D
DCNBILL
Guest
Please note that this is the philosophy forum which tends to the discussion of things like “how high is up?” rather than “how many centimeters are in an inch?”
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you are not aware in modern physics there are currently two options out there.Multiverse? Where is that? Can you show me where I can locate it?
I think I have already answered it… You’ve taken a postion that’s indefensible. Fiction cannot be used to prove anything.
Incidentally, if God ever did suddenly appear in our 3D universe, there would be a catastrophic event associated with it due to our Universes energy conservation laws…
1.God
2. Multi-verse (the only place left for an atheist to go) Research anthropic coincidences
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Stop lying sir, it’s a sin.If you are not aware in modern physics there are currently two options out there.
1.God
2. Multi-verse (the only place left for an atheist to go) Research anthropic coincidences
The scientific consensus is that we do not currently know what is outside the Univerese that we can observe and that we may never know.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I want to learn. I’m interested in other people. All knowledge is valuable…I have no idea why nontheists post on this subject on a Catholic forum.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for your reply. Knowledge has value only when it is put to use.I want to learn. I’m interested in other people. All knowledge is valuable…
God bless,
Ed
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You’re preaching to the converted on that brother.Thank you for your reply. Knowledge has value only when it is put to use.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Has scientists ever seen a quark? Or do they infer it from its effects? If the latter, then they measure the existence of Quarks according to their effects. They say that it exists because the effect exists. But for all we know, without direct non-inferential knowledge, quarks really don’t exist. They exist given an assumption, a belief about the way the world truly is. For all we know science is nothing more than a science of appearances rather than actual reality. Wouldn’t you agree that we cannot epistemological prove that physical reality is objective? You might say that, in comparison to God, we can see physical reality, but that doesn’t prove that our knowledge of the way things appear represents how things truly are objectively. In which case there is no scientific evidence that physical reality exists objectively. Thus it seems that science is based on a belief. But your attitude is that we should shun any belief that we don’t have scientific evidence for and yet you irrationally believe that inferences from appearances apply directly to things that we cannot see like quarks.Prove it.
I prefer “belief without sufficient evidence,” since if we had sufficient evidence, then faith would be unnecessary.
I disagree that we would be robots. If there were sufficient evidence of god, then it would be impossible to be an atheist. But a person would still be free to choose whether or not to love and worship god.
As an example, take Satan from Christian mythology: he was a being with “incontrovertible proof” that god exists and he was not a robot – he was still free to choose not to worship that god.
So this god of yours really doesn’t have a good reason for not providing sufficient evidence.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
So has buffalo actually defended “religion drives science” yet? Please tell me his answer isn’t “A lot of scientists were religious.”
And, as others have noted, if god is to humans as a 3D character is to a flatlander, then we’d have no way of knowing god and it would be pointless to discuss him.
But that point is probably beyond the grasp of someone who seriously thinks that list of weak arguments is anything approaching evidence.
And, as others have noted, if god is to humans as a 3D character is to a flatlander, then we’d have no way of knowing god and it would be pointless to discuss him.
But that point is probably beyond the grasp of someone who seriously thinks that list of weak arguments is anything approaching evidence.
B
buffalo
Guest
You made an accusation that I lied in this post. Back it up.Stop lying sir, it’s a sin.
The scientific consensus is that we do not currently know what is outside the Univerese that we can observe and that we may never know.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Sure. I could be a brain in a vat or locked in an asylum dreaming all of this. I don’t see any reason to conclude either of those things, but they’re possibilities.Wouldn’t you agree that we cannot epistemological prove that physical reality is objective?
Buddy, “physical reality” is our word for the shared world that our senses reveal to us. If that “physical reality” isn’t “really real,” then we’d have no way of knowing it, and it would be pointless to speculate on the point.there is no scientific evidence that physical reality exists objectively.
