|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, ChrstphFr),
941
guests, and 4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66725
03/16/06 23:31
03/16/06 23:31
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
unless you are here to tell me my collegues and I that neutrinos haven't been proven...
I don't know who your colleagues are and neither do I care, as long as they don't do science AND believe that the existence of neutrinos have been proved in any meaningful way. If they do, then I'm a bit worried because that is not serious science. Science is not about proofs...
What if someone someday makes a discovery that refutes the model for the neutrino as it is thought of today. Maybe not all that probable, but still perfectly possible. Was it still a proof then? Of course not! Something even potentially fallible is not based on proof.
Or are your position maybe that you and your colleagues already have all the answers and that no one will ever be able to refute anything as beautiful as the Standard Model? Personally, however, I'm not a religious believer in science as you and your colleagues might be.
Since you, for some unknown reason, try to ridicule me and since some other members in this particular forum maybe aren't very familiar with science, I'd feel more comfortable if I could show them that I'm not alone thinking the way I do. I cut the following from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test.
It's not from a fancy book on relativistic quantum gauge field theory so maybe you and maybe some of your colleagues will disrespect it as you disrespect me.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: AndersA]
#66726
03/17/06 00:44
03/17/06 00:44
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
We realize this is all verbal masturbation, Matt. I just thought this would be a lot more fun than the usual "my god exists"/"no he doesn't" word play.  The challenge remains open to any that would use science in a theological context. Here is an experiments that you can use to prove the many god hypothesis: Take the cancer victem scenerio. Pray to different gods. If they consistently get better, then this is evidence of multiple gods. After all, at least in christianity, it is a big no-no to put one god above another and thus by theological tenets if there is consistent healing by appeasing to different deitys, then one can surmise that different gods are in charge. Now this same experiement can also be used to validate the one-god hypothesis... if only one group gets consistently better and that one group is always under one god, we can infer that this is the correct deity. While I'm not suggesting that anyone actually set this experiment up (though that would be AWESOME), I think we could find internet/book/reference evidence from different deities to show which of the above is true. My personal Hypothesis? 1) There is no evidence of consistent healing by any religion. 2) Where there is consistent healing (such as the "miracle" sites), we see these crop up in every religion thus indicating that there are either many gods or that another force is at work (say, the human psyche for example). Play or don't. Like any other thread, if you don't want to play, butt out and let it die a natural death. You just come off as pricks by consistently coming in and saying nothing more than "this is stupid". Yes, we know, we get it, it's stupid, it's pointless, move on Matt. 
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66727
03/17/06 07:47
03/17/06 07:47
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Take the cancer victem scenerio. Pray to different gods. If they consistently get better, then this is evidence of multiple gods
No its not. This is only a statistical anomaly. It could be explained by chance, various biological factors, etc. Something like this says nothing about anything supernatural.
It is a capital mistake to try to use science to rationalize religious or supernatural phenomenon. Theology is not science, and science has nothing to say on theology.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66728
03/17/06 15:36
03/17/06 15:36
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Keyword: Consistently. It is also a "statistical anomaly" that every time I take aspirin, my headache goes away, yet in science we ascribe such strong corrolations to causality if is consistently occurs. Every time a large sample size of people take a drug, effect A occurs, then the drug is causing effect A. Likewise if a large sample size of people gets cured (Effect A) with no other influence but prayer (Drug), then the natural conclusion is the the Drug (prayer) is causing the effect (cure).
I do agree with you that as far as I know, any reports of cures have been statistically insignificant. However, in the fairness of discussion, I want to find out if anyone has other "statistics".
Since only nay-sayers are contributing to this thread, I would draw the conclusion that in fact the answer is "No" and that proving one vs. many gods is the same (if not worse) than trying to prove no vs. a god.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66729
03/17/06 21:11
03/17/06 21:11
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
in the case of drugs we are using the scientific method. The drug is a real substance, and it's effects can be tested.
In the case of faith healing, etc, the 'god' is a non-real entity, in other words, it cant be seen, felt, tested, or analyzed. There is no means to ensure that poeple are really praying to a god, or that the god will pay attention. No matter how consistently poeple may be healed, science has to look for natural explanations. Gods are not an option.
So even if 1000/1000 poeple prayed to god/gods and were healed, science must regard this as either a statistical anomaly, or a real correlation relating to something naturalistic, such as genetics, physiology, etc. In niether case can the prayer be considered causal.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66730
03/17/06 21:29
03/17/06 21:29
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
In the case of faith healing, etc, the 'god' is a non-real entity, in other words, it cant be seen, felt, tested, or analyzed.
Well science cannot see, feel or otherwise analyse whether or not you have a personality...does that mean your personality is a non-real entity?
Quote:
So even if 1000/1000 poeple prayed to god/gods and were healed, science must regard this as either a statistical anomaly, or a real correlation relating to something naturalistic, such as genetics, physiology, etc
Seriously though. There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66731
03/17/06 22:03
03/17/06 22:03
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
Seriously though. There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
It is, but in order to be a real fact it has to be reproduceable (ie everytime a prayer is made, the cancer is cured) and causal (ie everytime a prayer is NOT made, the cancer stays).
