Can Science prove Religion?

[Vyel]

Like the above poster mentions, supernatural happenings (miracles), have no natural, or scientific, explanation. They are not something that is within the bounds of logic. You will never see a presentation of a cogent argument (i.e. x, y; so God exists) that proves anything of religious significance. Also to remember: just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it's true, i.e. our universe is contained in a small glass globe on a cat's collar like in Men in Black, because you can't prove otherwise!

As a note: You can't draw a conclusion about the validity of the Qu'ran because it (optimistically assuming) correctly states the speed of light. That has nothing to do with anything supernatural. AnandtechPirate, far as saying "evolution is just a theory," and "in the Quran there is scientific knowledge to be extracted," it shows you clearly don't understand what a theory is, the most fundamental aspects of science (scientific knowledge isn't scientific unless there are recreatable tests affirming, and there is no science in your dogmatic calculation of the speed of light), nor how to communicate clearly.

To the OP, I highly suggest you take an informal logic class, which is usually is offered by the philosophy department. If you understand what you are taught, questions like this will be trivial. If you're interested in these sorts of questions, I predict you will enjoy the class.

The application of rudimentary critical thinking skills abolishes the acceptance of divinity. If you don't understand why, then your education is insufficient. Go to your local community college and take an informal logic course. (I would suggest independant study, but I doubt the person would be able to have an accurate view of their (lack of) understanding without the tests).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vyel
The application of rudimentary critical thinking skills abolishes the acceptance of divinity. If you don't understand why, then your education is insufficient. Go to your local community college and take an informal logic course. (I would suggest independant study, but I doubt the person would be able to have an accurate view of their (lack of) understanding without the tests).

You were doing OK until this paragraph. Then, your own irrationalities and obvious disdain for those who do believe in a divinity overcame your attempts at rational thought. This is obviated by consulting the available quotes of some of the greatest critical thinkers of all time. For example, let us consider the founding father of variational calculus. Euler could not arrive at the foundations of variational calculus without assuming that there was a 'Creator' who made the universe as it was:

For since the fabric of the universe is most perfect and the work of a most wise Creator, nothing at all takes place in the universe in which some rule of maximum or minimum does not appear.

The mathematical approaches he developed using this simple governing assumption are now nearly essential to the solution of complex problems in physics and mechanics. Or, consider the musings of Gauss:

Finally, two days ago, I succeeded - not on account of my hard efforts, but by the grace of the Lord. Like a sudden flash of lightning, the riddle was solved. I am unable to say what was the conducting thread that connected what I previously knew with what made my success possible.

There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for example touching ethics, or our relation to God, or concerning our destiny and our future; but their solution lies wholly beyond us and completely outside the province of science.

Or, someone you might be more familiar with, Einstein:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I could go on, but I can see from your above-quoted paragraph that it would be an exercise in futility to do so.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You were doing OK until this paragraph. Then, your own irrationalities and obvious disdain for those who do believe in a divinity overcame your attempts at rational thought. This is obviated by consulting the available quotes of some of the greatest critical thinkers of all time. For example, let us consider the founding father of variational calculus. Euler could not arrive at the foundations of variational calculus without assuming that there was a 'Creator' who made the universe as it was:

Euler also died over 200 years ago. They didn't have near to the amount of scientific knowledge that we know today. Btw, please explain why we should care what some famous scientist thought? Although Vyel was harsh, his (her?) statement was correct. No evidence exists (or can exist) to point to the existence of a God, and without any evidence it is irrational to assume that one exists.

 

[f95toli]

Also, Einstein spent the last years of his life producing nothing but rubbish (at least in terms of science). Mainly because he refused to accept the consequences of quantum mechanics since he thought that, as he put it, "Gott spielt nicht Würfel" ("God does not play dice").

I am not saying that this was the only reason why he got it all wrong but it certainly seems to have been a contributing factor.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Euler also died over 200 years ago. They didn't have near to the amount of scientific knowledge that we know today.

I was pointing out the jackassery that somehow the ability to think critically 'abolished the acceptance of divinity'. You'll note that I said nothing about whether these guys were right or wrong, only that they are obviously capable of critical thinking and did believe in some superior being, effectively refuting his assertions.

Btw, please explain why we should care what some famous scientist thought? Although Vyel was harsh, his (her?) statement was correct. No evidence exists (or can exist) to point to the existence of a God, and without any evidence it is irrational to assume that one exists.

