PhD.

Belief in a cyclic universe from preexisting energy using string theory

Paul Steinhardt
Neil Turok


Oppose or extremely skeptical of a multiverse. Note: Most of these scientists and philosophers have a strong theist orientation, and support the Discovery Institute or AIG, and Intelligent Design

Jim Baggott - DPhil in chemical physics at the University of Oxford
Luke A. Barnes
Bernard Carr
Paul Davies
George Ellis University of Cape Town
Dr Simon Friederich, a philosopher at the University of Groningen
David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara

 

[shunyadragon]

So you don't believe the scientific method is the path to all truth. Good. You had given me the impression that you were of that opinion.
I don't understand your last statement. Are you requesting something, or just stating something?

Methodological Naturalism by definition can only falsify theories, hypothesis and theorems based on evidence of our physical existence, and not claims of 'truth' nor philosophical and theological questions beyond our physical existence.

Scientists who believe in atheism or agnosticism do not make these claims as supported 'truth' claims. The are making an assumption of Ontological Naturalism not based on science.

 

[nPeace]

I see things differently. I don't think there has to be a first when it comes to things in the universe. or, for that matter, for the universe itself.

if time extends infinitely into the past, there was no first point in time.

Of course, you think there is an explanation that though metaphysical in nature, is anything but an intelligent designer. Enjoy your search.

Good, although I disagree with the last statement. In particular, causality only makes sense when there is some sort of 'connection' and these connections are defined by physical laws. That means that the physical laws themselves cannot be caused. It also means that all causes are *physical* causes and occur within the universe. And, finally, that means that it makes no sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe'.

I'm actually not inclined to ask what makes sense, as I know I will only get some philosophical conjecture.
I saw it all in the video I linked.

Limited to that animation? Sure. The finger flick. But more generally? The cause was someone programming this video, or their being born, or teir parents being born, or, going back further, the multiple events constituting the Big Bang. We don't know if time goes back before that, but if it did, so might causality.

I'm not saying I can prove it, but I feel quite confident that time and causality goes right back to the beginning.

Why do you think there was a 'beginning for all things'? That is the crucial issue here, after all.

All the evidence keeps pointing in one direction - intelligent designer / creator. All the evidence point to the Bible as the source of true knowledge about that designer. So I think having two witness testimonies that corroborate, is convincing enough for me. Especially when everything else offered is merely speculative, and gravely incoherent.

I'm having some trouble figuring out what you are asking. But we can look at the totality of all space and all time as a single entity (called spacetime). That entity is uncaused (because causalion is within it), so it 'just exists'.

Spacetime, I assume is time and space known to man, but I go beyond this, and causation takes place both outside and inside, but I can only speculate on space, since that may be one of those things beyond my ability to fathom.

Sure, i see it as likely that time did not have a beginning (that the Big bang was a transition stage and not the actual beginning of time). In this case, time goes infinitely into the past, as does the physical universe, matter, energy, and causation. There would be an infinite sequence of causes with no beginning.

So you don't hold to the view that time was created, but you believe it's infinite. Hmmm.
We agree partly on some things apparently. I believe the beginning and end are the same, so the beginning is actually infinite, but there must be a beginning to all other things, so that is what I am referring to when I talk about beginning.

You realize though that cosmologist accept - apparently not all - that according to the standard model, the physical universe began to exist.
If you believe the universe always existed, what is your explanation of the cause of the expansion, and how do you view the myths... oops presented on the formation of the solar systems?
Also, what empirical evidence do you have to support your position?

I showed the distinction is given a number of different lines of evidence, supported by observation and testing, for the existence of dark matter.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

The events you gave are poorly reported (only personal testimony, not detailed observations) with poor understanding of surrounding forces and events. As such, the evidence is, at best, questionable and, given the context, completely insufficient to show that there is anything unusual going on.

Sorry, eye-witnesses, especially those not trained for observation, who do not know the more general context, and are ignorant of the laws of physics are NOT reliable in such situations.

The claim that people 'mysteriously disappear'.

I promise, I will put together something better for you. It's just that I have not had enough time.

And I think it a good idea to ask for some sort of observational test for at least the underlying theory that uses one of the multiverse concepts. I've seen one model that allows for observational tests (because of gravitational influences between 'universes'). I also find it interesting that most attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity lead naturally to some sort of multiverse. Those attempts can, in some cases, be tested in *other* aspects and that can give some weight to those proposals.

You guys, go ahead and knock yourselves out. I'll be watching from the sidelines with my popcorn, and a smirk on my face.

 

[nPeace]

Than do not mention it.


Actually, by far most physicists and cosmologists support the multiverse hypothesis, but also realize the limits of the presence evidence, The following is a fairly complete list of those for or against the multiverse, and some alternatives.

Scientists support in the multiverse – All published in peer reviewed journals in physics and cosmology

Alexander A. Antonov
Arvind Borde
Sean M. Carroll
Jean Dalibard
David Gross university of California Santa Barbara
John Donoghue of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hugh Everett III
Brian Greene
Ben Gripaios
Griffiths, David J
Alan Guth
Stephan Hawking
Thomas Hertog Belgian cosmologist at KU Leuven University
Sabine Hossenfelder Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
Dmitri Kazakov
Greg Kestin Harvard University,
Stéphane Laving
Audrey Mithani
Hitoshi Murayama
Yasunori Nomura Berkley Center for Theoretical Physics.
Sir Martin Rees Britain’s astronomer royal
Veronica Sasnz
Tom Shanks of Durham University
Leonard Susskind of Stanford
Max Tegmmax
Alexander Vilenkin
David Wallace
Frank Wilczek

Clara Moskowitz - Senior editor American Scientific Not a PhD.

