What constitutes proof? The snowflake test.

[ThePainefulTruth]

The usual rejoinder against evolution, the Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. is that they're just theories and aren't proven. Technically that's correct, but practically, it's not. You can get to a point where all of the massive amount of evidence is for a theory, with nothing but hearsay at best (and lies at worst) against it. That constitutes what I call virtual proof, with the caveat that some details still need to be worked out. We have our virtual proof that gravity exists even though we don't understand it, because it's effects are observed continuously and throughout the visible universe. That's infinite evidence for gravity every second and has been going on for 13 billion years.

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of), but then it doesn't generate the emotional opposition those other scientific theories mentioned above bring out in us.

What about the theory that God exists? People of faith beyond reason explain that we can’t understand God or any of It’s motivations. But then how can they believe in something they admit they can’t understand? It’s like being on Pluto and saying the Sun is cold, but a little examination and thought will reveal the likelihood of its warmth. Would God create anything so majestic and profound as the universe with no motivation, no reason? There are some qualities we can reasonably speculate on and attribute to God, if It exists-- but gender, appearance, age and the nature of It's divinity aren't among them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But then how can they believe in something they admit they can’t understand?

Wishful thinking I suspect.

 

[Sunstone]

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of)
...

Actually, some snowflakes are alike. Snowflakes are just crystalline forms of water, and scientists have photos of snowflakes that are alike each other.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The most basic and unscientific (sorry not a science person) that may constitute as proof (universal truth) is if what was experienced and seen in the past can be replayed, related to, or retested today. For example, we know the four founding father's existed not just because of what they wrote, but because of political relations, historical documents that correlate to, say the Declaration of Independence, archaeological findings (if one would call it that), and so forth. We also know (rather than belief or have faith in) that these events occurred because of where we are now.

This is not like the Bible (or God). The Bible is people's testimonies of their relationship and interaction with God and Christ. We have historical documents that support that the Bible said what it said. However, we do not have proof that what the Bible said (God existing) is true as like the founding fathers example above. Instead, religion I could carefully say is based on synchronicity. The promises of God (the proof a lot of religious people have) imply that God exist, they do not prove that He does.

So, to get pass the implication of existence with vauge language and sycnrinity, we need some form of universal truth that every person on earth can agree exists--therefore, we can analyze it scientifically. Without this, science can dance around religion all it once, but if it's not concrete, science can't explain it.

The burden of proof has to come from the believer because without concrete proof, science can only test the results of religious testimony, document, and witness. It can't prove it's valid.

Long story short: Science can't prove God

The usual rejoinder against evolution, the Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. is that they're just theories and aren't proven. Technically that's correct, but practically, it's not. You can get to a point where all of the massive amount of evidence is for a theory, with nothing but hearsay at best (and lies at worst) against it. That constitutes what I call virtual proof, with the caveat that some details still need to be worked out. We have our virtual proof that gravity exists even though we don't understand it, because it's effects are observed continuously and throughout the visible universe. That's infinite evidence for gravity every second and has been going on for 13 billion years.

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of), but then it doesn't generate the emotional opposition those other scientific theories mentioned above bring out in us.

What about the theory that God exists? People of faith beyond reason explain that we can’t understand God or any of It’s motivations. But then how can they believe in something they admit they can’t understand? It’s like being on Pluto and saying the Sun is cold, but a little examination and thought will reveal the likelihood of its warmth. Would God create anything so majestic and profound as the universe with no motivation, no reason? There are some qualities we can reasonably speculate on and attribute to God, if It exists-- but gender, appearance, age and the nature of It's divinity aren't among them.

 

[bobhikes]

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of), but then it doesn't generate the emotional opposition those other scientific theories mentioned above bring out in us.

