• 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!

What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?

gnostic

The Lost One
What does science think will disprove God?

I have not read much of everyone else’s replies, as it early morning, but I am quite sure some have already given you similar replies.

Both Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences (leaving out Social Scences and Humanities) only deal in “physical phenomena” and “natural phenomena” and any processes relating to these phenomena.

Meaning, “physical” & “natural” as in phenomena that can be...

(A) “explained” & “predicted” (thus formulation of hypothesis),

and (B) “observed” and “tested” (eg observable & measurable evidence and experiments)​

So sciences don’t concern itself with...

(J) supernatural phenomena (eg magic, witchcraft, divine powers, miracles, fortune telling, prophecies, wishes, psychic phenomena (like telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, etc), faith healing, etc)

(K) supernatural entities (eg spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons, fairies, ghouls, goblins, vampires, sphinx or chimera-like monsters, giants, talking serpent or talking donkeys or talking ants, etc)​

...supernatural stuffs that cannot be observed, measured & tested...hence, anything supernatural would be considered unfalsifiable and untestable, therefore waste of scientists’ times.

Supernatural are only imaginary creatures or imaginary abilities.

In the case of the Bible and Quran, the creation of Adam by turning lifeless dust (Genesis) or lifeless clay & water (Quran) into a fully-grown & male human being isn’t naturally possible...it can only happen in stories of supernatural where magic/miracle can happen and where people have absolutely no understanding of the human anatomy and physiology.

That some people, today, can still actually believe in creation of Adam as described in Genesis and the Quran, only demonstrate their ignorance of modern biology on human body.
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
No, it's not. You literally have no way to calculate probability. That's not "baysian" That is just standard statitistics..

No, it isn't. No statistics are perfect. All statistics are a modification or interpolation of existing data.

When you lack data, then you have no way of telling which position is "more likely" than another. As far back as Laplace, this means that, conventionally, we represent each possibility as having a likelihood of 1/N where N is how man possibilities they are.

When it's a Boolean value, N=2, which gives a probability of 1/2. That's the starting position in Bayesian epistemology.

As we gain more data, we add to this value. For instance, if we're flipping coins and we flip 4 heads and 2 tails, the new probability would be 5/8 for heads and 3/8 for tails according to Bayes theorem.

Bayes theorem is standard statistics. If you don't know it, then I can't really trust any of your statistical opinions. This is 101 stuff.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
You can try an insult in every post as much as you want if it satisfies you, but its no argument.

I haven't insulted you. At least, not intentionally.

The so called survey is a no go. 7 billion people in the world. This is worse than the worst induction you have provided. In order to eliminate something like this, you have to reach very very far in doing the research. And your own so called great 'study' says "although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer". In your study, even if one human being in the entire world has a positive effect due to prayer, your entire thesis fails because your claim was you or your "we" group have proven it does not work.

That's not how science works. Some false positives and placebos are expected. That's why a meta-study is necessary.

If you can prove that one person in the entire world has had a positive effect due to prayer, then go collect your Nobel Peace Prize. As it stands, no such case has been scientifically validated.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
You do understand that the odds against you winning the lottery remain astronomical, even if you win it, right?

But the odds of there being a winner of the lottery is 100%. I don't know how either statement is relevant.

The anthropic principle notwithstanding, it has been calculated that any deviation from the precise value of critical density which enabled galaxies to be formed, must have been less than 1 in 10 to the power of 15*

Can you show that it's even possible for that value to have been different? I think, in order to do that, you would have to observe some sort of parallel universe where the value is different.

We haven't done that yet, so any probability you come up with is already making an assumption that there is a probability to begin with.

Even if it is possible that these universal values could have been different when our universe formed, we also don't know how different they could have been.

hat’s just one set of variables requiring such a level of “fine tuning” to facilitate our existence. The precise energy level of atomic nuclei in stars, which enabled carbon atoms to form from the fusion of helium and beryllium nuclei, is another. There are several of these cosmic coincidences.

If you change a single value drastically, maybe it would have a huge effect that would make life impossible. Could it be possible that we could change several other values still and make life possible again? Maybe.

If so, then that would kind of invalidate your point here about all of the values needing to be exactly what they are. How do we know that? I don't think we do.

So yes, we have won the lottery, but the probability of our ever having done so remains so tiny as to be practically zero. Given that it’s a principle of contemporary physics that we live in a probabilistic universe, defying those odds begins to look very much like a miracle.