As I stated previously, that's not the point of the thread, nor the primary point of his post. And, notably, you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

So, if you want to go that route, how can you explain the existence of the universe without including something capable of initiating a creation event (i.e. the Big Bang)? Or do you believe it's rational to postulate that nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing and spontaneously exploded?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizardSo, if you want to go that route, how can you explain the existence of the universe without including something capable of initiating a creation event (i.e. the Big Bang)? Or do you believe it's rational to postulate that nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing and spontaneously exploded?

I seem to remember vaguely something like the universe collapsed on itself to a point then exploded. doesnt really explain how everything came into existance but does explain that whole "nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing" thing.

 

[byosys]

If science could prove that a God existed, would science then become religion?

Nope, it would be the other way around using the definations I listed earlier in this thread. If science could prove a/several God/Gods existed, beleif in a God(s) would then cease to be religion and become science. Ditto for the other events that verious religions claim to have occured (Noah's Ark, parting of the dead sea, etc I'm sorry, but I'm really only familar with Christinaty, so thats where I'm pulling events from). Although, I imagine proving that one of these events did happen would make it historical fact, not science.

Right now evolution is just a theory, it hasn't been proven.

Here we go again...The best response I can give to this is that gravity is "just a theory" as well. So are the principals that hold up our bridges and make our airplanes fly. And I bet you have driven over a bridge or flown in an airplane, so don't go knocking evolution for being "just a theory".

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
I seem to remember vaguely something like the universe collapsed on itself to a point then exploded. doesnt really explain how everything came into existance but does explain that whole "nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing" thing.

No, it merely explains the distribution of that nearly infinite mass and energy, not where they came from.

 

[ahurtt]

Science, I agree, can't really be used to disprove or prove religion. As long as some people continue to attribute the unknown to God, there will always be God for them. And there is no end to the number of questions in the Universe. There are as many questions as the Universe is large. And for every answer we uncover, it opens up more questions.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And, notably, you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

I don't have to offer ANY reasons why a God doesn't exist! The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that one exists. Thats like asking me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. How exactly would you go about doing that? The best I can do is asking for evidence that it does exist, observing that there is none, and therefore concluding that there is no logical reason to believe in it.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Or do you believe it's rational to postulate that nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing and spontaneously exploded?

How do you know it sprang up from nothing? How do you know the universe doesn't exist inside of another dimension? You don't, and neither do I, however there are many more modern theories about how the universe came about. These are more plausible than Intelligent Design will ever be since they have been created by analyzing the mathmathics behind matter and energy (this is how string theory was invented). It would be a mistake to "believe" any of these theories (including ID), since none of them are backed by any significant amount of evidence (and some like ID, will never be backed by any evidence).

 

[GauteHauk]

I have never been so completely in agreement with something as the NOMA concept. The very idea that science cannot prove or disprove religion and that vice-versa is also not possible has never been so properly spelled out. I did about an hour's reading(will probably do more, as this intrigues me and allows me to settle an argument with someone who believes differently than I with a form of comrpromise that neither invalidates nor attacks any set view.) and was blown away.

I have always felt that science was being pushed to the wrong use when people attempted to explain religion and/or disprove it. And the opposite I have also always felt was impossible. Therefore, I highly encourage anyone to do research, no links, no specific sites, no guidance on my behalf to a specific destination, but rather simply urge anyone and everyone to read about "Non-Overlapping Magisteria' (Stephen Jay Gould, an agnostic)." - to quote CycloWizard. This really felt like a solid connection of the concepts of science/religion. That is to say, that one is inherently outside of the scope of the other in most, if not all underlying principles.

And the end of the article is something else I find truly heart-warming.

A quote here:

"The days I spent with Carl in Rome were the best of our friendship. We delighted in walking around the Eternal City, feasting on its history and architecture?and its food! Carl took special delight in the anonymity that he still enjoyed in a nation that had not yet aired Cosmos, the greatest media work in popular science of all time.

I dedicate this essay to his memory. Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls?but I cannot think of a better reason for hoping we are wrong than the prospect of spending eternity roaming the cosmos in friendship and conversation with this wonderful soul."