Belief in a cyclic universe from preexisting energy using string theory

Paul Steinhardt
Neil Turok


Oppose or extremely skeptical of a multiverse. Note: Most of these scientists and philosophers have a strong theist orientation, and support the Discovery Institute or AIG, and Intelligent Design

Jim Baggott - DPhil in chemical physics at the University of Oxford
Luke A. Barnes
Bernard Carr
Paul Davies
George Ellis University of Cape Town
Dr Simon Friederich, a philosopher at the University of Groningen
David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara

There is a dead man on your list.

Methodological Naturalism by definition can only falsify theories, hypothesis and theorems based on evidence of our physical existence, and not claims of 'truth' nor philosophical and theological questions beyond our physical existence.

Scientists who believe in atheism or agnosticism do not make these claims as supported 'truth' claims. The are making an assumption od Ontological Naturalism not based on science.

Thank you for that.

 

[nPeace]

Of course gods are used to fill in the gaps, and always have been.

Where does lightning come from? Indra / Zeus / Perun / Thor
How does the sun rise and set everyday? Apollo rides it across the sky in his chariot / Jóhonaa'éí carries the sun across the sky on his back / Ra travels across the sky in his sun boat
Where does rain come from? Horus / Adad / Yu Shi / Tlaloc
Why is that person acting erratically? They're possessed by demons / God is punishing them for past sins
I could go on and on and on ....

One can't help but notice that thanks to scientific investigation, we have discovered natural explanations for these things that don't require any gods whatsoever.

It is a filler.

Once again, you are wrong.
Once again, you make claims without any supportive evidence.
Once again, I am pointing this out to you.
...but will that change anything? Will you go and return wit any evidence to verify your claims?
It's left to be seen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, you are wrong.
Once again, you make claims without any supportive evidence.
Once again, I am pointing this out to you.
...but will that change anything? Will you go and return wit any evidence to verify your claims?
It's left to be seen.

No, I am right. The gods I mentioned were believed to exist by human beings throughout history.

What supporting evidence do you require? Are you not aware that many other people have worshiped many other gods throughout history and attributed just about every aspect of nature to them? Things we now know have perfectly natural explanations - no gods required.
Hell, we have people TODAY attributing natural disasters to gods.
Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?


How is it that you think I'm wrong? You never actually mentioned that part.

P.S. I don't make claims without supporting evidence. If you think I have done that, please point out where you think that happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a dead man on your list.

His peer reviewed papers and research still exist and referred to in later research as a primary source for the support of the multiverse.. This documents the fact that the multiverse is by far the dominant view of physicists and cosmologists in recent history'

The view of the scientists is not that the universe had an absolute beginning, but a temporal beginning from a singularity in a greater timeless quantum world of a multiverse.

Why do you keep harping on the the scientists supporting a beginning, since their view does not support your agenda.

Thank you for that.

Pretty much documents that the present consensus of physicists and cosmologists is independent of religious belief nor non-belief.

 

[nPeace]

No, I am right. The gods I mentioned were believed to exist by human beings throughout history.

What supporting evidence do you require? Are you not aware that many other people have worshiped many other gods throughout history and attributed just about every aspect of nature to them? Things we now know have perfectly natural explanations - no gods required.
Hell, we have people TODAY attributing natural disasters to gods.
Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?


How is it that you think I'm wrong? You never actually mentioned that part.

P.S. I don't make claims without supporting evidence. If you think I have done that, please point out where you think that happened.

Oh, I see. You don't understand.

Case A.
Event : Lightning strikes.
People react: Oh. My God.
Event : Thunder rolls.
People react : Oh. God.
Me narrating : And so the word God was coined as people who did not understand various phenomenon named them God. Then they went about distinguishing their God - "God of Thunder. God of Lightning." They even began competing, and some preferred one God over another.

Case B
Me narrating : People believed in God - one true and living God.
Over time people started inventing their own god(s) - making them of wood and stone, so they could see them.
They began attributing certain events to their gods, and inventing gods for everything in nature.
These practices were passed on for generations, and altered, to become various superstitions, myths, and legends.
So when lightning struck, an individual having these superstitious beliefs would associate that event to one of his many gods - lightning god or nature god, or whatever.
However , those that worshiped the true God, did not believe in such superstitions.

In either case, belief in God came first. However that belief was distorted, and whatever beliefs were invented, doesn't change that fact.
This is no different to the case with hurricanes. People believe different things. Some attribute everything under the sun to God, why? They believe in a God.
Some others believe in God but don't attribute everything under the sun to that God.

It's just a case of different beliefs.
Take your belief for example... You believe that the diversity of life must be attributed to an unknown imagined organism for which it's origin is also an unknown imagination.
In fact you attribute every blessed thing in existence to an unknown imagination - whatever it is.
Some people call it nothing , but whatever it is, it is something.

It seems to me you are saying things happened as Case A describes it, because to quote you, "Of course gods are used to fill in the gaps, and always have been". Then at the end you put in bold font, "It is a filler." Or maybe you are leaving out the one important fact. I am saying to you no it did not happen that way.
If I am mistaken, and you are saying it happened different to case A and B, please explain exactly how it happened, and provide evidence to support that claim.
In any case, please provide evidence to support your claim.

You do make claims without supporting evidence. You just made one.

I don't make claims without supporting evidence.

Where is your supporting evidence for that claim?