Defying the odds of us potentially not existing? Have we?

It really depends on what lens you're looking through. Under the Many-Worlds Intepretation, there are an infinite number of timelines where we exist and an infinite number where we don't. That's not much of a lottery.

Through many interpretations of Special Relativity that show time as a separate dimension, the future might be implied to be as fixed as the past and time itself is an illusion, making our winning completely inevitable. That's not much of a lottery, either.

There's just too much speculation here.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That's not how science works. Some false positives and placebos are expected. That's why a meta-study is necessary.

You think this survey is science?

If you can prove that one person in the entire world has had a positive effect due to prayer, then go collect your Nobel Peace Prize. As it stands, no such case has been scientifically validated.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that your "we" group has proven prayers dont work.

Try not to commit the fallacy of burden of proof. You cannot prove what you claimed because if one human being in a hidden island somewhere in the world has had a prayer work for him, you don't know about it.

And you see, even the research you yourself presented says that some people have had positive effect due to prayer. So maybe you should tell them to go collect the Nobel prize. ;) read your own study done by your own "we" group.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
No, it isn't. No statistics are perfect. All statistics are a modification or interpolation of existing data.

When you lack data, then you have no way of telling which position is "more likely" than another. As far back as Laplace, this means that, conventionally, we represent each possibility as having a likelihood of 1/N where N is how man possibilities they are.

When it's a Boolean value, N=2, which gives a probability of 1/2. That's the starting position in Bayesian epistemology.

As we gain more data, we add to this value. For instance, if we're flipping coins and we flip 4 heads and 2 tails, the new probability would be 5/8 for heads and 3/8 for tails according to Bayes theorem.

Bayes theorem is standard statistics. If you don't know it, then I can't really trust any of your statistical opinions. This is 101 stuff.
Actual 101 stuff
 

Astrophile

Active Member
So anything we can't see, we can assume does not exist?

No. Anything that we can't detect by physical means, we can't say whether it exists or not. We can't see radio waves, but we can detect them and measure them, so we know that they exist. If there is anything that exists but does not interact with the physical world and therefore cannot be detected, for practical purposes it does not exist.

However, an invisible supernatural being who divides a sea so that people can walk across it dry-shod, who enables a donkey to speak, who sends down fire from heaven to burn up people who have annoyed him, or who makes virgins pregnant, is certainly interacting with the physical world, and therefore can in principle be detected.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
You think this survey is science?

Yes.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that your "we" group has proven prayers dont work.

And I backed it up with a study. You're the one who said that it would be invalid if you could find evidence that invalidated it. I agree, the study would be invalidated if you found evidence to invalidate it, but that doesn't mean anything until you find that evidence.

Try not to commit the fallacy of burden of proof. You cannot prove what you claimed because if one human being in a hidden island somewhere in the world has had a prayer work for him, you don't know about it.

That's an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy on your part, not a fallacy of Burden of Proof on mine. We have to draw our conclusions from the available evidence, not speculate about potential information we don't have.

I do think it's telling that you just say I'm committing a fallacy here without explaining why or how it's relevant to the argument. Since it's an accusation without an actual counter-argument, that makes it an example of the "Fallacy Fallacy."

And you see, even the research you yourself presented says that some people have had positive effect due to prayer. So maybe you should tell them to go collect the Nobel prize. ;) read your own study done by your own "we" group.

Sure, but it's not statistically significant, and therefore it's not evidence that prayer caused the positive effects. Correlation does not imply causation. (In other words, your argument here is yet another fallacy; Non Causa Pro Causa or the "Questionable Cause Fallacy.")

If you can prove that prayer itself is the cause of positive effects, then you can collect your Nobel Peace Prize. That's what we haven't proven and, according to this meta-study, we have actually demonstrated that prayer does not even have a statistically significant correlation with positive effects.

That's very straightforward evidence for prayer not doing anything, because before we can establish that a correlation is causative we have to establish that there is a correlation to begin with. This study is hard evidence that there isn't a correlation.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thank you for admitting defeat and freeing me from this pointless discussion

Aww. Making cheap statements after making pretty bogus claims seem to be a name of the game for some. ;)

Show me the scientific experiments done in this study please.

Hilarious.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Aww. Making cheap statements after making pretty bogus claims seem to be a name of the game for some. ;)

A meta-study is not a "bogus claim," neither is the recognition of your failure to successfully refute it a "cheap statement."