From: [ Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106 (March 1997): pp. 16-22; Also reprinted in Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Harmony Books, 1998, pp. 269-283. ]

 

[Vyel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

CycloWizard, meet the fallacy of argument from ignorance. As I said above, just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true. Literally spelled-out for you: Not being able to offer reasons why a god might not exist does not validate, or support the existance of a god.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, if you want to go that route, how can you explain the existence of the universe without including something capable of initiating a creation event (i.e. the Big Bang)? Or do you believe it's rational to postulate that nearly infinite mass and energy sprung up from nothing and spontaneously exploded?

A rational person accepts there isn't enough information to make a conclusion about the creation of the universe. You don't, Mr. Nearly-inifinite.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't have to offer ANY reasons why a God doesn't exist! The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that one exists. Thats like asking me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. How exactly would you go about doing that? The best I can do is asking for evidence that it does exist, observing that there is none, and therefore concluding that there is no logical reason to believe in it.

Why is the burden of proof on me? I've submitted my model explaining the creation of the universe. It fits the data. I have asked you to propose an alternative model, yet you have thus far failed to do so.

How do you know it sprang up from nothing?

Because matter and energy must have, at some point, been created. Scientific theory currently agrees with me on this principle, pointing to a single event generating all matter and energy in the universe.

How do you know the universe doesn't exist inside of another dimension? You don't, and neither do I, however there are many more modern theories about how the universe came about.

Since we perceive four dimensions, it can't 'exist in another dimension'. It may have other dimensions. Indeed, I believe it probably does.

These are more plausible than Intelligent Design will ever be since they have been created by analyzing the mathmathics behind matter and energy (this is how string theory was invented). It would be a mistake to "believe" any of these theories (including ID), since none of them are backed by any significant amount of evidence (and some like ID, will never be backed by any evidence).

Did I say a single word about intelligent design? No. But that won't stop you from beating down a strawman in lieu of arguing my actual points, will it? Of course not, because you're another anti-Christian bigot who clicked on HT instead of P&N by mistake. Next time, you can hide your true feelings better by waiting until I tell you what I believe before you decide to rag on me for what you think I might believe.

Originally posted by: Vyel
CycloWizard, meet the fallacy of argument from ignorance. As I said above, just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true. Literally spelled-out for you: Not being able to offer reasons why a god might not exist does not validate, or support the existance of a god.

Welcome to the fallacy of hasty induction. You'll note that I never stated what I believe, only why someone might believe what I stated. Yet again, just another out to demonize anyone who might have a different opinion. How...enlightened. :roll:

A rational person accepts there isn't enough information to make a conclusion about the creation of the universe. You don't, Mr. Nearly-inifinite.

Well, I guess substituting fallacy for logic is just your SOP.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't have to offer ANY reasons why a God doesn't exist! The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that one exists. Thats like asking me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. How exactly would you go about doing that? The best I can do is asking for evidence that it does exist, observing that there is none, and therefore concluding that there is no logical reason to believe in it.

Why is the burden of proof on me? I've submitted my model explaining the creation of the universe. It fits the data. I have asked you to propose an alternative model, yet you have thus far failed to do so.

Well generally for a theory to have any merit it has to have some evidence behind it, unlike yours. "Fitting the data" means nothing given how much we know about how the universe was created. I could create infinitly many theories that "fit the data", because actual data about the creation of the universe is virtually non-existant.

Since we perceive four dimensions, it can't 'exist in another dimension'. It may have other dimensions. Indeed, I believe it probably does.

I'm not entirely sure about what you're saying. A two dimensional object will never "perceive" a third dimension even if it exists in a three dimensional universe. The same can be said for us. Maybe our universe could exist in another dimension where infinite universes can exist (just like infinite planes in a three dimensional world). I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but given some of the things scientists have concluded about strings it appears to be possible.

Next time, you can hide your true feelings better by waiting until I tell you what I believe before you decide to rag on me for what you think I might believe.

I've read your other threads. You sympathize with those who believe in intelligent design, which is just as bad. However, I find it very difficult to believe that someone could overcome reason enough to give merit to ID, yet not believe it themselves.

Also, could you please address my points on the fallacy of believing in a divine being? The idea of the existence of a supernatural being is not falsifiable because it would exist outside of the natural world. While this means there exists no evidence contrary to the idea, it also means that absolutely no evidence exists even suggesting the possiblity of a supernatural being.

