why what is mute ? The Scientific Community is anything but mute on the ghost in the machine friend !? Pops up all the time .. sometimes in the most unexpected places ... even called the Higgs-Bozon "The God Particle" .. albeit kind of a wonky example that one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists say...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
why what is mute ? The Scientific Community is anything but mute on the ghost in the machine friend !? Pops up all the time .. sometimes in the most unexpected places ... even called the Higgs-Bozon "The God Particle" .. albeit kind of a wonky example that one.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
It is moot not mute meaning not relevant vs silent. It is also not the god particle it was described as the goddamn particle due to the difficulty of isolating it. The bowdlerized version creates more problems with non-scientists cramming gods into observations to satisfy their own agendas.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It is virtually impossible to prove or disprove there are any deities-- period.
I told you was a wonky example .. and yes it is the "God Particle" in ways but sorry I brought it up providing a deflective rabbit hole opportunity
Not Relevant to what ? What are observations and postulations of Science not relevant to .. sans some personal God agenda -- which is silly nonsense.
"Way back when" What does that mean.
The latest, most informed scholarship does not support Mosaic authorship.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Because personal god agendas are literally not relevant to scientific discussions but just that, personal agendas.
It only was called "the god particle" because some editor changed the title of a pop-sci article.
What you think of the discovery is moot with relation to the scientific community and how even theists within the community deal with the knowledge.
What part of .. forget about the God Particle --- no need to explain it to you .. was wonky example .. more of an allusion --- down a deflection rabbit hole did you not understand the first time down here ?
You were asked a not relevant to what .. as in science not relevant to something .. not a personal god agenda assumed premise fallacy not relevant.
You said science not relevant in a discussion of creation/God discussion ? was this a miss-statement then ? .. as the Ghost in the machine is clearly relevant to this discussion - (NOT -- for the 3rd time --- referring to the God Particle) Science is relevant in the defining of terms .. such as what is God ... like .. The Sun perhaps ? ...is the Sun not a God .. did the Sun not have an active role in the creation of humans ?
and why are you using terms you do not understand .. Science.. as if you are some kind of expert .. when snark is about all you have shown coupled with strawman fallacy .. and inability to stay on the page .. address the topic.
What is this science not relevant to in the creation/God discussion ?
In the study of Physics and Cosmology terms used by some 'off the cuff' like the 'God Particle' and 'Ghost in the machine' are not scientific terms. They are layman terms. Yes questions concerning Creation/God are not relevant to any of the science even the science of evolution. Methodological Naturalism is neutral to Philosophical/Theological questions and terminology that cannot be falsified without objective verifiably evidence.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It isn't? I look around my apartment and see so many things crafted by humans. The air I breathe, however, is not.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Isn't it the same with theories of science? Although as far as I am concerned, regardless what critics or archaeologists say about the Bible, I find it to be a document not only of immense interest, but detailed truth. Naturally not everybody will see it that way.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I was following until the statement "we are the Universe made conscious." Yes, I believe there is a Creator, but what does "we are the Universe made conscious" mean? If I were not conscious, there would still be the universe, and there would be others who could enjoy things about the universe. But if I were not alive, I wouldn't know about it. Others would. OK, so how might I know that? Because I believe that when I die, others will be alive. I won't know anything, but those alive will. Hope you understand what I said.
you were not told the term God Particle was scientific terminology --- so why are you pretending otherwise -- following with Ad Hom fallacy snark - then hoping to be taken for someone with skills in science and "Logic"
and .. for the third time now .. What part of .. forget about the God Particle .. did you not understand the first two times .. you were told up front was wonky analogy .. down deflection rabbit hole .. yet you persist at returning to the same pile of argument diareah .
Your caim that science is not relevant to creation and God .. or questions about such .. is simply false nonsense
and what about methodological naturalism did you still not understand Always humorous when folks engage in jargon-speak that they themselves do not understandAnd then one day . SD ran into a scientist .. who is not fooled by jargon speak -- knowing that the Scienctists who know what they talk about ..can speak in simple easy to understand terms . .not needing secret code's and handshakes.
"Terminology that cannot be falsified without objective verifiably evidence" - do you want to explain this gibberish-speak -- and how it relates to science having relevance to ideas about God and Creation ? What terminology did you want not to be shown false without objective evidence and why ? This is nonsense speak .. throwing up words the meaning of which you appear not to understand .. in an order that makes no sense.
