Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[nPeace]

Before changing my career into IT & computer programming, I was qualified civil engineer, but my first job was 6 month as a draughtsman working for state government in the Design and Project department, a department that were responsible for government-own housing, that include renovation and maintenance.

As I was assisting a number of architects, I can tell they are real people, not invisible entities, like your nonexistent and imaginary god.

I cannot prove or disprove any god that don’t exist, but since you are the one who believe in such a being, then the actual responsibility for the burden of proof falls upon you, since you were the one who made the extraordinary claims:



You are the one making such claims, then it falls upon you to back those claims up with evidence about your “fine-tuned universe”, the “designed life” and your “intelligent creator”.

You don’t shift your responsibility upon others who just disagree with you and nonsensical opinions.

Ha Ha. Don't make claims you know aren't true, and then try to shift the focus away from the fact that you made an empty assertion.

gnostic said:
Humans exist, god don’t.

 

[nPeace]

Sure, go ahead.

Your beliefs regarding the universe and life on earth coming about without an intelligent creator, is like believing that a pilot makes billions of flybys, over a football stadium with buckets of paints, and during each ride, releasing paint, and at the end of a couple billion trips, one could see a painting of the Mona Lisa.
It is similar to believing that the holes in my shoe assembled and arranged themselves that way, abd then laces wove through each hole, till it looked like this.

It makes no sense to me.

Attempting to discover the truth, but wanting it to be clear not false.

Are you clear about the truth? How would you know it is the truth?

Sure. Some people claim that the fact that Jupiter exists in our solar system makes Earth special. Jupiter would serve to 'mop up' asteroids and reduce the number hitting other planets. This neglects the influence of Jupiter on preventing asteroids from condensing into a planet in the first place.

That's the only example I have seen that makes any sense at all.

This is the "very little" evidence to you?

Please do if you are willing to listen to the refutations.

Sure. I'll get back to you.

You aren't listening.

I'm not? On the subject of 'attempting to discover the truth, but wanting it to be clear not false', did you discover that to be true, and not false? How do you know it's true, and not false?

The early Earth was hostile to the point that no plants, animals, fungi, or ANYTHING other than anaerobic bacteria could live. This is quite different than life being har 5000 years ago. There was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere early on, which would prevent humans being about to live on Earth at all.

Duh. You didn't say all this, before, but it's not different and still not informative. I already know that. It's in Genesis.

The hostility of 5000 years ago was a pleasure palace compared to what i am talking about.

5000 years ago? What are you talking about? Are you getting confused with the flood account?

Sorry, but that makes no sense in the context of the Bible. The 'water' we have found in outer space has NOTHING to do with the Earth. it isn't separated by a firmament.

Sorry, but today is not the same as 100 centuries or more.
You cannot expect things to be the same, especially after the flood.

How can you read Genesis and see this as being at all relevant to what is said in the Bible?

How? Humility and an open mind.

Yes, I would, unless I was just enjoying their type naive outlook. The sky is NOTHING at all like a tent. Tents have material that can separate an inside from an outside. And, it is clear that the 'firmament' of Genesis was viewed in that way. But it isn't at all what is reality.

You do understand what like means right.
The verse did not say it looks like, as in the case where someone says your nose looks like a pipe... I don't mean your nose, but to say the heavens are stretched out like a tent, is not to say the heavens look like a tent, anymore than we are saying the cave looks like a house, when we says this cave it like a house, in that it provides shelter.
Come on Poly. I know you are more intelligent than that.
I know you are trying really hard to find fault, but when atheists do that, they get ridiculous to the point of looking stupid... but we know you are not stupid.
No one wants to look it though.

Huh? How would light have not reached Earth? it was produced in the sun and the Earth formed after the sun.

You believe the earth was produced in the sun??? Wow. That's news to me.
Another good reason for not believing what you do. Yikes.

The sun was there, but light needed to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. Have you ever seen an eclipse during the day? Well think of these conditions, and see if you get a picture of what I am saying.
Bare in mind that we aren't being exact, so please don't give me the, but there was still light. You don't know that.

Early Faint Sun Paradox Explained?
Scientists say a thick organic haze that enshrouded early Earth several billion years ago may have been similar to the haze that covers Titan and would have protected emerging life on the planet from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation, while warming the planet, as well.

Lab simulations helped researchers conclude that the Earth haze likely was made up of irregular “chains” of aggregate particles with greater geometrical sizes, similar to the shape of aerosols believed to populate Titan’s thick atmosphere. The arrival of the Cassini spacecraft at Saturn in 2004 has allowed scientists to study Titan, the only moon in the solar system with both a dense atmosphere and liquid on its surface.

Sounds similar to Genesis 1:2

A thick haze of organic material let the early Earth soak up the sun's warmth without absorbing harmful ultraviolet rays, according to a new study.

The model offers a new twist on an old puzzle: Although the sun was so dim billions of years ago that the Earth should have been a ball of ice, the young planet had liquid oceans capable of supporting life.