Its also important to note that the burden of proof is always on the person suggesting a theory. Lack of evidence is the strongest possible case against any theory, and that is exactly the problem with the theory that a supernatural being exists.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizardAnd, notably, you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

Ill give you one. A god might not exist because there is no empirical proof or evidence that he does exist. hows that?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't have to offer ANY reasons why a God doesn't exist! The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that one exists. Thats like asking me to prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. How exactly would you go about doing that? The best I can do is asking for evidence that it does exist, observing that there is none, and therefore concluding that there is no logical reason to believe in it.

Why is the burden of proof on me? I've submitted my model explaining the creation of the universe. It fits the data. I have asked you to propose an alternative model, yet you have thus far failed to do so.

Well generally for a theory to have any merit it has to have some evidence behind it, unlike yours. "Fitting the data" means nothing given how much we know about how the universe was created. I could create infinitly many theories that "fit the data", because actual data about the creation of the universe is virtually non-existant.

Since we perceive four dimensions, it can't 'exist in another dimension'. It may have other dimensions. Indeed, I believe it probably does.

I'm not entirely sure about what you're saying. A two dimensional object will never "perceive" a third dimension even if it exists in a three dimensional universe. The same can be said for us. Maybe our universe could exist in another dimension where infinite universes can exist (just like infinite planes in a three dimensional world). I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but given some of the things scientists have concluded about strings it appears to be possible.

Next time, you can hide your true feelings better by waiting until I tell you what I believe before you decide to rag on me for what you think I might believe.

I've read your other threads. You sympathize with those who believe in intelligent design, which is just as bad. However, I find it very difficult to believe that someone could overcome reason enough to give merit to ID, yet not believe it themselves.

Also, could you please address my points on the fallacy of believing in a divine being? The idea of the existence of a supernatural being is not falsifiable because it would exist outside of the natural world. While this means there exists no evidence contrary to the idea, it also means that absolutely no evidence exists even suggesting the possiblity of a supernatural being.

Its also important to note that the burden of proof is always on the person suggesting a theory. Lack of evidence is the strongest possible case against any theory, and that is exactly the problem with the theory that a supernatural being exists.

I detect a small (ocean sized) amount of double speak here....

First you criticize a theory which "fits the data, but has no real evidence"...

Then you applaud a thoery about extra dimentions which "fits the mathmatical data" but also has no real physical evidence...

Finally you criticize a theory of a supernatural being because it has no real physical evidence.


If you had any understanding of scientific methods: science is carried out by the eliminating of incorrect theories, based on observed measurements of known phenomenon, rather than eliminating theories based on the absence thereof.

 

[Madwand1]

Gould's writings on NOMA are actually a very good read, one that I believe would inform many interested people here to some degree, and even curtail some of the back and forth disagreements.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree...=Round20%3AMode20a%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

I happen to disagree in some extent, and I'll try to share that. I don't mean to merely entertain a platform here for my own positions -- I leave you to your own. Gould is probably a wiser and better man than many, myself included, but I'm not satisfied by this detente.

Religion has a claim of primacy over science, not for its mundane speakers above the mundane speakers of science, but for God over the physical, human and humane. As such, it asks for no proof from science, and further claims that science and disbelief themselves exist as divine grace. To throw religion or God at science's feet is a shaming of that religion or God. Of course this has been attempted for ages, and in this thread as well.

To say that the physical world belongs to science, and the matters of the heart or ethics to religion, are also IMO, denigration of both. This is why I don't agree with Gould's postition in all, although his writings can inform many of us well. I don't believe that Gould himself holds that position entirely, and am sure that he feels every right himself to comment on ethics and morality where he sees fit, without recourse to religion.

There is a hierarchy of belief in God that is enumerated by some religions. It goes something like this:

1. Non-belief
2. Faith

(1) and (2) are little different from one another; people switch between one and the other as if changing clothing. The vast majority of people fall into these categories with no ultimate significance. The only significance of (2) is as it may lead to the welfare of the churches (sorry, had to throw that in) and as it may lead to higher in the hierarchy.

3. Knowledge through reason and intuition.
4. Knowledge through experience.
5. God.

I made up this list right now, I have no real claims on 3-5 other than that such are mentioned in some religious text, and therein of course regarded significantly differently from (1) and (2). This is essentially an acknowledgement of where we lie in general, and also a remark that there are claims, which are possible, of states 3-5. The claim further goes that evidence, proof, and knowledge exist, but aren't available to the masses.