Can you provide evidence of this in Christianity?
Can other provide evidence of this in other faiths?
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66732
03/17/06 22:18
03/17/06 22:18
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959
US
Grimber
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959
US
|
You don;t need logic, math or scientific methodology to prove that IF a god exists than many exists. what do you need for proof? the same proof those that beileve in a god use. Just like christain useage of science to "prove" god, they also tend to pick and choose what they find as acceptable for 'holy scripture'. In otherwords if it dosn't conform to thier pre concieved notion(s) of thier faith then it isn't 'cannon' ( this is done with any and all 'holy scriptures' and teh bible itself) So lets look at one translated document that was 'rejected' by christans as not being cannon though other documents found with it were (which these documents make up the Qumran, which much of the Old testiment is derived from) Sabbath scroll of sacrifice Quote:
30. By the instructor. Song of the sacrifice of the seventh Sabbath on the sixteenth of the month. Praise the God of the lofty heights, O you lofty ones among all the
31. elim of knowledge. Let the holiest of the godlike ones sanctify the King of glory who sanctifies by holiness all His holy ones. O you chiefs of the praises of
32. all the godlike beings, praise the splendidly [pr]aiseworthy God. For in the splendor of praise is the glory of His realm. From it (comes) the praises of all
33. the godlike ones together with the splendor of all [His] maj[esty. And] exalt his exaltedness to exalted heaven, you most godlike ones of the lofty elim, and (exalt) His glorious divinity above
34. all the lofty heights. For H[e is God of gods] of all the chiefs of the heights of heaven and King of ki[ngs] of all the eternal councils. (by the intention of)
35. (His knowledge) At the words of His mouth come into being [all the lofty angels]; at the utterance of His lips all the eternal spirits; [by the in]tention of His knowledge all His creatures
36. in their undertakings. Sing with joy, you who rejoice [in His knowledge with] rejoicing among the wondrous godlike beings. And chant His glory with the tongue of all who chant with knowledge; and (chant) His wonderful songs of joy
37. with the mouth of all who chant [of Him. For He is] God of all who rejoice {in knowledge} forever and Judge in His power of all the spirits of understanding.
now christans would try to state that the referances to godlike beings would be referancing angels, untill you reach line 35. God being the king of godlike beings then angels are brought into being by his word.
Its understandable why christan scholars would want to discredit, dismiss, reject, even 'edit it'. documents such as this as it totaly controdicts the basic foundation thier religion of a single god. So christain 'scholars' will enevitable put thier anlytical spin on each and ever passage of thier own 'holy scripture' 'word of god' to make it fit either their supposed faith or thier moral/ethical/political ideals. And if they can't then its declaired 'non scripture'
Many such documents point to that there was a war in heaven among godlike beings
and in the end 'God' accended to the throne. Similar to many past mythologic religions which had power struggles. one god would assume rule by force then by edict make it a crime/sin to worship any other gods. "Thou shalt not have any other god BEFORE me"
Intresting enough these are the same sort of things the radical factions of the islam/muslim communities ( which are the minority of muslims/islamics) do to thier own religion that make muslims in general look bad. Manupulation of the words of thier faith to justify thier actions.
And christains behave as if they are better. ha.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: NITRO777]
#66733
03/17/06 22:28
03/17/06 22:28
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Well science cannot see, feel or otherwise analyse whether or not you have a personality...does that mean your personality is a non-real entity?
Indeed, personality is a word we use to describe behavior, so it is not a real entity. You are confusing abstract ideas with concrete phenomenon.
Quote:
There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
Yes it's an observable phenomenon. But since science is concerned with the material world, we have to look elsewhere for the cause. You are confusing correlations with causes. Science by definition can only seek natural explanations, and is therefore irreconcileable with the supernatural. Science can neither study, prove the existence of, nor refute supernatural phenomenon.
Religion is by definition the belief in the supernatural, and is thus not the realm of science--and never the twain shall meet. The medieval synthesis is long dead.
If 1000/1000 cancer patients prayed and were healed, it is a meaningless correllation.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#66734
03/17/06 23:06
03/17/06 23:06
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
personality is a word we use to describe behavior
I think you might have it backwards,in a sense behavior is the word we use to describe personality isnt it? We behave according to our personality traits. Our personality, will, mind and emotions drive our physical bodies, not the other way around.
As fastlane will surely confirm, the physical universe is operating under the influence of physical law such as gravity. Why does gravity work? Science doesnt understand why gravity works, it only measures the behavior of the phenomenon.
Science is the perfect way to analyze how things work, science only fails when it trys to understand why things work. That is the precise reason why idiotic theories like evolution were born or ridiculous parallel universes; because science is trying to figure out why we are here instead of simply observing the world around us(which is its true function)
|
|
|
|
