Does God exist?

[Abbadon]

CatsandDogs - well if you consider divine revelation to be more than schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder or any other psychological disorder. And that the actually person saying so is actually right…

Then thats it. That is all the evidence you need. Incorrect as I may believe you are. You are right in your own mind.

What would it take to show to you that divine revelation is only a psychological disorder or simply incorrect correlative data recognition?

For me i would believe divine revelation to be truly divine if it told us something useful that we are yet to understand and know. Not in some cryptic allegorical way that can be used to describe various events. But something precise and then repeatable.

 

[crowonsnow]

It is a simple logical and correct thing to say, to say that an uncaused cause is the only thing that could cause a first cause, thus setting in motion all subsequent causes, which was the creation of the universe. What is “silly” about that?

That reminds me of a friend’s shirt. She wears it quite a bit. It says, “If a man sitting alone in the desert says something that no one hears, is he still wrong?” Apparently she’s had her share of unhappy relationships.

To your point about an uncaused cause however, I don’t think you can have a cause without an effect because the effect is what reveals the cause. Without an effect there simply is no cause. An uncaused cause would therefore have to be accompanied by an unaffected effect. That would not make sense, at least not in this universe. So I don’t think it’s correct, and it certainly isn’t either simple or logical. And it is certainly something that does not stand up to scrutiny.

A cause can certainly be something abstract such as a goal to which one is dedicated, but when accounting for the universe, I don’t think you mean a creator to be an abstraction.

And BTW, I don’t know beans about Cthulhu.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
They’re NOT made-up answers. They are answers that actually ANSWER! That answer is not “respected” by atheists, who choose to accept answers that DON’T answer, because of the consequences OF that answer.

“There mustn’t be any absolutes, and the overarching organizing principle MUSTN’T be ‘personal’ (three persons) because then we’d have to actually OBEY someone with actual authority in all things instead of simply probing the “machine universe” in any way (morally ethical or not) we like!”

No they are made up answers. As made up as Zeus and Thor. And they don’t answer anything, the whole point is the “glorious mystery” what kind of an answer is a mysterious god?

You are perfectly free to believe what you like.

The obvious answer to how the universe came into being is that an uncaused cause created it. It is a perfectly logical and explanatory answer to the question.

God is not a mysterious God. There are mysteries involved with Him, but there is no matter of faith and morals that He doesn’t answer quite directly.

God leaves it to us to experiment with His creation to answer all the “physical” questions as to how His creation (which is a machine) works. But God himself is not a machine, because machines have no will, and as there is only one other type of “being” other than “the machine”, which is “the person” (possessing a free will), God must be (at least one) person.

There are no absolutes but we can get damn well near 99.9%.

Yes, but 99.9% near to WHAT!?

I agree with you that we can get 99.9% near to an understanding of nearly anything physical (materialistic knowledge). But I also believe that we can get 99.9% (or 100% if we actually follow the rules given) near to an understanding of anything spiritual as well.

You don’t think that “spiritual knowledge” is in any way useful.

That’s between you and your “spirit”, as it were, and no skin off of my back.

But we remember that at any point in time new evidence can present it’s self which can either change our understanding slightly or turn it upside down. And after peer review and thorough checking we happily change our knowledge bank.

And that’s the way it should be for physical knowledge. For spiritual knowledge, we’ve been given everything there is to know (directly by God via the Magisterium) but we need to further develop our understanding of the consequences of sin by our “experimentation” with it to be able to more deeply comprehend what our deposit of faith actually means.

If there was evidence for god X i would happily accept it, it would become apart the greater world view.

Heh he he… And you don’t think that God-stuff isn’t a major part of your worldview?

Where do you think your ethics and morals come from? They are based on one of two things:

1. Your acceptance of some distinction of what constitutes “good” and “evil” as defined by the Church (aka the People of God since Adam).
2. Your rejection of some distinction of what constitutes “good” and “evil” as defined by the Church (aka the People of God since Adam).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

*The BB doesn’t raise doubts about an eternal universe anymore than ice raises doubts about liquid water. *

I don’t follow your analogy. There **is **scientific proof that the universe began. There is no scientific proof that the universe is eternal.

Whether a technologically advanced species gave something a kick start doesn’t change the fact that something was already there.

Are you willing to follow improbable hypotheses where there is no scientific evidence? There is no scientific evidence whatever of a “technologically advanced species” that jump-started the universe, yet you are willing to concede that possibility rather than the possibility of God? … Anything but God!