Frankly, although this discussion has provoked me and sparked some inherent interest, for which I am grateful, I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone one way or another.

I'm really more interested in reading again the Discourses of Rumi, translated by A. J. Arberry, and I would recommend this text for anyone who finds themselves sparked by this subject. Of course there are tons of books and words on the subject. This one I like, and find speaks to me on this subject of hidden and revealed, God and man, etc. It however might break a previous statement I've made, that any religious text worth a damn makes you feel bad.

If I've happened to make some scientists / supporters feel bad or confronted, I apologize. Science, in purity, can be no more bad than good mental or physical health. But it must deal with what IS, in addition to what it knows or claims to know. It's possible that there is a God. It's possible to disprove some charlatans. I happily encourage scientists or illusionists to do that, and I further encourage scientists and religious advocates to not leave these matters up to their respective "magisteria", but to to decide with open hearts and heads for themselves.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: sao123
I detect a small (ocean sized) amount of double speak here....

First you criticize a theory which "fits the data, but has no real evidence"...

Then you applaud a thoery about extra dimentions which "fits the mathmatical data" but also has no real physical evidence...

Finally you criticize a theory of a supernatural being because it has no real physical evidence.

I wrote my post with the assumption that it would be read and not skimmed, but apparently I was asking too much.

I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but given some of the things scientists have concluded about strings it appears to be possible.

Its difficult to argue that I called this an "applauding the theory".

Originally posted by: sao123
If you had any understanding of scientific methods: science is carried out by the eliminating of incorrect theories, based on observed measurements of known phenomenon, rather than eliminating theories based on the absence thereof.

Thats because in science, theories without any evidence aren't considered in the first place. They didn't get to evolution by eliminating all of the infinite other theories about how humans came to be. The theory of evolution was proposed because it was observed in the wild and it provided an explanation for the similarities between many of the different species of animals (and helped explain the less than extensive fossil record back then). It also wasn't popular at all when it came out because going from observations on finches to explaining the whole animal kingdom was quite a far leap, however as time went on more and more evidence gathered to support evolution so that now it is virtually accepted as scientific fact.

ID on the other hand has gone the opposite way of evolution. It was been around for ages (in the virtually equivalent form of creationism) and its popularity has only been diminishing. While it can explain creation, it is backed by absolutely no facts currently, and more importantly, will never be backed by any facts. This immediately turns ID into a dead end if we are to search for a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe.

 

[thoro86]

The truth is not in any category of religion, science, or philosophy. It's just simply there...

I believe that to seek the truth, we have to start to observe outside the box of religion, science or whatsoever...

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: sao123
I detect a small (ocean sized) amount of double speak here....

First you criticize a theory which "fits the data, but has no real evidence"...

Then you applaud a thoery about extra dimentions which "fits the mathmatical data" but also has no real physical evidence...

Finally you criticize a theory of a supernatural being because it has no real physical evidence.

I wrote my post with the assumption that it would be read and not skimmed, but apparently I was asking too much.

I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but given some of the things scientists have concluded about strings it appears to be possible.

Its difficult to argue that I called this an "applauding the theory".

Originally posted by: sao123
If you had any understanding of scientific methods: science is carried out by the eliminating of incorrect theories, based on observed measurements of known phenomenon, rather than eliminating theories based on the absence thereof.

Thats because in science, theories without any evidence aren't considered in the first place. They didn't get to evolution by eliminating all of the infinite other theories about how humans came to be. The theory of evolution was proposed because it was observed in the wild and it provided an explanation for the similarities between many of the different species of animals (and helped explain the less than extensive fossil record back then). It also wasn't popular at all when it came out because going from observations on finches to explaining the whole animal kingdom was quite a far leap, however as time went on more and more evidence gathered to support evolution so that now it is virtually accepted as scientific fact.