No, the Bible has a universe that is quite small. This was the typical view at the time (we have a text from Archimedes that computes the universe to be about a billion miles in radius).

Not sure where you got that, but it's not my view, so has nothing to do with me.

I'm not clear about whether you are being deliberately dense or whether you really don't grasp the differences here. The Earth currwently is quite hospitable to complex life. That is because it has changed greatly from what it was 2 billion years ago. Look around. You can see complex life everywhere.

I'm not sure you really are following what I say. You probably don't understand. Listening can be challenging at times. They say it's an art. It's true.

Yes, you are entitled to your beliefs, however wrong they are. People are allowed to belief strange and false things. You can believe in trolls or the Loch Ness Monster, or Big Foot if you want. Nobody is going to stop you.

But they aren't true.

Ditto.

 

[gnostic]

Prove your claim.


Don't get personal because of your ignorance and inability to demonstrate your beliefs are actually reality.


No. I have evidence... whether you chose to accept that, or believe otherwise.


No. It's the ability to reason. It's no different to what all scientists do... including those that do not agree with what you believe.
In case you haven't noticed, scientists do not agree. There is a reason why. Your beliefs cannot be verified.

Ha Ha. Don't make claims you know aren't true, and then try to shift the focus away from the fact that you made an empty assertion.

gnostic said:
Humans exist, god don’t.

I have no doubts at all that you have your own beliefs (eg beliefs in God, in Jesus, in your bible, in your church teachings, etc), and that you accepted your beliefs wholeheartedly. That’s acceptances, your convictions, are called FAITH.

Beliefs and faith are not about being able to “verified”…that’s what your “faith” is for, acceptance of beliefs (eg in god) without the needs for verification.

Faith isn’t EVIDENCE.

You don’t have evidence for anything in regarding to creation as narrated in Genesis 1 & 2, especially NO EVIDENCE for God.

Claiming that ”I have evidence“, only demonstrates you have absolutely what EVIDENCE is.

Evidence are observations of the physical and natural phenomena that you can verify with more observed evidence.

Observation - in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences - isn’t only about “seeing” with your eyes, nPeace. Observations can include detection with any device or instrument that do the “observing”, the “counting”, the “measuring”, the “testing” (which could include comparing, analysing, etc), etc.

For instances, the following devices, instruments , machines, etc, that can do the observations:

• telescopes that can observe distant objects, optical astronomy or radio astronomy (that’s using filter of electromagnetic waves beyond the range of visible light, eg infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwave, x-ray, etc)
• microscopes allowed ones to observe objects that are too small to be seen with the naked eye
• multimeters can be used to measure electricity, such as charges, current, voltage, power, energy, etc, plus the ability to detect circuitry where the electricity using DC or AC current
• X-ray machine, MRI, CT scan, ultrasound, and other diagnostic machines, are capable of observing the whole or part of human body without cutting him open
• mass spectrometry machine can break down solid, liquid or gas into their physical and chemical component, down to their molecules or even atoms
• radars have multiple applications, which include measuring speed and direction of vehicles or vessels, as well as detecting wind pattern, rainfalls over certain regions, warn of coming storms, etc

The points I am trying to make, is that we can directly observe, using our senses of sight, hearing, smelling, touch and taste, but when that’s not possible, we have devices and machines that do all the detecting and measuring, often more accurate than with our senses.

And that’s what it would take to observe the evidence of the phenomena.

And you can observe humans doing their works, for instances:

• You can observe an artist paint, draw or sculpt, today.
• You can observe an architect draw floor plan or other drawings by their own hands or him or her using some CAD software and specialised printing machines that draw everything to scale.
• You can observe builders (excavators, carpenters, bricklayers, stone masonry, welders, electricians, plumbers, people that work with some sorts of concrete, fitting windows, doors or cabinets, do tiles or carpets, etc) all doing their works each day, building houses or other building in accordance with the designs of architects and engineers
• You can work with computer programmers who solve problems using algorithms, write computer codes in one or more programming languages, test codes, etc, some things that I have done before

All these people, you can see for yourself, doing their works, whether it be designing or building.

And guess what, nPeace? You can record each persons doing their works on any video devices, such as your camera or on your smartphone, and the recording would be “evidence“.

But none of that possible with God. You cannot have evidence of God, nPeace, because you cannot observe or detect God, and you cannot measure or test God. And you certainly cannot observe God doing anything. And you certainly cannot God in the act of designing or creating on video.

All you are doing is believing whatever your scriptures say, especially in Genesis 1 & 2, but you cannot have EVIDENCE that God can do anything. That’s called “faith”, nPeace, that’s not “evidence”.

if you have evidence, you would be able to show and demonstrate it, but you cannot.

the only person here, making empty assertions, is you. You cannot possibly verify what you have claimed.

 

[gnostic]

Your beliefs regarding the universe and life on earth coming about without an intelligent creator, is like believing that a pilot makes billions of flybys,

actually, it isn’t belief, that life are made of living cells. And each cell contain many organic matters, which can broken down to biological molecules, such as the amino acids that make up certain types of proteins, or the chain of deoxyribose or ribose sugars that make up the biopolymers of DNA & RNA respectively, or the order of 4 nucleobase molecules - adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine (for DNA) & uracil (for RNA), that make up genetic information of every organism genetic traits, the many functions of carbohydrates and lipids.