We can none of us unmake any part of this universe, except in our imaginations.

That’s for sure!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

CatsandDogs - well if you consider divine revelation to be more than schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder or any other psychological disorder. And that the actually person saying so is actually right…

Then thats it. That is all the evidence you need. Incorrect as I may believe you are. You are right in your own mind.

I’m not only right in my own mind, but in objective reality as well.

Since you judge the “validity” of divine revelation as invalid SOLELY because of it’s claimed source, and refuse to judge it on the merits of it’s actual testable merits, it’s quite understandable that you can’t see the difference between actual God-given divine revelation and delusions of grandeur.

So, why would a so-called scientist purposefully not discriminate between two things which he has the capability of discriminating between?

Because there is a “need” of some sort to conflate the two. What is your NEED to conflate religion with mental illness?

What would it take to show to you that divine revelation is only a psychological disorder or simply incorrect correlative data recognition?

I constantly seek something that would discredit the Church as being from God. All it would take is for one instance of two Church dogmas being contradictory with each other.

I have yet to find one, and I have all faith that doing so is utterly impossible.

For me i would believe divine revelation to be truly divine if it told us something useful that we are yet to understand and know. Not in some cryptic allegorical way that can be used to describe various events. But something precise and then repeatable.

Since you don’t accept that all knowledge is larger than what you think it is, that there is both knowledge of God’s creation as well as knowledge of God and persons, you, logically, think that since everything is physical you (or anyone) CAN’T possibly find any use for this non-existent “religious” knowledge which doesn’t exist.

Divine revelation says that killing not-yet-born babies is evil and will have massively bad consequences for societies which allow it.

THAT is useful information which is from divine revelation and from nowhere else, mon ami.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
It is a simple logical and correct thing to say, to say that an uncaused cause is the only thing that could cause a first cause, thus setting in motion all subsequent causes, which was the creation of the universe. What is “silly” about that?

That reminds me of a friend’s shirt. She wears it quite a bit. It says, “If a man sitting alone in the desert says something that no one hears, is he still wrong?” Apparently she’s had her share of unhappy relationships.

Yeah, that IS a pretty nifty saying! <chuckle!>

The answer to the saying is, of course, “YES, if he’s wrong!”

To your point about an uncaused cause however, I don’t think you can have a cause without an effect because the effect is what reveals the cause. Without an effect there simply is no cause. An uncaused cause would therefore have to be accompanied by an unaffected effect.

Uhhhh,… an “unaffected effect” is the same thing as an uncaused cause, dear friend!

That “thing” is unaffected by any other thing. Only a thing existing utterly alone could have that attribute.

That “thing” would also possess an “effect” which would affect other “things”. It is therefore a cause of other effects.

What that describes is a thing that is both utterly alone and affecting other effects. Only God, the uncaused cause, fits that description in being initially alone and then “later” having things to affect by His effects.

That would not make sense, at least not in this universe. So I don’t think it’s correct, and it certainly isn’t either simple or logical. And it is certainly something that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Check your logic again.

A cause can certainly be something abstract such as a goal to which one is dedicated, but when accounting for the universe, I don’t think you mean a creator to be an abstraction.

I’m not claiming that an uncaused cause is an abstraction. I’m just saying that a real thing which IS an uncaused cause answers the question of how the universe came into being, while no other proposed “answer” does answer the question.

And BTW, I don’t know beans about Cthulhu.

Cthulhu.

It is a “horrid” critter who’s adherents say in one of their rituals:

“Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn”

…which translates as “In his house at R’lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.”

The word “ylem”, which you (or someone) used looks like it would fit right into that ritual chant quite well indeed, don’tcha think?!

 

[crowonsnow]

Uhhhh,… an “unaffected effect” is the same thing as an uncaused cause, dear friend!

Well, I sure don’t agree. Sally forth I suppose.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Well, I sure don’t agree. Sally forth I suppose.

Where is my logic wrong?

 

[crowonsnow]

I don’t follow your analogy. There **is **scientific proof that the universe began. There is no scientific proof that the universe is eternal.

There is good scientific evidence, I wouldn’t call it proof, that the universe began in its present form about 15 billion years ago. Put some water into your freezer and some ice will begin, unless of course the conditions are not right for the water to freeze. Based on a few variables, and if indeed ice forms, you can make a scientific approximation of about when that occurred. Or you can believe that there’s a god in your freezer I guess. I just don’t see a need for any unnatural explanations in either case.