ID on the other hand has gone the opposite way of evolution. It was been around for ages (in the virtually equivalent form of creationism) and its popularity has only been diminishing. While it can explain creation, it is backed by absolutely no facts currently, and more importantly, will never be backed by any facts. This immediately turns ID into a dead end if we are to search for a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe.

while this may be true for biological sciences... this does not hold true for the hard sciences of chemistry and physics. Most theories in these subject area come about as of mathmatical equations which happen to fit some data...and thus a theory is born and remains until it is proven that despite the calculations it does not happen in the real world.
Physicists speculated about an island of stability around element 114 based on some mathematical data, then tested it. In this particular case, it worked. in others such as the hydrogen atom model, didnt.
Even the beloved string theory, is nothing more than a mathematic description of a possible way to link the fundamental forces and particles. It has a good mathematical description, but it has yet to be proven true/untrue because of a lack of possible valid experiments at this time.
Either way, a theory based on some data, without any factual evidence is still a valid theory until proven untrue.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: sao123
while this may be true for biological sciences... this does not hold true for the hard sciences of chemistry and physics. Most theories in these subject area come about as of mathmatical equations which happen to fit some data...and thus a theory is born and remains until it is proven that despite the calculations it does not happen in the real world.
Physicists speculated about an island of stability around element 114 based on some mathematical data, then tested it. In this particular case, it worked. in others such as the hydrogen atom model, didnt.
Even the beloved string theory, is nothing more than a mathematic description of a possible way to link the fundamental forces and particles. It has a good mathematical description, but it has yet to be proven true/untrue because of a lack of possible valid experiments at this time.
Either way, a theory based on some data, without any factual evidence is still a valid theory until proven untrue.

You have a very good point and I realize now that it definately applies to theories like string theory. However, I am confused as to whether you are trying to tie this in to ID or not. ID has been repeatedly rejected because, while it offers an explanation, it is based off of nothing of substance. The whole foundation of ID is that since we don't know anything that could possibly create life/the universe than a divine being must have done (which is a very poor foundation).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Well generally for a theory to have any merit it has to have some evidence behind it, unlike yours. "Fitting the data" means nothing given how much we know about how the universe was created. I could create infinitly many theories that "fit the data", because actual data about the creation of the universe is virtually non-existant.

Not true. An unproven theory is a theory nonetheless. In the absence of data, each person must consider its merit based on its foundational arguments. Many of Einstein's theories were not investigated until well after his death simply because the technology to do so was not there. Yet, when they were investigated, they were found to be correct pretty much across the board. Thus, absence of data says nothing about a theory.

As for data being of creation of the universe, the only data that we need know is that it was, indeed, created. Science tells us that this is, indeed, the case. Recent observations in astrophysics have demonstrated agreement with this theory.

I'm not entirely sure about what you're saying. A two dimensional object will never "perceive" a third dimension even if it exists in a three dimensional universe. The same can be said for us. Maybe our universe could exist in another dimension where infinite universes can exist (just like infinite planes in a three dimensional world). I'm not saying there is any reason to believe this, but given some of the things scientists have concluded about strings it appears to be possible.

This is not true. For example, in the world of Gaussian geometry, the intrinsic curvature of a surface may be known by the surface's inhabitants, while the extrinsic curvature may only be seen by those outside the surface (link). But that's beside the point. The point was that our dimensions don't exist within another dimension, though they may coexist in the same space as the additional dimension. Our three spaces don't exist in time, they coexist with time. There may well be other dimensions that we are not able to perceive, but I think the concept of our universe being isolated by existing only within another dimension is flawed.

I've read your other threads. You sympathize with those who believe in intelligent design, which is just as bad. However, I find it very difficult to believe that someone could overcome reason enough to give merit to ID, yet not believe it themselves.

In your calling my thoughts 'unreasonable', you are yourself falling victim to fallacy. You also like this one. Maybe you'd care to stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to whip out ad hominems?

Also, could you please address my points on the fallacy of believing in a divine being? The idea of the existence of a supernatural being is not falsifiable because it would exist outside of the natural world. While this means there exists no evidence contrary to the idea, it also means that absolutely no evidence exists even suggesting the possiblity of a supernatural being.

Its also important to note that the burden of proof is always on the person suggesting a theory. Lack of evidence is the strongest possible case against any theory, and that is exactly the problem with the theory that a supernatural being exists.

If I were trying to prove anything, I would put forth evidence. But I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that one theory is not necessarily worse than any other because we just don't know enough to decide one way or the other. Also, lack of evidence is not the strongest possible case against any theory. The strongest possible case against a theory is evidence to the contrary. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Well generally for a theory to have any merit it has to have some evidence behind it, unlike yours. "Fitting the data" means nothing given how much we know about how the universe was created. I could create infinitly many theories that "fit the data", because actual data about the creation of the universe is virtually non-existant.

