What constitutes proof? The snowflake test.

[Thief]

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.

You might be surprised how many people treat time as real.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You might be surprised how many people treat time as real.

Considering the fact that you can't seem to grasp that acknowledging spacetime is real in is in no way whatsoever necessarily acknowledging time exists, but can and does deny its existence, your views here aren't merely uninformed but the hapless and hopeless attempts of one who would simultaneously seek dominance via esoteric knowledge and claims of arcane wisdom whilst simultaneously and systematically relying on misunderstanding after misunderstanding of scientific theories and research.
I would be surprised if you could formulate a coherent argument, epistemology, or even acknowledge when you have obviously contradicted yourself and pretended you haven't.

The only thing worse than an *** like me who constantly refers to research, logic, the sciences, etc., is one who seeks to do this while also espousing a worldview that is incompatible with it.

 

[Thief]

Time is not a force.
Time is not a substance.

Not there guy......it's just not there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Time is not a force.

Who said it was?

Time is not a substance.

Who said it was?

Perhaps had you a knowledge of physics, the history & philosophy of the sciences, and general theories of epistemology & ontology, you could post more than the attempts at subtlety and arcane knowledge you lack even the ability to fake.

 

[Thief]

Not a personality game.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not a personality game.

Assuming you meant "personal" in order to make sense, I agree. Rather, it's a matter of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about and having demonstrated this not just in your misrepresentations of your stolen conceptions from the sciences, but more directly by explicitly contradicting yourself such that it requires only a passing familiarity with informal logic to realize how thoroughly you speak of what you do not know. I would gladly quote your blatant contradiction, but alas that would require quoting your posts from another thread. Here, instead, I must continue to rely on confronting your pre-teen mysticism and adolescent epistemology with the actual nature of the notions, theories, and issues you pretend to understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

Are believers ever observationally consistent?

Do believers apply the same standards of consistency to other beliefs as they do to their own?

Consistency is not something that can really exist in any given individual's opinion, no matter how much they may try.

That's why the peer-review system was established.

But even given this, and assuming the consistency you're talking about is the inherently inconsistent consistency of an individual's belief, yes. Believers often are, and do so, in fact.

Now what does this question have to do with my post?

 

[Khatru]

Pretty much, yes. Given any field, the extent to which the research and literature reviews converge is probably the best metric for "certainty" in the sciences. This is particularly true when research results in models that are predictive, as the more accurate any theory is the more it is able to accurately predict what future research. When future research does indeed find what was predicted, this is about as powerful and convincing evidence in favor of a given theory as is possible based upon empirical findings.

Yes and scientific predictions can be considerably more accurate than the vague generalities that so many people pass off as divine revelation.

 

[Khatru]

Now what does this question have to do with my post?

Not much, now that I realise the consistency you referred to was in fact constant inconsistency.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not much, now that I realise the consistency you referred to was in fact constant inconsistency.

In other words, nothing but a red herring?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You might be surprised how many people treat time as real.

I treat is as very real. It's the vital 4th dimension.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"Q: How are snowflakes formed?

A: A snowflake begins to form when an extremely cold water droplet freezes onto a pollen or dust particle in the sky. This creates an ice crystal. As the ice crystal falls to the ground, water vapor freezes onto the primary crystal, building new crystals – the six arms of the snowflake.

That’s the short answer.

The more complex explanation is this: "

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Sorry, that doesn't explain it. Snowflakes forming half an inch apart look completely differently, but the six sides of a half inch snowflake are exactly the same. Not saying there isn't an explanation, but that just doesn't fit.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

I'm not talking about imagined gods and goddesses. If God exists and created the universe, we would know nothing of that God except that it might possibly have made the universe, in opposition to the idea that the universe came to be spontaneously. All we know is that the universe is not imagined in the usual sense of the word. God could possibly have made the universe through imagination, but we couldn't imagine a universe or a God into reality any more than we could unimagine gravity out of reality. We can't unimagine natural law no matter how many poly-sci professors claim it's all perception and subjective. If you disagree, I invite you to test it and step off a cliff. Then your perception would cease and ours perecptions of you would cease.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

Do you realize how rare what you just did is. Most people won't even go and come back with a reference, and only one-in-a-million will come back to report that it's not there. Thank you.