Are you willing to follow improbable hypotheses where there is no scientific evidence?

Certainly not. To be quite honest that is one of the reasons I am not a religious person.

That’s for sure!

So we can agree on some things. Super!

 

[crowonsnow]

Where is my logic wrong?

Well, Kudos for a very clever response. But both ideas are equally wanting in my very humble opinion, because they’re just semantics. A god as an uncaused uncause seems to make a bit more sense as I understand the religious mindset, but I’d have to let it rattle around a bit. But an uncaused uncause would just be a simple cause. Semantics.

The universe could certainly be a tiny and insignificant part of a much larger organism, a single life form that is all things. But even this wouldn’t be a god because a god doesn’t follow scientific principles. Anything that is a scientific impossibility is simply an impossibility.

From your religious bias and perspective, and knowing the value of scientific inquiry, a god is a religiously possible scientific impossibility. From my scientific perspective and bias, and assuming I understand the religious mindset, a god is a scientifically impossible religious possibility. That’s about as close as it gets seems to me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

a god is a scientifically impossible religious possibility

I think you miscalculate here. Science cannot say that God is scientifically impossible. There is increasing evidence from science itself that God is a possible factor in the creation of the universe; even though the actual person of God may not be subject to scientific scrutiny, the product of God’s intelligent design is. Many eminent scientists have thought so. If God was a scientific impossibility, they would certainly have said so. But here is the record below. Can you produce a corresponding record of eminent scientists who have said that God is a scientific impossibility?

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler: Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

Benjamin Franklin: Electricity, Bifocals, etc.
”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.” Letter to Ezra Stiles 3/9/1790

James Clerk Maxwell: Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin: Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin: Theory of Evolution
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur: Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Albert Einstein: Theories of Relativity
“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac: Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre: Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

 

[crowonsnow]

I think you miscalculate here. Science cannot say that God is scientifically impossible. There is increasing evidence from science itself that God is a possible factor in the creation of the universe; even though the actual person of God may not be subject to scientific scrutiny, the product of God’s intelligent design is. Many eminent scientists have thought so. If God was a scientific impossibility, they would certainly have said so. But here is the record below. Can you produce a corresponding record of eminent scientists who have said that God is a scientific impossibility?

I probably could get a list with a little research but I would be equally as guilty of just making another argument from authority.

I will say though that it is interesting that your first example is Copernicus. I seriously doubt that Copernicus could have provided a list of eminent or at least highly regarded individuals within his culture who felt as he does that we do not live in a geocentric anthropocentric universe. And I won’t even mention Darwin or Alfred Russell Wallace or Galileo in their times. And there’s the example of someone first proposing continental drift, what has become today’s plate tectonics. These observations all met with great resistance or great indifference. And it doesn’t have to be scientific, it can be something like women’s suffrage or civil rights

An observation or idea does not have to be immediately popular to be correct. In fact it is usually just the opposite. It takes time for cultural attitudes to change even with sufficient evidence.

A major difference between science and religion, and perhaps this has to do with your compiling the above list, is that in science there are no truth holders, no authorities that dictate what people can and cannot believe or submit to question. There are no Imams or High Priests claiming divine descent or authority. The only truth in science is the science itself. It becomes a transcultural and universal language.

In science evidence yields conclusions that are verifiable. In religion, first comes the conclusion, and then a case gets built for it with other ideas being suppressed. Scientific inquiry is very different from religion in this regard. Scientists certainly have loyalties and biases, but as Kepler demonstrated, when those observations collide with our preconceived notions and sensibilities, the preconceived notions and sensibilities must give way to observed fact. In his case, he had to conclude that the heavenly spheres were not perfect in their orbits. The theory had to change to support the evidence.

That’s probably more than you wanted, but thanks for listening.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

A major difference between science and religion, and perhaps this has to do with your compiling the above list, is that in science there are no truth holders, no authorities that dictate what people can and cannot believe or submit to question. There are no Imams or High Priests claiming divine descent or authority. The only truth in science is the science itself. It becomes a transcultural and universal language.

All of what you say above is true, but when you say “a god is a scientifically impossible religious possibility” I just wanted to make it clear to you that many eminent scientists do not see a conflict with holding to the idea of God as well as the ideas of science. And certainly some of those mentioned above do not see any connection at all between science and atheism.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

 

[crowonsnow]

All of what you say above is true, but when you say “a god is a scientifically impossible religious possibility” I just wanted to make it clear to you that many eminent scientists do not see a conflict with holding to the idea of God as well as the ideas of science. And certainly some of those mentioned above do not see any connection at all between science and atheism.