The term in question --- that cannot be shown false without objective evidence .. is God. That science - logic and reason can help us both to define and quantify this term ... is by definition a fact. Once defined .. Philosophical logic, reason and science can help us to determine if God is active in the process of creation ..
Now U understand wat bout science u didnt now before
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, they didn't "simply said" they're not true. They instead demonstrated them to not be true.
Why would they "revise" them? What a strange thing to say.
Do we also have to "revise" greek mythology or the myth of Rome's creation by Romulus and Remus?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Scientific theories are independently testable, falsifiable, verifiable. As such scientific theories can be disproven if they are wrong.
Deities are not.
How do you, or did you, assess its truth value?
It seems to me that if you have some statement or claim, to assess its truth value, it requires being independently testable against commonly observable reality.
That's how you differentiate a "true" statement from a "false" statement.
So how do you go about that as it concerns the supernatural, extra-ordinary claims of the bible?
But isn't that a problem? How "true" is something really, how can you say of something that it is "truth", if you can't show it to be such?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.-- scientific theory definition - Bing
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Well, that is kind of the point I was trying to make. The quote I was responding to originally was this one
You were comparing the reality that we experience to a house that you might wonder how long ago was built - a reference to how long ago the reality we experience began. It's not really a valid comparison, imo, since it's impossible for a house to be built or inhabited in any other way than by a living being. As for how our reality came to be, we have no other realities to compare this one to that we can ascertain it's origins to beyond the scraps of evidence we have
It's possible that scientists are on the right track of the origins of the universe given the evidence they've been able to decipher thus far. It's also possible that Yahweh formed the universe in 6 days with one day of rest then formed mankind from earth and a rib. It's also possible that Odin and his brothers carved the universe from the remains of the primordial giant Ymir - the first being who was born of the primeval void of Ginnungagap. It's also possible that we are all just in a simulation and that all of this is just playing out in our own minds in one big hallucination
Possibility is not synonymous with probability though, and only one explanation is rooted in processes that are demonstrable - whether or not they're correct. That method is also subject to change as better evidence comes forth
The question is do you understand the limits of science. It is apparent by the above you do not. Science cannot remotely"help us determine if God is active in the process of Creation.you were not told the term God Particle was scientific terminology --- so why are you pretending otherwise -- following with Ad Hom fallacy snark - then hoping to be taken for someone with skills in science and "Logic"
and .. for the third time now .. What part of .. forget about the God Particle .. did you not understand the first two times .. you were told up front was wonky analogy .. down deflection rabbit hole .. yet you persist at returning to the same pile of argument diareah .
Your caim that science is not relevant to creation and God .. or questions about such .. is simply false nonsense
And then one day . SD ran into a scientist .. who is not fooled by jargon speak -- knowing that the Scienctists who know what they talk about ..can speak in simple easy to understand terms . .not needing secret code's and handshakes.
"Terminology that cannot be falsified without objective verifiably evidence" - do you want to explain this gibberish-speak -- and how it relates to science having relevance to ideas about God and Creation ? What terminology did you want not to be shown false without objective evidence and why ? This is nonsense speak .. throwing up words the meaning of which you appear not to understand .. in an order that makes no sense.
The term in question --- that cannot be shown false without objective evidence .. is God. That science - logic and reason can help us both to define and quantify this term ... is by definition a fact. Once defined .. Philosophical logic, reason and science can help us to determine if God is active in the process of creation ..
Now U understand wat bout science u didnt now before
Again . . .
In the study of Physics and Cosmology terms used by some 'off the cuff' like the 'God Particle' and 'Ghost in the machine' are not scientific terms. They are layman terms. Yes questions concerning Creation/God are not relevant to any of the science even the science of evolution. Methodological Naturalism is neutral to Philosophical/Theological questions and terminology that cannot be falsified without objective verifiably evidence."
A false assertion .. "Science can not help" Your True statement was that I do not understand the limits of science .. the fact that you pretend that you do .. kind of funny .. proving yourself wrong before the other has a chance to respond. This fallacious opening followed up with .. repetition of the God Particle silliness
Your claim that Science can not help to assess if God is active in the universe is a demonstrable falsehood .. and your lack of understanding of natualism will not help I am afraid my young apprentice
For example - Define God
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Well the general consensus is that it is supernatural and acts there, if you have an example of a gods actions in the natural, then it can be investigated otherwise the scientific limitation of methodological naturalism leaves the supernatural out of consideration. Note, claiming things we don't know or understand as it's purview is what is called god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.