Here's the thing show me two things that are exactly a like. Why do you need to check snowflakes to prove they are all different. Everything is different. No two things are the same they can't be. They aren't made of the same atoms, they don't exist in the same time and space. Its just that at some point we say the differences aren't great enough to call it something else. We settle for consistency. Yet knowing that in reality nothing is completely the same, science some how has proofs. Science classify things as similar enough. If science can settle why can't everyone else. If the proof is not really a proof but as close as science can get why do I really have to depend on science. Do I really need to compare things that closely.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wishful thinking I suspect.

OK, but why would they wish it to be true, the pain of the time they've wasted being wrong? I could understand belief, sort of, with the lack of access of the general populace to actual facts--thus the persecution of the literati by the clergy and the Inquisition style "enforcement"

Actually, some snowflakes are alike. Snowflakes are just crystalline forms of water, and scientists have photos of snowflakes that are alike each other.

Well, that's good to know, though it does undermine my analogy. You have a reference for those photos? It's always good to uncover myths of any type, religious OR scientific. Truth is God, and we worship Truth by it's pursuit

The burden of proof has to come from the believer because without concrete proof, science can only test the results of religious testimony, document, and witness. It can't prove it's valid.

Long story short: Science can't prove God

Exactly, and science can't disprove God either, which is why the only reasonable position on God, besides being reasonable, is agnostic. Also archaeology and epigraphy are increasingly validating the fact that there is history in our religious "scripture", but also, finding no evidence for the supernatural.

And actually the burden of proof is on the hard (non-agnostic) atheist as well as the hard "religionist". It's up to the hard atheist to show how the universe came to be spontaneously. It seems suspicious that the lack of information from before the Big Bang is so complete that it seems to be so by design--but without any information at all from "before", no argument can be made either way.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Here's the thing show me two things that are exactly a like. Why do you need to check snowflakes to prove they are all different. Everything is different. No two things are the same they can't be. They aren't made of the same atoms, they don't exist in the same time and space. Its just that at some point we say the differences aren't great enough to call it something else. We settle for consistency. Yet knowing that in reality nothing is completely the same, science some how has proofs. Science classify things as similar enough. If science can settle why can't everyone else. If the proof is not really a proof but as close as science can get why do I really have to depend on science. Do I really need to compare things that closely.

One of the greatest quotes of all time was made by one scientist to another:
"I know why all electrons have the same mass and charge."
"Why?"
"They're all the same electron!"

That was, I suspect, spoken half tongue-in-cheek, but it makes a good point. Look at the possibilities if the building blocks of our universe have access to an environment without time--a timeless ether within which our universe is "suspended". We still have a long way to go.

 

[`mud]

How does one prove the imagination of something that doesn't exist ?
How does one prove the absense of that entity,
or just accept the lack of the reality of it's absense ?
I'm getting pretty old and I still can't figure out that thought.
~
'mud

 

[Skwim]

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of), but then it doesn't generate the emotional opposition those other scientific theories mentioned above bring out in us.

Actually, several years ago two were found to be identical. It was written up in one of the pop science magazines.

What about the theory that God exists? People of faith beyond reason explain that we can’t understand God or any of It’s motivations. But then how can they believe in something they admit they can’t understand? It’s like being on Pluto and saying the Sun is cold, but a little examination and thought will reveal the likelihood of its warmth. Would God create anything so majestic and profound as the universe with no motivation, no reason? There are some qualities we can reasonably speculate on and attribute to God, if It exists-- but gender, appearance, age and the nature of It's divinity aren't among them.

People will believe whatever is propitious, even if it conflicts with their other beliefs. Religious belief has never been rational,either in it's pronouncements or in its construction.

 

[Khatru]

The usual rejoinder against evolution, the Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. is that they're just theories and aren't proven. Technically that's correct, but practically, it's not. You can get to a point where all of the massive amount of evidence is for a theory, with nothing but hearsay at best (and lies at worst) against it. That constitutes what I call virtual proof, with the caveat that some details still need to be worked out. We have our virtual proof that gravity exists even though we don't understand it, because it's effects are observed continuously and throughout the visible universe. That's infinite evidence for gravity every second and has been going on for 13 billion years.