The list goes on, for the number of different molecules in cells. But in every molecules and compounds in cells, they can be further broken down to ATOMS.

So the basis of all living organisms, biology actually come down to the fundamental of chemistry and physics.

What sustains life, is metabolism, which in another word “chemical reaction”, where organism convert something into energy that not only sustain us among the living, metabolism also keep organisms healthy, and make repairs when needed (healing processes).

for instances, animals, including humans, required to eat. Our digestive systems breakdown the foods, into the nutrients needed, especially carbohydrates (sugars, glucose for animals and starch for plants) are sources of energy that keep living cells alive.

The photosynthesis of plants and certain bacteria (eg cyanobacteria) use sunlight (more precisely ultraviolet light) to cause a chain reaction of water and carbon dioxide and turn these chemical chemical molecules into starch (energy for plants) and oxygen. All this process of metabolism, take place in the plant cell’s chloroplast, particularly the chlorophyll, which is responsible for photosynthesis capability of plants.

biology actually all come down to chemistry and physics. Biology, physics and chemistry are all natural & physical processes, no magic involved.

Evolution and even the still hypothesis of abiogenesis, also come down to chemistry and physics. Again no magic are involved in either one of them.

the belief in “God did it” involved magic, like turning dust int a fully grown human male. It is superstition and myth that such as thing as Genesis 2:7 can happen. It is no better than believing in Egyptian myths or Sumerian & Akkadian myths of creation, which is most likely where the ancient Jews got it from.

humans since the dawn of their history, have always gone through natural processes, eg reproduction and giving birth, not by metamorphosis change of dust or soil into living human beings. Metamorphosis or transformation as narrated in Genesis 2, is a myth and impossible to occur naturally.

the human body isn’t made of clay or silt soil…we don’t simply spring out of the ground. It is utterly nonsensical that you can still believe how Adam was created.

you are living in the 21st century, and you should be able to grasp even the most basic of reproductive biology, and yet you would still believe in a mythological and false information of Genesis 2:7 as if the creation of Adam were fact, would only demonstrate how backwards you are in scientific knowledge.

 

[nPeace]

I have no doubts at all that you have your own beliefs (eg beliefs in God, in Jesus, in your bible, in your church teachings, etc), and that you accepted your beliefs wholeheartedly. That’s acceptances, your convictions, are called FAITH.

Beliefs and faith are not about being able to “verified”…that’s what your “faith” is for, acceptance of beliefs (eg in god) without the needs for verification.

Faith isn’t EVIDENCE.

You don’t have evidence for anything in regarding to creation as narrated in Genesis 1 & 2, especially NO EVIDENCE for God.

Claiming that ”I have evidence“, only demonstrates you have absolutely what EVIDENCE is.

Evidence are observations of the physical and natural phenomena that you can verify with more observed evidence.

Observation - in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences - isn’t only about “seeing” with your eyes, nPeace. Observations can include detection with any device or instrument that do the “observing”, the “counting”, the “measuring”, the “testing” (which could include comparing, analysing, etc), etc.

For instances, the following devices, instruments , machines, etc, that can do the observations:

• telescopes that can observe distant objects, optical astronomy or radio astronomy (that’s using filter of electromagnetic waves beyond the range of visible light, eg infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwave, x-ray, etc)
• microscopes allowed ones to observe objects that are too small to be seen with the naked eye
• multimeters can be used to measure electricity, such as charges, current, voltage, power, energy, etc, plus the ability to detect circuitry where the electricity using DC or AC current
• X-ray machine, MRI, CT scan, ultrasound, and other diagnostic machines, are capable of observing the whole or part of human body without cutting him open
• mass spectrometry machine can break down solid, liquid or gas into their physical and chemical component, down to their molecules or even atoms
• radars have multiple applications, which include measuring speed and direction of vehicles or vessels, as well as detecting wind pattern, rainfalls over certain regions, warn of coming storms, etc

The points I am trying to make, is that we can directly observe, using our senses of sight, hearing, smelling, touch and taste, but when that’s not possible, we have devices and machines that do all the detecting and measuring, often more accurate than with our senses.

And that’s what it would take to observe the evidence of the phenomena.

And you can observe humans doing their works, for instances:

• You can observe an artist paint, draw or sculpt, today.
• You can observe an architect draw floor plan or other drawings by their own hands or him or her using some CAD software and specialised printing machines that draw everything to scale.
• You can observe builders (excavators, carpenters, bricklayers, stone masonry, welders, electricians, plumbers, people that work with some sorts of concrete, fitting windows, doors or cabinets, do tiles or carpets, etc) all doing their works each day, building houses or other building in accordance with the designs of architects and engineers
• You can work with computer programmers who solve problems using algorithms, write computer codes in one or more programming languages, test codes, etc, some things that I have done before

All these people, you can see for yourself, doing their works, whether it be designing or building.