It’s certainly possible for any person to compartmentalize his or her thinking. There could be many reasons for this ranging from social acceptance to economic gain to practicality trumping idealism. It can even happen subconsciously. Historically, atheism has been selected against, treated as a kind of traitor in the ranks. This still happens in many countries but that prejudice certainly continues to lessen. Perhaps modern science is having much to do with it.

Maybe as the globe shrinks and cultures become more in contact differences are becoming less and less important. I do know that other primates when required to live in relatively crowded conditions adjust their behavior so that it is less aggressive and threatening. Maybe that’s all it is. I don’t know. But certainly this prejudice is lessening.

As you demonstrate, it is certainly possible to be both scientific and religious. If you can, however, point me to any articles in which the scientific possibility of gods is discussed I’d be appreciative. For an entity to be scientifically possible yet be free from the scientific theories and physical constraints that permeate all of space and time seems to me just one for the imagination. It’s a contradiction of the first degree. Such an entity would mean there is no science. Gravity applies to everything. The theory of gravity doesn’t make religious exclusions. An entity that is not subject to the law of gravity is simply not a real possibility.

Anyway, I’ve certainly appreciated the discussion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If you can, however, point me to any articles in which the scientific possibility of gods is discussed I’d be appreciative.

There are many good books and articles on the subject. I will mention only the three that I happen to have on my desk:

There is a God, by Antony Flew
I hasten to add that Flew’s God is not my God. However, Flew was the pre-eminet atheist for a long time. You may be familiar with his work, and the fact that he has given up on atheism because the scientific developments of the last fifty years are too indicative of some kind of intelligence at work in the creation of the universe.

Another book that is more on the historical side, documenting the rise and fall of atheism in modern times, is Alister McCrath’s The Twilight of Atheism.
The table of contents will clearly indicate to you which chapters are of most interest so far as your question is concerned.

Also think about reading The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. Now living in Jerusalem, he earned his doctorate in physics from M.I.T. This book specializes in demonstrating a convergence of scientific thought and biblical wisdom.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The Big Bang was an event. There was already something there. Scientists do not dispute that.

The Big Bang was an event. There was already something there. Scientists do not dispute that.

Sorry. Something was not already there; at least nothing physical. The Big bang wasn’t just an event. The Bigbang marks the beginning of all events, before which there was no events; there was no before. Once you realise that the universe is characterised by events, you will see that it is impossible for the universe to have a natural-cause for its own existence. It is impossible to have a “timeless-physical-event” since all physical events happen in time, and time began to exist with the universe. The only possible way out, is to suppose an infinite regress; but as you know, this has been disproven by the Bigbang. Not only that, even if there was an infinite regress of something, this would not explain anything of any value, other then the fact that there is no ultimate cause or reason for the existence of the Universe within space-time. The question “Why something rather then nothing” is left unanswered. We could just stop there and be content with ignorance; however an interesting thing occurs when we try to explain all physical events. When we do so, we are naturally forced to transcend those events to a state that is non- pysical in nature, since we have no choice but to move out side of space-time for an ultimate explanation that fits all the facts. So, if somebody really wants a cause that explains all the features of our universe, you will find that even an infinite regress would require somebody to look beyond the bounds of space-time for an ultimate explanation; which implies the existence of a timeless immaterial-causual-factor behind the working Universe.

But even if there are immaterial factors at work, why do we suppose they are inteligent?

The problem is, we cannot explain the Universe through physics, since physics is apart of the Universe that we are trying to explain; a universe which began to exist. We need to find a cause that explains the first physical event. If no other natural causes are possible or pluasible when considering the Bigbang model, then we must consider others which are of a different nature entirely. If we allow the distinction between willfull acts and natural events, and that willful acts do in fact exist, then we can reasonably consider personal will as having a different nature to natural events. Since the only other kind of cuase we know about is an inteligent cuase, if we dare to answer the question, we can only conclude that the ultimate cuase of our Universe is in fact inteligent; and we can see reflections of that inteligence through the rich inteligibility our universe; such as the intrinsic order and rich qualities that have emerged since the BigBang. In other-words, to cut a long story short, since all physical causes have been deemed illogical or useless, the only options are to either suppose that one can get something out of nothing, or that there is in fact an eternal-transcedent-causual factor at work that is inteligent and is not a physical thing in time and space.