Consider the humble snowflake. We theorize that no two are alike. Is that reasonable and virtually proven? So far apparently so, even without any scientific studies of the question (that I know of), but then it doesn't generate the emotional opposition those other scientific theories mentioned above bring out in us.

What about the theory that God exists? People of faith beyond reason explain that we can’t understand God or any of It’s motivations. But then how can they believe in something they admit they can’t understand? It’s like being on Pluto and saying the Sun is cold, but a little examination and thought will reveal the likelihood of its warmth. Would God create anything so majestic and profound as the universe with no motivation, no reason? There are some qualities we can reasonably speculate on and attribute to God, if It exists-- but gender, appearance, age and the nature of It's divinity aren't among them.

I wouldn't go as far as bestowing the exalted status of theory on the idea that a god exists.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for theory:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed."

I'm not sure how any of the many gods that people worship can satisfy this definition.

Let's look at another word, say...."hypothesis". Here are some definitions:

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Even though "hypothesis" describes a god more accurately than "theory", it still falls short of these standards.

"Failed hypothesis"

There. That's a much better phrase to use. It pretty much covers all the other gods from A to Z that people around the world worship.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exactly, and science can't disprove God either, which is why the only reasonable position on God, besides being reasonable, is agnostic. Also archaeology and epigraphy are increasingly validating the fact that there is history in our religious "scripture", but also, finding no evidence for the supernatural.

Exactly. That is the problem. You can verify or study the claims (promises, testimonies, etc) but trying to find evidence for the claims that are not implied, vague, or blurred is near to impossible. The only thing I can conclude is that science does not explain everything that happens in life. I do believe in the supernatural; but, I will admit, my claim in it's validity doesn't mean it is true generally. Just many people who believe in supernatural things are the majority.

And actually the burden of proof is on the hard (non-agnostic) atheist as well as the hard "religionist". It's up to the hard atheist to show how the universe came to be spontaneously. It seems suspicious that the lack of information from before the Big Bang is so complete that it seems to be so by design--but without any information at all from "before", no argument can be made either way.

Actually, that is true. I'd think that anything before the big-bang is a no-win argument since like you said there is no information. If there is a "big bang" I'd assume that bang is from God. The thing is, no matter (atoms etc) can just appear out of thing air scientifically stating. So, maybe there is no starting point. We could be just chasing our own tail.

 

[Paxton Marshall]

OK, but why would they wish it to be true, the pain of the time they've wasted being wrong? I could understand belief, sort of, with the lack of access of the general populace to actual facts--thus the persecution of the literati by the clergy and the Inquisition style "enforcement"



Well, that's good to know, though it does undermine my analogy. You have a reference for those photos? It's always good to uncover myths of any type, religious OR scientific. Truth is God, and we worship Truth by it's pursuit




Exactly, and science can't disprove God either, which is why the only reasonable position on God, besides being reasonable, is agnostic. Also archaeology and epigraphy are increasingly validating the fact that there is history in our religious "scripture", but also, finding no evidence for the supernatural.

And actually the burden of proof is on the hard (non-agnostic) atheist as well as the hard "religionist". It's up to the hard atheist to show how the universe came to be spontaneously. It seems suspicious that the lack of information from before the Big Bang is so complete that it seems to be so by design--but without any information at all from "before", no argument can be made either way.

Science cannot disprove god, but logic can show that most conceptions of God cannot be true because of contradictions. And science can, and has shown that there is no verifiable evidence for any of the supernatural claims of any of the gods. All the God defenders are left with is the "god of the gaps" that invokes god to explain everything that science has not yet explained.

But People are lazy and looking for easy simplistic answers. Most religious folk don't even bother to find out just what their religion says about god. They just adapt a very general conception to their own needs for emotional support. I think the intellectual aspect of questioning religious belief is overemphasized and the psychological aspect not enough.

 

[shawn001]

another interesting aspect of snowflakes.