And guess what, nPeace? You can record each persons doing their works on any video devices, such as your camera or on your smartphone, and the recording would be “evidence“.

But none of that possible with God. You cannot have evidence of God, nPeace, because you cannot observe or detect God, and you cannot measure or test God. And you certainly cannot observe God doing anything. And you certainly cannot God in the act of designing or creating on video.

All you are doing is believing whatever your scriptures say, especially in Genesis 1 & 2, but you cannot have EVIDENCE that God can do anything. That’s called “faith”, nPeace, that’s not “evidence”.

if you have evidence, you would be able to show and demonstrate it, but you cannot.

the only person here, making empty assertions, is you. You cannot possibly verify what you have claimed.

Thank you for your long explanation on what you believe. I carefully read through all of it, and it is not entirely true... perhaps 20% is true. However, I will address each.

1) What Faith Involves
Myth : Faith is blind belief
Fact : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge

The highest blindfolded tightrope walk is 212.8 m (698 ft 1.9 in) and was achieved by Maurizio Zavatta (Italy) on the set of CCTV - Guinness World Records Special in Wulong, Chongqing, China, on 15 November 2016.
Maurizio achieved the fastest 150 m blindfold tightrope walk at the same time.

Does a tightrope walker act without knowledge, without evidence?
A blind tight walker uses both knowledge and evidence to accomplish a feat requiring faith. Why faith? He has to trust in a number of things - some of which are unseen.

The word “faith” is translated from the Greek pistis, primarily conveying the thought of confidence, trust, firm persuasion.
Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
One who acts in faith has knowledge and evidence. Faith is not blind belief.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

2) Our Senses
Myth : Human use only five senses to detect things
Fact : Humans detect things with far more senses than

science says you have way more than 5 senses
We have more than 5 senses

Science being limited, and incapable of telling us everything, fails to tell us about the sense that all human have which makes us conscious of our spiritual needs.
Science is not the only path to truth. In fact, I've been told, Science Does Not Reveal Truth.
...while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.
In any case...

You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with “accurate” and “reliable” explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth. Why not? After all, scientists strive to build knowledge about the natural world that corresponds to the way the world really works. Doesn’t that mean that they’re seeking the truth?

Science does try to build true knowledge of how the world works, but there are other sorts of knowledge that people also call “the truth.” For example, many have faith in spiritual truths, yet science cannot investigate this truth at all — or even tell us whether it exists.

it’s important to remember that to be interested in scientific truth, one doesn’t have to reject other sources of meaning.​

Like the sense of interoception - the ability to sense your own heartbeat and other inner bodily workings, the ability to sense your spiritual need, is not something everyone possesses.
“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need. . ." Jesus said. (Matthew 5:3)
Just as one detects physical hunger, there are people who experience spiritual hunger.

 

[nPeace]

3) Instruments
Myth : The only instruments we have available to detect anything, are physical or natural
Fact : Not all instruments used for detection are physical instruments.

Proprioception - the sensing of the location of our body parts in space
Vestibular sense - the ability to discern the direction of the pull of gravity
Interoception - the ability to sense your own heartbeat and other inner bodily workings

Scientific Reasoning
One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. To do this, they use two methods of logical thinking: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion.

There is no doubt with regard to the involvement of several general cognitive processes in the emergence and development of scientific reasoning, such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, problem-solving and causal reasoning.

Although mental processes involved in science have intrigued researchers since the 1620, it was not until Simon and Newell (1971) that an actual theory of scientific reasoning was proposed. Simon and Newell defined scientific reasoning as a problem-solving process

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case.

Conclusion
When I say I have evidence, and there is evidence for God, it is not just a claim, or empty assertions.
God being invisible does not make him undetectable. We can detect God, and many have that evidence.
The means by which we detect God, are not by physical instruments, but neither is hunger detected by physical instruments. That doesn't make hunger non-existent.
We may not see an artist paint a picture, but if we reason that every painting was done by a human, we have not provided any proof. We used logical reasoning, to reach a conclusion based on our present knowledge... and we could be dead wrong.
Same with buildings.

The Kardashev scale: Classifying alien civilizations
Over the decades, scientists considering the possibility of life beyond Earth have pondered what such life might look like, how humans might be able to identify it from afar — and whether communication between the two worlds might be possible.

That thinking has included developing classification systems ready to fill with aliens. One such system is called the Kardashev scale, after the Soviet astronomer who proposed it in 1964, and evaluates alien civilizations based on the energy they can harness.

Wheter a conclusion reached based on evidence and current knowledge, is correct or incorrect, does not render evidence null and void.
Also, circumstantial evidence is not conclusive, on the premise that we believe there is only one interpretation that is correct.

More importantly, the idea - Myth - that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality, is called Scientism - a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things, and an attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

Not to make this too long, I'll pause here.

 

[gnostic]

1) What Faith Involves
Myth : Faith is blind belief
Fact : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge

Ah, no.

Faith isn't belief at all.

Faith is about acceptance and trust and conviction.

