the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Subduction Zone]

so much for ALL of scientific experiment

ALL result of experiment MUST be associated
cause and effect

including thought experiments

Are you sure? The cause is not necessary, only a testable model. Can you find a source that supports your claim? I know that it is not part of the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so all you can do is think about it

No, one can create a hypothesis and test it. Cause need not be part of the model.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Are you sure? The cause is not necessary, only a testable model. Can you find a source that supports your claim? I know that it is not part of the scientific method.

If someone suggests a cause that is not material, it is not testable by the scientific method.

 

[Thief]

No, one can create a hypothesis and test it. Cause need not be part of the model.

you are out on a limb

with a saw in your hand

 

[Thief]

If someone suggests a cause that is not material, it is not testable by the scientific method.

are you implying..???
a petri dish is required

so much for the work of Albert

all he had was a brain

 

[Wandering Monk]

you are out on a limb

with a saw in your hand

If you will notice, cause and effect may not apply at the QUANTUM level. Above that the laws of physics take over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone suggests a cause that is not material, it is not testable by the scientific method.

But for quantum events we often do not know the cause, but those events can be tested. For example radioactive decay. The timing of when a nucleus is not well understood at all. But we can measure half-lives. The decay of elements can be tested.

There is no claim of a paranormal cause, only an unknown one at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are out on a limb

with a saw in your hand

Hardly. You made a claim that you cannot support.

 

[Thief]

If you will notice, cause and effect may not apply at the QUANTUM level. Above that the laws of physics take over.

so....ALL you can do is think about it

without cause and effect...…………..oooops

you cannot be sure the next action
because you can't be sure the first

 

[Thief]

Hardly. You made a claim that you cannot support.

so much for the branch you sit on

keep pumping that saw

 

[Wandering Monk]

are you implying..???
a petri dish is required

so much for the work of Albert

all he had was a brain

Einstein used his brain indeed. He had hypotheses and made predictions. These are the first two steps toward a scientific theory. It is/was left to later generations to create the tools to falsify or not his predictions.

 

[Thief]

Einstein used his brain indeed. He had hypotheses and made predictions. These are the first two steps toward a scientific theory. It is/was left to later generations to create the tools to falsify or not his predictions.

but you also claim....
it fails

 

[Wandering Monk]

so....ALL you can do is think about it

without cause and effect...…………..oooops

you cannot be sure the next action
because you can't be sure the first

At the quantum level, yes. But we don't live in the quantum world.

 

[Wandering Monk]

but you also claim....
it fails

What fails?

 

[Thief]

What fails?

your thoughts

you can't put the big bang in a petri dish
but you can consider cause and effect

you can't really observe the small things
and even if you could
you don't think cause and effect apply

you're dead in the water

 

[Wandering Monk]

your thoughts

you can't put the big bang in a petri dish
but you can consider cause and effect

you can't really observe the small things
and even if you could
you don't think cause and effect apply

you're dead in the water

The definition of the scientific method I gave earlier was incomplete, The scientific method isn't limited to experiment. It also includes observation to test the hypothesis. If the experiment or observation agrees with the model’s prediction, then the model passed the test. Scientists will tentatively accept the model as being correct but continue to test the model.

 

[Wandering Monk]

double post.

 

[Thief]

The definition of the scientific method I gave earlier was incomplete, The scientific method isn't limited to experiment. It also includes observation to test the hypothesis. If the experiment or observation agrees with the model’s prediction, then the model passed the test. Scientists will tentatively accept the model as being correct but continue to test the model.

the test will require ...cause and effect

it's not a test without that association

 

[Wandering Monk]

the test will require ...cause and effect

it's not a test without that association

Cause and effect applies above the quantum level. See my post 66.

 

[blü 2]

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies (1994).

We can discover order in just about anything if we want to. But the fact we have physical formulae for eg the behavior of gasses doesn't alter the chaotic nature of gasses. We even have a branch of maths called 'chaos theory' (though there 'chaos' is carefully defined).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. '

We can say our version of life might not be possible, but we have no way of knowing if some kind of life could exist in universes imagined to have physical constants different to our own. It would certainly have evolved to deal with a fundamentally different environment, but how do you demonstrate that's impossible?

This line of argument is called the 'anthropic principle' ─ more >here<.

... the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together.

What definition of 'God' are you using here that's useful in physics? Or are you just wishing an imaginary god onto a physics scenario?

‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’

I quote the >Wikipedia article< on 'The Observer Effect' ─

The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[4][5][6] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.​

Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

It'd be fun if that were true ─ wishes would indeed be horses and beggars would ride everywhere. But it's the other way round ─ all psychic is physics, and all brain functions are the result of biochemical / bioelectrical processes. Worldwide research to this point has disclosed nothing but physics so far.

One reason for that is, of course, that 'supernatural', 'immaterial' 'spiritual' and so on have no definition useful for physics, which is to say, no definition useful in (objective) reality. No objective test can distinguish any of them from 'imaginary'.

There isn't even a definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God or not. Nor is there a definition of 'godness', the real quality that a real god would have and a superscientist ─ or an earthworm, or my keyboard ─ would not have. That's to say, there's no coherent concept of a real god.