No. Labeling the world our senses perceive as the “real world” is categorically different than believing that an entity exists in that real world without evidence.Thus it seems that science is based on a belief.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
You posted a false dichotomy. You said, basically, either multiverse speculations are true or god is real. Those are hardly the only options.You made an accusation that I lied in this post. Back it up.
Really, it’s not a lie – it’s a logical error. You seem to make a lot of them.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What are the other options, or are you just hoping that there are?You posted a false dichotomy. You said, basically, either multiverse speculations are true or god is real. Those are hardly the only options.
Really, it’s not a lie – it’s a logical error. You seem to make a lot of them.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please share the other options.You posted a false dichotomy. You said, basically, either multiverse speculations are true or god is real. Those are hardly the only options.
Really, it’s not a lie – it’s a logical error. You seem to make a lot of them.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Well, in addition to other supernatural explanations (Zeus created the universe, Cthulhu created the universe, leprechauns created the universe), there are other potential natural causes (for example, the Big Bang was caused by some natural law that we don’t know about) or other options that no one knows yet.What are the other options, or are you just hoping that there are?
To present two choices as the only options is simply wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
LOL.Well, in addition to other supernatural explanations (Zeus created the universe, Cthulhu created the universe, leprechauns created the universe), there are other potential natural causes (for example, the Big Bang was caused by some natural law that we don’t know about) or other options that no one knows yet.
To present two choices as the only options is simply wrong.
Serious scientists have honed it down to the two I mentioned.
Whatever, you call God, (Zeus,FSM, or whatever) it doesn’t matter. They would boil down to a creator.
Where did this natural law arise?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Yes. So you choose to believe otherwise.Sure. I could be a brain in a vat or locked in an asylum dreaming all of this. I don’t see any reason to conclude either of those things, but they’re possibilities
Firstly; you have self evident knowledge of appearances; that’s all. But you have no evidence that what you perceived with the senses is the real objective world. The question here is do we have epistemological justification for believing something; i e that appearances relate to objective reality. We don’t; and neither do we have scientific evidence. So what we are left is the question of whether or not it is “reasonable” to believe that appearances relate exactly to objective objects. You have now been reduced to making inferences using nothing more than pure reason instead of science in order to decide whether or not appearances are objective. If one accepts the concept of “reasonable belief” without scientific evidence, then the question is now whether it is reasonable to infer the existence of Gods existence based on appearances. The metaphysics of being shows us why we must.Buddy, “physical reality” is our word for the shared world that our senses reveal to us. If that “physical reality” isn’t “really real,” then we’d have no way of knowing it, and it would be pointless to speculate on the point.
Therefore we have know way of knowing that “scientific truth” or evidence represents objective reality.
No. Labeling the world our senses perceive as the “real world” is categorically different than believing that an entity exists in that real world without evidence.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Some natural law that we don’t know about? What does that mean? Give an rational example of a natural law that could account for potential reality.Well, in addition to other supernatural explanations (Zeus created the universe, Cthulhu created the universe, leprechauns created the universe), there are other potential natural causes (for example, the Big Bang was caused by some natural law that we don’t know about) or other options that no one knows yet.
To present two choices as the only options is simply wrong.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You presented two options, one of which has nothing to do with science and the other of which was a fraudulent representation of the scientific view, ergo you either deliberately bore false witness or else you seriously think that science proposes the multiverse as the only alternative to God, in which case you are just plain wrong.You made an accusation that I lied in this post. Back it up.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
The law of angular momentum and the law of conservation of mass energy are largely repsonsible for the matter we observe in the Universe.Some natural law that we don’t know about? What does that mean? Give an rational example of a natural law that could account for potential reality.
We know that something exploded. We don’t know what exploded or why it exploded. We do know how it exploded and we know how long ago it exploded.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
No serious scientist would ever claim to have proof that God created the Universe and no serious scientist would ever claim to have proof of a multiverse.LOL.
Serious scientists have honed it down to the two I mentioned.
Baryongenesis of the Electroweak phase transition was the final link in the daisy-chain that shaped reality as we perceive it. Look it up.Where did this natural law arise?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.