So when you talk of faith, in relation to "belief", then faith is about ACCEPTING the belief to be true.

You can also substitute the "accepting" with TRUSTING, so it could be read as "TRUSTING the belief to be true".

AND faith has nothing to do with evidence, because FAITH is purely SUBJECTIVE, because it is also personal choice of whether you accept or trust your personal belief or personal opinion.

Belief and opinion are also NOT EVIDENCE.

Faith is related to belief, but these two words have different meaning, and you are confusing them, since they are often intermix.

All faiths - whether it is related to religion or not - are always personal and subjective, so they cannot be called EVIDENCE.

 

[nPeace]

Ah, no.

Faith isn't belief at all.

Faith is about acceptance and trust and conviction.

So when you talk of faith, in relation to "belief", then faith is about ACCEPTING the belief to be true.

You can also substitute the "accepting" with TRUSTING, so it could be read as "TRUSTING the belief to be true".

AND faith has nothing to do with evidence, because FAITH is purely SUBJECTIVE, because it is also personal choice of whether you accept or trust your personal belief or personal opinion.

Belief and opinion are also NOT EVIDENCE.

Faith is related to belief, but these two words have different meaning, and you are confusing them, since they are often intermix.

All faiths - whether it is related to religion or not - are always personal and subjective, so they cannot be called EVIDENCE.

Fact : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

Fact : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge.

Fact Myth : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

3) Instruments
Myth : The only instruments we have available to detect anything, are physical or natural
Fact : Not all instruments used for detection are physical instruments.

Proprioception - the sensing of the location of our body parts in space
Vestibular sense - the ability to discern the direction of the pull of gravity
Interoception - the ability to sense your own heartbeat and other inner bodily workings

Those are all physical senses. We even know the sensory apparatus for their detection. For example, the vestibular sense is partially detected by fluid in the semi-circular canals in the ear.

Scientific Reasoning
One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. To do this, they use two methods of logical thinking: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion.

There is no doubt with regard to the involvement of several general cognitive processes in the emergence and development of scientific reasoning, such as inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, problem-solving and causal reasoning.

Although mental processes involved in science have intrigued researchers since the 1620, it was not until Simon and Newell (1971) that an actual theory of scientific reasoning was proposed. Simon and Newell defined scientific reasoning as a problem-solving process

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case.

Conclusion
When I say I have evidence, and there is evidence for God, it is not just a claim, or empty assertions.

And how do you get that conclusion from the above?

God being invisible does not make him undetectable. We can detect God, and many have that evidence.

Given the inconsistencies of such claims of detection, it is reasonable to think they are mistaken.

The means by which we detect God, are not by physical instruments, but neither is hunger detected by physical instruments.

Absolutely it is. That is where you are wrong. Hunger is usually detected by a drop in blood sugar levels. There are also 'stretch' detectors in the stomach that signal when we are full.

That doesn't make hunger non-existent.
We may not see an artist paint a picture, but if we reason that every painting was done by a human, we have not provided any proof. We used logical reasoning, to reach a conclusion based on our present knowledge... and we could be dead wrong.
Same with buildings.

Yes. We base our conclusion on the knowledge that humans build buildings and we have not seen buildings come about in other ways.

The Kardashev scale: Classifying alien civilizations
Over the decades, scientists considering the possibility of life beyond Earth have pondered what such life might look like, how humans might be able to identify it from afar — and whether communication between the two worlds might be possible.

That thinking has included developing classification systems ready to fill with aliens. One such system is called the Kardashev scale, after the Soviet astronomer who proposed it in 1964, and evaluates alien civilizations based on the energy they can harness.

Wheter a conclusion reached based on evidence and current knowledge, is correct or incorrect, does not render evidence null and void.
Also, circumstantial evidence is not conclusive, on the premise that we believe there is only one interpretation that is correct.

More importantly, the idea - Myth - that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality, is called Scientism - a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things, and an attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

No, not of values. Of truth. Values do NOT come from science. Science can only say what is or is not true, not how we should act to that fact.

Not to make this too long, I'll pause here.

I'm waiting for something accurate to appear.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you for your long explanation on what you believe. I carefully read through all of it, and it is not entirely true... perhaps 20% is true. However, I will address each.

1) What Faith Involves
Myth : Faith is blind belief
Fact : Faith is based on evidence acquired through knowledge

The highest blindfolded tightrope walk is 212.8 m (698 ft 1.9 in) and was achieved by Maurizio Zavatta (Italy) on the set of CCTV - Guinness World Records Special in Wulong, Chongqing, China, on 15 November 2016.
Maurizio achieved the fastest 150 m blindfold tightrope walk at the same time.

Does a tightrope walker act without knowledge, without evidence?
A blind tight walker uses both knowledge and evidence to accomplish a feat requiring faith. Why faith? He has to trust in a number of things - some of which are unseen.

Sorry, but that is not religious faith. A tightrope walker learns the physical aspects of the rope, thereby gaining knowledge. That is not faith in the religious sense, which is belief in spite of a lack of evidence.