 

[Thief]

I treat is as very real. It's the vital 4th dimension.

Measurement is a cognitive device.
Man created measure.
Time is a measurement nothing more.
Not a substance.
Not a force.

 

[shawn001]

Sorry, that doesn't explain it. Snowflakes forming half an inch apart look completely differently, but the six sides of a half inch snowflake are exactly the same. Not saying there isn't an explanation, but that just doesn't fit.

Are you sure you read the whole thing?

"Snowflakes forming half an inch apart look completely differently"

Which is explained

"six sides of a half inch snowflake are exactly the same."

Which is explained.

"he more complex explanation is this:

These ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization”) to form a six-sided snowflake.

Ultimately, it is the temperature at which a crystal forms — and to a lesser extent the humidity of the air — that determines the basic shape of the ice crystal. Thus, we see long needle-like crystals at 23 degrees F and very flat plate-like crystals at 5 degrees F.

The intricate shape of a single arm of the snowflake is determined by the atmospheric conditions experienced by entire ice crystal as it falls. A crystal might begin to grow arms in one manner, and then minutes or even seconds later, slight changes in the surrounding temperature or humidity causes the crystal to grow in another way. Although the six-sided shape is always maintained, the ice crystal (and its six arms) may branch off in new directions. Because each arm experiences the same atmospheric conditions, the arms look identical. "

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

 

[gnostic]

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.

Atheists are not synonymous to "scientists"...and atheism is not synonymous to science. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are atheists.

Atheism only deal with the "question" or "issue" of the theism or the existence of a deity (or deities), not with the Big Bang or evolution. Atheists are just anyone who don't believe in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

The Big Bang and evolution are scientific fields, atheism isn't. That being the case, there is no burden of proof upon any atheist with regards to the Big Bang or evolution.

Why do yo you mix science with atheism, when they are totally unrelated?

Your ignorance (and bias) is showing when you can't distinguish the difference between atheism and science.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Atheists are not synonymous to "scientists"...and atheism is not synonymous to science. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are atheists."

I had to re-read my post. I never said anything about how atheist are scientist and how the two relate to each other. I am an atheist by technicality (no belief in deities) and that doesn't make me a scientist of any sort. Where did you get that from?

I personally brought up the big bang. I have no comments on evolution. In my personal opinion, something cannot come from nothing. Whether it can be proven true is irrelevant to me. The philosophy of how anyone (not specifically atheist) of human origin coming from the big bang puzzles me. I don't see how anyone can prove the existence of anything before the big bang.

This is including the "And actually the burden of proof is on the hard (non-agnostic) atheist as well as the hard "religionist"

So, I don't see how the reply relates.

Atheists are not synonymous to "scientists"...and atheism is not synonymous to science. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are atheists.[/SIZE]

Atheism only deal with the "question" or "issue" of the theism or the existence of a deity (or deities), not with the Big Bang or evolution. Atheists are just anyone who don't believe in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

The Big Bang and evolution are scientific fields, atheism isn't. That being the case, there is no burden of proof upon any atheist with regards to the Big Bang or evolution.

Why do yo you mix science with atheism, when they are totally unrelated?

Your ignorance (and bias) is showing when you can't distinguish the difference between atheism and science.

 

[Thief]

and I believe in God because of science.

Science does not offer proof of God....it can't.
God can't be photo'd or stuffed in a petri dish.
There will be no equation.

But science relies on cause and effect.

Science will take you to that 'point' of choice.

You have to think about it.
I use cause and effect.

 

[Khatru]

I'm not talking about imagined gods and goddesses. If God exists and created the universe, we would know nothing of that God except that it might possibly have made the universe, in opposition to the idea that the universe came to be spontaneously. All we know is that the universe is not imagined in the usual sense of the word. God could possibly have made the universe through imagination, but we couldn't imagine a universe or a God into reality any more than we could unimagine gravity out of reality. We can't unimagine natural law no matter how many poly-sci professors claim it's all perception and subjective. If you disagree, I invite you to test it and step off a cliff. Then your perception would cease and ours perecptions of you would cease.

Perhaps the universe was created by millions of gods. Why should there be just the one?