Show me the scientific experiments done in this study please.

It is a meta-study. It evaluates the data collected from multiple experiments. It's higher quality evidence than just a single experiment.

I'm disappointed that you can't just take the L on this one. I could have almost respected your ability to walk away when you realized you were out of your element, but instead you insist on going on illogical anti-intellectual tirades.

Let me know when you have an actual argument. If you just reply with more fallacies, I'm not going to bother with another response.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It is a meta-study. It evaluates the data collected from multiple experiments.

What are the scientific experiments this study did?

Just making a rhetorical, general statement, why dont you backup your claim by stating "what scientific experiments they did"?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Each man or woman is free to interpret their own experience in a manner that makes sense to them, and to testify accordingly.

You, of course, are free to dismiss these testimonies. However, if you do not share the experience they are based on, then you leave yourself open to the accusation that you are dismissing what you do not understand, for your own personal and therefore entirely subjective reasons.

No actually as I said there are ways to provide empirical evidence. You are trying to drag me into your subjective world of wu.
You are assuming that there is some sort of onus or obligation on the part of those who claim to have had life changing spiritual experiences, to persuade you of their veracity. This assumption is erroneous.

The hurdles you throw up to protect your intellect from the prospect of incursion by faith, are barriers to no one but yourself.

No they are barriers to anyone who cares about what is actually true. If people claim to have life changing experiences then great. You do not need supernatural means or beings to have a life changing experience.
However if you want to convince people that your experience was actually related to the supernatural you will need evidence.

I do not throw up barriers to incursion by faith. It's built into faith already. Doesn't need me. Because as soon as I start saying "I had a life changing supernatural experience. And it was Allah, and he told me Jews and Christians have really screwed up Yahwehs message, big time! So because my experience is real (since I have faith and you have faith in the supernatural) then we should move to begin spreading the message!"
Or maybe then you will understand the need for an evidence based rational thinking? When your "truth" suddenly isn't the most popular?
Or how about when the life changing message says one race is superior and should rule the world? Wow, luckily you haven't thrown up any hurdles to this faith so I guess you have to believe it? But guess what, my "barriers" allow me to ask for proper evidence.
Meanwhile everyone with "faith" has a different truth and we all walk around with completely different views and can't get together on anything?
The things that brought us to where we are are logic, science, rational thinking, evidence.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science was and is theoried by just a man's human choice.

Only in his life mind and body presence did the human man decide on all human only science details.

So to practice human science he was standing on planet earth. As a human man who with his brothers decided on any name that human science used.

Human men said I name science God himself in theory.

So went about determining what type of God his God claim was himself.

As a living human. Owning no pre science human conditions until he chose the practice.

Today is so self possessed by his own human science terms. Believing he expressed the answer about any subject.

Why he said God was a man. Pretty obvious why.

As human men produced all human theories.

If a scientist just a human can name space just as terms space or out in space. Why is another scientist allowed to express science as a womb?

A female term. And that same theist claim women by science terms were evil spirits? Or did/caused evil to his man human life by his God science theories?

When he invented as a human man maths science terms as one human?

Yet life human continuance as one human species is a human woman cell..ova ovah ovary...plus physical whole human life?

Answer that question occult man science theists and see yourself lacking any real human intelligence.

Who as scientists preach a biological living monkey or ape life is closest humans scientific advice in human theories.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Actual 101 stuff

This is not even 101 stuff. This is a YouTube video made to explain the topic simply to lay people. This also isn't even about Bayesian epistemology, which is a related (but separate) topic.

If you want to go through the effort of getting a degree in statistics or data science and write a paper about how the current conventions used in these fields are wrong, then I promise you that I will end up reading it. You can't just uproot an entire discipline with your misunderstanding of it gained from YouTube.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
That’s just one set of variables requiring such a level of “fine tuning” to facilitate our existence. The precise energy level of atomic nuclei in stars, which enabled carbon atoms to form from the fusion of helium and beryllium nuclei, is another. There are several of these cosmic coincidences.

This is not really an example of fine-tuning. The energy level of the carbon nucleus only sets the temperature (T ~ 100 MK) at which helium and beryllium fusion will occur. If the energy had been different, carbon would have been produced at a different temperature, which means at a different stage of contraction of the star's helium core.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Science isn't in the proving/disproving gods business.