The word “faith” is translated from the Greek pistis, primarily conveying the thought of confidence, trust, firm persuasion.
Hebrews 11:1 - Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
One who acts in faith has knowledge and evidence. Faith is not blind belief.

If there is knowledge and evidence, it should be easy enough to demonstrate. And if that is the case, faith (religious faith) is not required.

Faith in the sense of confidence obtained by observation and testing (the scientific method) is NOT the same as religious faith, which *is* blind faith.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

Belief without proof is the norm for religious ideas.

2) Our Senses
Myth : Human use only five senses to detect things
Fact : Humans detect things with far more senses than

science says you have way more than 5 senses
We have more than 5 senses

Science being limited, and incapable of telling us everything, fails to tell us about the sense that all human have which makes us conscious of our spiritual needs.

What spiritual needs? How does one become conscious of them?

Just a note: if you quote from a website, you really should make it clear what is and what is not a quote.

 

[nPeace]

Those are all physical senses. We even know the sensory apparatus for their detection. For example, the vestibular sense is partially detected by fluid in the semi-circular canals in the ear.

I hear the term mental and physical.
Can you define and explain both. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but that is not religious faith. A tightrope walker learns the physical aspects of the rope, thereby gaining knowledge. That is not faith in the religious sense, which is belief in spite of a lack of evidence.

You are again failing to grasp the difference between a similarity, and what is.
Nowhere did I say a tightrope walker is religious, or has religious faith.
What are you saying that I can relate to the point I am making?

 

[Polymath257]

Your beliefs regarding the universe and life on earth coming about without an intelligent creator, is like believing that a pilot makes billions of flybys, over a football stadium with buckets of paints, and during each ride, releasing paint, and at the end of a couple billion trips, one could see a painting of the Mona Lisa.
It is similar to believing that the holes in my shoe assembled and arranged themselves that way, abd then laces wove through each hole, till it looked like this.

It makes no sense to me.

And if that were the correct analogy, you would be right to say it is silly. But that is NOT what the science says. Maybe instead of attacking a straw man, you could learn what is actually claimed in the science?

Are you clear about the truth? How would you know it is the truth?

By testing.

This is the "very little" evidence to you?

Yes. It is not much evidence and quite ambiguous.

Sure. I'll get back to you.


I'm not? On the subject of 'attempting to discover the truth, but wanting it to be clear not false', did you discover that to be true, and not false? How do you know it's true, and not false?

I have no idea what you are asking here. In particular, the word 'that' would refer to the previous clause.

Duh. You didn't say all this, before, but it's not different and still not informative. I already know that. It's in Genesis.

No, it is not. Not even close. Genesis has no concept of oxygen. It has no concept of bacteria. It has no concept of the time scale (days versus billions of years). It has no idea of the order,etc.

5000 years ago? What are you talking about? Are you getting confused with the flood account?

You are the one that said things were inhospitable 5000 years ago. I was pointing out how the early Earth was *completely* inhospitable to life like us. No, I am not getting confused about the (mythical) flood account.

Sorry, but today is not the same as 100 centuries or more.
You cannot expect things to be the same, especially after the flood.

Actually, I can and do. The flood would have left evidence that we simply do not see. In fact, the original people who investigated this *expected* to see evidence of a great flood and didn't find such.

How? Humility and an open mind.


You do understand what like means right.
The verse did not say it looks like, as in the case where someone says your nose looks like a pipe... I don't mean your nose, but to say the heavens are stretched out like a tent, is not to say the heavens look like a tent, anymore than we are saying the cave looks like a house, when we says this cave it like a house, in that it provides shelter.
Come on Poly. I know you are more intelligent than that.
I know you are trying really hard to find fault, but when atheists do that, they get ridiculous to the point of looking stupid... but we know you are not stupid.
No one wants to look it though.

And I know that you have read the Bible. There is no firmament. The sky is NOT 'stretched out' over the Earth like such a firmament.

You believe the earth was produced in the sun??? Wow. That's news to me.
Another good reason for not believing what you do. Yikes.

Pleas read what I wrote in context. The *light* was produced by the sun.

The sun was there, but light needed to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. Have you ever seen an eclipse during the day? Well think of these conditions, and see if you get a picture of what I am saying.
Bare in mind that we aren't being exact, so please don't give me the, but there was still light. You don't know that.

Absolutely I do.

Early Faint Sun Paradox Explained?
Scientists say a thick organic haze that enshrouded early Earth several billion years ago may have been similar to the haze that covers Titan and would have protected emerging life on the planet from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation, while warming the planet, as well.

And yet, it is still light on the surface of Titan.

Lab simulations helped researchers conclude that the Earth haze likely was made up of irregular “chains” of aggregate particles with greater geometrical sizes, similar to the shape of aerosols believed to populate Titan’s thick atmosphere. The arrival of the Cassini spacecraft at Saturn in 2004 has allowed scientists to study Titan, the only moon in the solar system with both a dense atmosphere and liquid on its surface.