Peace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In other-words, to cut a long story short, since all physical causes have been deemed illogical or useless, the only options are to either suppose that one can get something out of nothing, or that there is in fact an eternal-transcedent-causual factor at work that is inteligent and is not a physical thing in time and space.

This is the conclusion, more or less, that was drawn by Antony Flew, the atheist who now believes that the existence of life in the universe cannot be explained by evolution at the most microscopic level: that is to say, nothing can reasonably be found as a causative agent to produce the first life on earth. Flew has decided that only a Supreme Intellect, such as the one envisioned by Aristotle, could possibly have arranged for the first signs of life. In this way, science’s inability to account for the origins of life, does science point to the existence of Something outside nature, Something more powerful than nature, which created nature and guides nature on its evolutionary course.

That Something was imposing its will at the Big Bang, again at the start of life on the planet, and now as It continues to shower the gift of grace, even upon those sentient beings who resist Its will.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Where is my logic wrong?

Well, Kudos for a very clever response. But both ideas are equally wanting in my very humble opinion, because they’re just semantics. A god as an uncaused uncause seems to make a bit more sense as I understand the religious mindset, but I’d have to let it rattle around a bit. But an uncaused uncause would just be a simple cause. Semantics.

A basic premise of a “truthful description” (an actually scientific description) is that it be as unambiguous as possible, and as minimalistic as possible.

The only “materialistic” description, which I choose to use because I’m talking to a materialist, possible for something which nothing caused to be and which causes all other things to be is an “uncaused cause”.

A “simple cause” is not something which nothing caused to be, and is therefore NOT something that nothing caused to be. (Yet another “D’Uh!” statement.)

The universe could certainly be a tiny and insignificant part of a much larger organism, a single life form that is all things.

No it can’t, if the definition of the universe is that it IS a universe, which means “all that is”.

If one is allowed to call any “subsection” of the actual universe “the universe” then one is allowed to “recurse” up one’s own backside to prove pretty much any darn thing one wants!

But even this wouldn’t be a god because a god doesn’t follow scientific principles. Anything that is a scientific impossibility is simply an impossibility.

God IS a scientific principle! What you see as the set “scientific principles” is a subset of the actual “universal principles”.

Science and religion don’t contradict each other. They can’t as they are two parts of one whole, which never contradicts itself.

From your religious bias and perspective, and knowing the value of scientific inquiry, a god is a religiously possible scientific impossibility.

No. God is (from ANY perspective) a universal necessity, religious certainty, and a scientific possibility.

God is a scientific possibility because God is not positively impossible.

From my scientific perspective and bias, and assuming I understand the religious mindset, a god is a scientifically impossible religious possibility. That’s about as close as it gets seems to me.

God is a religious certainty because He is provable by religious means. That proof is private divine revelation checked against public divine revelation.

The lovely thing about being “religious” is that we get to accept BOTH religious knowledge and scientific knowledge as non-competing truth sets!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne II View Post
I think you miscalculate here. Science cannot say that God is scientifically impossible. There is increasing evidence from science itself that God is a possible factor in the creation of the universe; even though the actual person of God may not be subject to scientific scrutiny, the product of God’s intelligent design is. Many eminent scientists have thought so. If God was a scientific impossibility, they would certainly have said so. But here is the record below. Can you produce a corresponding record of eminent scientists who have said that God is a scientific impossibility?

I probably could get a list with a little research but I would be equally as guilty of just making another argument from authority.

And isn’t the self-scope-confining thinking of the so-called “scientist” ultimately based on arguing from authority?

The basis for ANY scientific theory is essentially a description of repeatable observations whose ultimate cause is “because I say that it seems to work that way!”



ANY scientific statement that you can make I can reduce to it’s ultimate argument from authority.

Care to give me a go!?

 

[seeker777]

And isn’t the self-scope-confining thinking of the so-called “scientist” ultimately based on arguing from authority?

The basis for ANY scientific theory is essentially a description of repeatable observations whose ultimate cause is “because I say that it seems to work that way!”



ANY scientific statement that you can make I can reduce to it’s ultimate argument from authority.

Care to give me a go!?

The basis of ANY religious belief is essentially a description of things that no one can prove, whose ultimate truth is " because I say it’s the truth"



ANY religious statement that you can make I can reduce to it’s ultimate creator, man himself.

Care to give me a go!?