Not true. An unproven theory is a theory nonetheless. In the absence of data, each person must consider its merit based on its foundational arguments. Many of Einstein's theories were not investigated until well after his death simply because the technology to do so was not there. Yet, when they were investigated, they were found to be correct pretty much across the board.

Yet when they were first proposed I doubt the vast majority of people just accepted them as fact. They weren't rejected, but they weren't "accepted" either.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thus, absence of data says nothing about a theory.

However a permanent lack of evidence does (like ID).

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As for data being of creation of the universe, the only data that we need know is that it was, indeed, created.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. Knowing that the universe was created doesn't help at all in regard to explaining how it was created. Putting faith behind any of the creation theories is illogical.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There may well be other dimensions that we are not able to perceive, but I think the concept of our universe being isolated by existing only within another dimension is flawed.

I guess my choice of words has been rather vague. I consider a two dimensional plane to be a two dimensional world that can "exist" within a three dimensional world to exist within that world. Thats what I meant when I said that "our universe could exist in another dimension". I meant that there may be other dimensions ("that we don't perceive" as you put it) that would allow for more than one universes to exist in.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I've read your other threads. You sympathize with those who believe in intelligent design, which is just as bad. However, I find it very difficult to believe that someone could overcome reason enough to give merit to ID, yet not believe it themselves.

In your calling my thoughts 'unreasonable', you are yourself falling victim to fallacy. You also like this one. Maybe you'd care to stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to whip out ad hominems?

I just read some more posts by you in old threads and your views confuse me even more. You admitted its not a scientific theory, yet you continue to argue (or atleast appear to) that we should consider it? Why should we ever consider a theory that is not rooted in facts (or not rooted in anything such as ID)? Hell, even string theory is based off of facts.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yet when they were first proposed I doubt the vast majority of people just accepted them as fact. They weren't rejected, but they weren't "accepted" either.

They were accepted by many theoreticians at the time. He was denied the Nobel prize for relativity by Gullstrand (who I believe was the chair of the decision committee at the time) because he was strictly an experimentalist. He was a very great experimentalist (I still reference his work today), but he couldn't understand a theory for anything. Those who could understand what he had done were rather accepting because his arguments were very sound, even though there was no experimental evidence. This is the matter in which all such debates must be conducted in the absence of empirical evidence: through logical exposition and debate, not by demonizing those who oppose you.

However a permanent lack of evidence does (like ID).

I'm not here to champion ID theory, nor do I support it. However, I do oppose those who demonize ID supporters outside of scientific forums.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. Knowing that the universe was created doesn't help at all in regard to explaining how it was created. Putting faith behind any of the creation theories is illogical.

You put faith in dozens of theories every day. Why is this one so illogical? Indeed, I believe choosing a theory in this particular case relies solely on logical exercises, as science cannot answer such questions as a matter of course. I have pursued these questions while many others my age have not. I have arrived at my conclusions, which continue to be reinforced through experiences in my life. What are my conclusions? I'm not going to say. I believe it's up to each of us to figure them out for his/herself. The journey is at least as important as the destination.

I guess my choice of words has been rather vague. I consider a two dimensional plane to be a two dimensional world that can "exist" within a three dimensional world to exist within that world. Thats what I meant when I said that "our universe could exist in another dimension". I meant that there may be other dimensions ("that we don't perceive" as you put it) that would allow for more than one universes to exist in.

Yes, which is what I said I believe in the first place.

I just read some more posts by you in old threads and your views confuse me even more. You admitted its not a scientific theory, yet you continue to argue (or atleast appear to) that we should consider it? Why should we ever consider a theory that is not rooted in facts (or not rooted in anything such as ID)? Hell, even string theory is based off of facts.

No, you're still missing the whole point. I'm not asking you to consider anything. I'm just asking you to stop demonizing those who do consider them. You can believe whatever you want and it's no skin off my back. The difference is that I also believe that people you disagree with should also believe whatever they want. Personally, I believe evolution is correct. I'm not going to personally attack someone who is a staunch creationist - unless they try to press their views in a scientific forum.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: randay
Ill give you one. A god might not exist because there is no empirical proof or evidence that he does exist. hows that?

I have no empirical proof that you exist. For all I know, you could be a forum bot posting random gibberish. You can argue that your responses form evidence of your existence, but the interpretation of the evidence is often what is lacking when one claims that no evidence exists.