And yet, there is still light on the surface of Titan and there would have been on the surface of the Earth. It may not have been *as bright* as now, but it still would not have been dark.

Sounds similar to Genesis 1:2

A thick haze of organic material let the early Earth soak up the sun's warmth without absorbing harmful ultraviolet rays, according to a new study.

The model offers a new twist on an old puzzle: Although the sun was so dim billions of years ago that the Earth should have been a ball of ice, the young planet had liquid oceans capable of supporting life.


Not sure where you got that, but it's not my view, so has nothing to do with me.

it was the standard view of the universe at the time the old testament was written.

The standard view was that the Earth was at the center of the universe and the sky was a solid that surrounded the Earth. Planets, stars, and the sun were attached to the sky. Heaven was past the solid sky.

Early views thought of the Earth as flat and surrounded by water, while later ones (after Greek influence) has the Earth 'hanging in space'. In no ancient system did the Earth actually move (well, Pythagorous suggested it, but nobody really followed him).

I'm not sure you really are following what I say. You probably don't understand. Listening can be challenging at times. They say it's an art. It's true.


Ditto.

So we can agree that faith leads to strange ideas that are false? Good.

 

[gnostic]

When I say I have evidence, and there is evidence for God, it is not just a claim, or empty assertions.
God being invisible does not make him undetectable. We can detect God, and many have that evidence.

Evidence, as I have told you, already, are the physical or natural phenomena that can be observed, whether the observations be directly or indirectly observed.

Observations include the following premises:

• being able to OBSERVE or DETECT the evidence
• being able to QUANTIFY the evidence
• being able to MEASURE the evidence
• being able to COMPARE the evidence
• being able to ANALYZE THE PROPERTIES of the evidence
• being able to TEST the evidence

Each of the above, can be examined, challenged, retested (for verification purpose). If you really did have any evidence, then anyone can verify what you have claimed.

You cannot do any of that with God, so YOU REALLY DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

God falls under the “supernatural“ category as that of believing in Zeus, Odin, Ra, magic, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, spirits, fairies, ghouls & goblin, etc. Every single one of these examples are supernatural, and another words for “supernatural“ are “unnatural“, “fake”, etc, and they only exist in imagination, delusions, fictions.

 

[Polymath257]

I hear the term mental and physical.
Can you define and explain both. Thanks.

it's a dichotomy that is false. It was introduced by Descartes, but even at that time the difficulties were well known.

Physical: whatever can be tested through observation.

Mental: whatever is done by the brain.

 

[Polymath257]

You are again failing to grasp the difference between a similarity, and what is.
Nowhere did I say a tightrope walker is religious, or has religious faith.
What are you saying that I can relate to the point I am making?

I am pointing out the *very* different natures of 'faith' that is the confidence that comes from testing and observation (non-religious faith) and religious faith, which does no testing, and has no checks and balances, leading to wild beliefs with no evidence.

So I disagree that you have used the term 'faith' consistently. Religious faith *is* blind faith.

 

[nPeace]

I'm waiting for something accurate to appear.

Well don't just look at your thoughts.

Just a note: if you quote from a website, you really should make it clear what is and what is not a quote.

Okay. I'll try.

And if that were the correct analogy, you would be right to say it is silly. But that is NOT what the science says. Maybe instead of attacking a straw man, you could learn what is actually claimed in the science?

The science says...
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The pilot making the trips = millions of years.
The paints being dropped = small changes building up.
The finished painting of Mona Lisa = Macroevolution.

Maybe you didn't understand. I understand the state of atheism., and what it does to one's mind.

No, it is not. Not even close. Genesis has no concept of oxygen. It has no concept of bacteria. It has no concept of the time scale (days versus billions of years). It has no idea of the order,etc.

Genesis is not a science book, but is accurate where it scientific discovery is considered.

You are the one that said things were inhospitable 5000 years ago.

I did not. Where?

I was pointing out how the early Earth was *completely* inhospitable to life like us. No, I am not getting confused about the (mythical) flood account.

What you are "pointing out" is already known... from Genesis.

And I know that you have read the Bible. There is no firmament. The sky is NOT 'stretched out' over the Earth like such a firmament.

You are confusing what's writen with something else.
The expanse in Genesis, is not the sky mentioned in Isaiah.

And yet, it is still light on the surface of Titan.

Although I cautioned him.
We are not saying the earth is Titan.
The conditions being similar were not necessarily exactly the same.
Is it difficult to understand the difference between like / similar to, and is?
A thicker atmosphere than Titan is not the same as Titan.
So, we are not talking about Titan.

And yet, there is still light on the surface of Titan and there would have been on the surface of the Earth. It may not have been *as bright* as now, but it still would not have been dark.

Groan.

it was the standard view of the universe at the time the old testament was written.

No. Just as it was not the standard view that the earth was supported on the back of a giant turtle, or something else. The Bible got it right.

The standard view was that the Earth was at the center of the universe and the sky was a solid that surrounded the Earth. Planets, stars, and the sun were attached to the sky. Heaven was past the solid sky.

No. That's the view of people who try to suggest that.