It's True That No Two Snowflakes Are Alike, But Not For The Reason You Think (VIDEO)

It's True That No Two Snowflakes Are Alike, But Not For The Reason You Think (VIDEO)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The usual rejoinder against evolution, the Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. is that they're just theories and aren't proven. Technically that's correct, but practically, it's not.

Technically it's sometimes correct and practically it's usually never correct. I go into this here: Evolution IS “just a theory”

Before I get plagued with responses for those who don't read the link or scan it under the impression they know what I'm going to say and then inaccurately confirm this, I'll quote a small portion relevant here:
"Evolution is not a theory in this sense: there is no Scientific Method that exists which could make any “hypothesis” into a “theory”, because The Scientific Method (as it is still taught even at the university level) is a simplification of an outdated 19th century notion. It is a theory more in this sense: “evolutionary theory (ET) is not one theory but a system of theories” (p. 380 of Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378-391.)
(emphasis added)

Quantum mechanics is a theory. It's also a procedural algorithm with a built-in mathematical structure, a field, a statistical mechanics, a mathematical solution, and something that is used to generate other theories via mathematical solutions. The "big bang" theory is actually not really a theory so much as it is part of several theories, and relativity is in no way whatsoever a theory. Rather, there are a wide variety of relativistic physics (including Galilean relativity, which predates Newton), and the special and general theories of relativity.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

another interesting aspect of snowflakes.


It's True That No Two Snowflakes Are Alike, But Not For The Reason You Think (VIDEO)

It's True That No Two Snowflakes Are Alike, But Not For The Reason You Think (VIDEO)

He's quibbling, pointing out the chemical difference (imbedded deuterium) but not the structural identity, which is what the old saw is referring to.

Then he points out that arms don't start on the flat sides but then shows them growing out the flat sides of the arms. And something else he completely ignores is that all 6 arms grow at the same rate and are identical in a given flake. How does that happen? Which is more amazing, that all snowflakes are (essentially) different, or that all of their 6 arms are exactly the same.

Good pics in the video though.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I wouldn't go as far as bestowing the exalted status of theory on the idea that a god exists.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for theory:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed."

I'm not sure how any of the many gods that people worship can satisfy this definition.

Let's look at another word, say...."hypothesis". Here are some definitions:

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Even though "hypothesis" describes a god more accurately than "theory", it still falls short of these standards.

"Failed hypothesis"

There. That's a much better phrase to use. It pretty much covers all the other gods from A to Z that people around the world worship.

"2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

That works for both God as the creator of the universe, or for a natural spontaneous universe. The problem is those hyphotheses are all that we have, there being no evidence at all concerning what came "before" or is "outside" the universe. All we do know is that the universe is, if reality is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Actually, several years ago two were found to be identical. It was written up in one of the pop science magazines.

A similar claim has been made but so far, no one has produced an applicable references.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Here's the thing show me two things that are exactly a like. Why do you need to check snowflakes to prove they are all different. Everything is different. No two things are the same they can't be. They aren't made of the same atoms, they don't exist in the same time and space. Its just that at some point we say the differences aren't great enough to call it something else. We settle for consistency. Yet knowing that in reality nothing is completely the same, science some how has proofs. Science classify things as similar enough. If science can settle why can't everyone else. If the proof is not really a proof but as close as science can get why do I really have to depend on science. Do I really need to compare things that closely.

The claim, as I mentioned above, is that none are structurally the same. No one's claiming they're made of the same atoms, even though, again as I pointed out above, even that isn't above question--though for our purposes here, irrelevant.

 

[Skwim]

A similar claim has been made but so far, no one has produced an applicable references.

Yeah I just did a quick Google check and couldn't find any reference to the piece I read.

 

[Khatru]

"2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

That works for both God as the creator of the universe, or for a natural spontaneous universe. The problem is those hyphotheses are all that we have, there being no evidence at all concerning what came "before" or is "outside" the universe. All we do know is that the universe is, if reality is.

Agreed

We have our hypotheses but our best explanations are as set out in our theories.

We can explain certain aspects of our universe with those theories.

Gods and goddesses remain in the realm of the imagined.