I don't know what Christians can do to prove or even if they have to.
Many Christians want to believe that their beliefs are rational so they use all sorts of bad arguments to "prove God". The worst one being "you can't disprove God so that makes a belief in him rational". It doesn't of course. It is a typical attempt to shift the burden of proof.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
This is not really an example of fine-tuning. The energy level of the carbon nucleus only sets the temperature (T ~ 100 MK) at which helium and beryllium fusion will occur. If the energy had been different, carbon would have been produced at a different temperature, which means at a different stage of contraction of the star's helium core.


The triple alpha process is extremely temperature dependent though, is it not? And the lifetime of berylium -8 is short. I dunno, man; this looks pretty fine-tuned to me...

Alpha Fusion Chain
Once all of the hydrogen in a gas is converted into helium-4, fusion stops until the temperature rises to about 108K. At this temperature, helium-4 is converted into heavier elements, predominantly carbon-12 and oxygen.-16, both of which are multiples of helium-4 in their proton and neutron composition. To create these isotopes, beryllium-8 must first be created from two helium-4 nuclei, but this unstable isotope, with a lifetime of only 2.6 10-16 seconds, rapidly decays back into helium-4.

The short lifetime of beryllium-8 ensures that the creation and decay of beryllium-8 are in equilibrium. This means that the density of beryllium-8 is set by the thermodynamic properties of the gas, specifically the temperature and the density of the gas; the creation and decay rated drop out of the problem. As a practical matter, because the amount of energy required to create beryllium-8 is large, 92.1 keV, the density of berylium-8 to helium-4 is minuscule: for a temperature of 108 K and a helium-4 density of 105 gm cm-3, the ratio of beryllium-8 nuclei to helium-4 nuclei will be around 10-9. The density of beryllium-8 is proportional to T-3/2 e-40 keV/T. This temperature dependence imples that a small change in temperature produces a large change in the berylium-8 density; for a temperature of 108 K (9 keV), a 15% change in temperature produces a factor of 2 change in the berylium-8 density.

While berylium-8 is present, its creation is a small energy sink. To release energy, carbon-12 and heavier elements must be created. Carbon-12 is created when helium-4 combines with beryllium-8. In this interaction, carbon-12 nucleus is left in an energetic state from which it decays, releasing a gamma-ray. The conversion of beryllium-8 into carbon-12 releases 7.37 MeV.

The conversion of helium-4 into carbon-12 is therefore accomplished through the following two reactions:

He4 + He4 → Be8
Be8 + He4 → C12 +
The process of converting three helium-4 nuclei into a single carbon-12 nucleus releases a total of 7.27 MeV, all of which remains trapped within the star. This fusion chain can be treated as a single process; it is then called the triple-alpha process (an alpha particle is a helium-4 nucleus). The triple-alpha reaction rate is proportional to the cube of the helium-4 density. Because of the strong temperature dependence of the beryllium-8 density, the triple-alpha reaction rate is much more temperature dependent than any of the hydrogen fusion rates. Within a star, helium fusion provides sufficient energy to support a star when the core temperature rises to about 100 million degrees. The practical effect of this is that helium fusion within stars occurs over a very narrow range of temperatures.

For temperatures that enable the triple-alpha process to proceed, other nuclear reactions are possible involving helium that create elements with atomic masses that are multiples of 4. These processes are as follows:

C12 + He4 → O16 +
O16 + He4 → Ne20 +
Ne16 + He4 → Mg24 +

Each of these reactions release energy. The creation of oxygen-16 generates 7.16 MeV, while the generation of neon-20 generates 4.730 MeV. The next-two elements release even more energy, with 9.32 MeV from the creation of magnesium-24 and 9.98 from the creation of silicon-28. The creation of sulfur-32 and argon-26 generates 6.95 MeV and 6.65 MeV respectively. These large amounts of energy point to the stability of these isotopes.

Because the triple-alpha process switches on so rapidly with temperature, all stellar cores that are fusing helium have essentially the same temperature, so that the ratios of carbon-12 to oxygen-16 to neon-20 to magnesium-24 within a stellar core is essentially the same for all stellar cores.

In the universe, the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth most abundant elements are oxygen, neon, nitrogen, and carbon. The triple-alpha process and the CNO process of hydrogen fusion are responsible for this, with the triple-alpha process creating the carbon, oxygen, and neon, and the CNO process creating the nitrogen from the carbon and oxygen.

Source; The Astrophysics Spectator
 
Top