Early views thought of the Earth as flat and surrounded by water, while later ones (after Greek influence) has the Earth 'hanging in space'. In no ancient system did the Earth actually move (well, Pythagorous suggested it, but nobody really followed him).

Views outside the Bible yes. Like this.

The Bible paints a different picture to the common myths.

So we can agree that faith leads to strange ideas that are false? Good.

No. We don't agree to your foolish ideas.

it's a dichotomy that is false. It was introduced by Descartes, but even at that time the difficulties were well known.

Physical: whatever can be tested through observation.

Mental: whatever is done by the brain.

Okay. Thank you.

I am pointing out the *very* different natures of 'faith' that is the confidence that comes from testing and observation (non-religious faith) and religious faith, which does no testing, and has no checks and balances, leading to wild beliefs with no evidence.

So I disagree that you have used the term 'faith' consistently. Religious faith *is* blind faith.

You do not understand religious faith.
Talking about something you know nothing about, leads to wrong conclusions and false, or made up assertions, like "Religious faith *is* blind faith."

When you acquire knowledge on this, we can talk about it.
Oh. and unless you have an article or document supporting your claim, there won't be any need for yapping.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubts at all that you have your own beliefs (eg beliefs in God, in Jesus, in your bible, in your church teachings, etc), and that you accepted your beliefs wholeheartedly. That’s acceptances, your convictions, are called FAITH.

Beliefs and faith are not about being able to “verified”…that’s what your “faith” is for, acceptance of beliefs (eg in god) without the needs for verification.

Faith isn’t EVIDENCE.

You don’t have evidence for anything in regarding to creation as narrated in Genesis 1 & 2, especially NO EVIDENCE for God.

Claiming that ”I have evidence“, only demonstrates you have absolutely what EVIDENCE is.

Evidence are observations of the physical and natural phenomena that you can verify with more observed evidence.

Observation - in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences - isn’t only about “seeing” with your eyes, nPeace. Observations can include detection with any device or instrument that do the “observing”, the “counting”, the “measuring”, the “testing” (which could include comparing, analysing, etc), etc.

For instances, the following devices, instruments , machines, etc, that can do the observations:

• telescopes that can observe distant objects, optical astronomy or radio astronomy (that’s using filter of electromagnetic waves beyond the range of visible light, eg infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwave, x-ray, etc)
• microscopes allowed ones to observe objects that are too small to be seen with the naked eye
• multimeters can be used to measure electricity, such as charges, current, voltage, power, energy, etc, plus the ability to detect circuitry where the electricity using DC or AC current
• X-ray machine, MRI, CT scan, ultrasound, and other diagnostic machines, are capable of observing the whole or part of human body without cutting him open
• mass spectrometry machine can break down solid, liquid or gas into their physical and chemical component, down to their molecules or even atoms
• radars have multiple applications, which include measuring speed and direction of vehicles or vessels, as well as detecting wind pattern, rainfalls over certain regions, warn of coming storms, etc

The points I am trying to make, is that we can directly observe, using our senses of sight, hearing, smelling, touch and taste, but when that’s not possible, we have devices and machines that do all the detecting and measuring, often more accurate than with our senses.

And that’s what it would take to observe the evidence of the phenomena.

And you can observe humans doing their works, for instances:

• You can observe an artist paint, draw or sculpt, today.
• You can observe an architect draw floor plan or other drawings by their own hands or him or her using some CAD software and specialised printing machines that draw everything to scale.
• You can observe builders (excavators, carpenters, bricklayers, stone masonry, welders, electricians, plumbers, people that work with some sorts of concrete, fitting windows, doors or cabinets, do tiles or carpets, etc) all doing their works each day, building houses or other building in accordance with the designs of architects and engineers
• You can work with computer programmers who solve problems using algorithms, write computer codes in one or more programming languages, test codes, etc, some things that I have done before

All these people, you can see for yourself, doing their works, whether it be designing or building.

And guess what, nPeace? You can record each persons doing their works on any video devices, such as your camera or on your smartphone, and the recording would be “evidence“.

But none of that possible with God. You cannot have evidence of God, nPeace, because you cannot observe or detect God, and you cannot measure or test God. And you certainly cannot observe God doing anything. And you certainly cannot God in the act of designing or creating on video.

All you are doing is believing whatever your scriptures say, especially in Genesis 1 & 2, but you cannot have EVIDENCE that God can do anything. That’s called “faith”, nPeace, that’s not “evidence”.

if you have evidence, you would be able to show and demonstrate it, but you cannot.

the only person here, making empty assertions, is you. You cannot possibly verify what you have claimed.

Just going by the evidence, can you explain if trees were built by man, and by that I mean from the seed on up? Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am pointing out the *very* different natures of 'faith' that is the confidence that comes from testing and observation (non-religious faith) and religious faith, which does no testing, and has no checks and balances, leading to wild beliefs with no evidence.

So I disagree that you have used the term 'faith' consistently. Religious faith *is* blind faith.

Not sure what you mean by blind faith. I am wondering what you mean by religious blind faith.