I can’t comment on that. Philosophy is outside my field.
Well there are still a lot of questions about the origin of the universe.
The God as ‘feel good placebo’ is quite a common argument from the new-wave atheists… but it is quite flawed.
Certainly nothing physical; that’s for sure. What?..Do you happen to “believe” that meaningful statements only apply to physical things?
What a surprise! You seem to think that because we cannot measure something that there for it doesn’t exist.That’s not science. That’s positivism, which is a philosophical belief that attempts to rationalize things according to physical principles alone.Oh my, you have put a lot of words in my mouth.Certainly nothing physical; that’s for sure. What?..Do you happen to “believe” that meaningful statements only apply to physical things?
Do me a favor. If you are going to do science, then do real science. And if you going to support a philosophical belief as being factual, than show us a good metaphysical reason why we should agree with you instead of presenting a scientific theory. Positivism is not a scientific theory.
In fact…scratch that. Instead, learn the difference between the scientific method and positivism. Once you have done that please, pretty please with sugar on top, get back to me.
“denigrate the scientific method”? What are you talking about? I read a great deal of history that can be fact checked. Documents are declassified all the time.
The old How not Why argument. Why do you believe it makes sense? Have you heard of Evolutionary Psychology? There is no why. All you need is a planet with “the building blocks of life,” a little water, and the right distance from a star, and poof, life. Happens all the time. Spontaneous, kinda like snowflakes. After billions of years, bags of chemicals get brains, and build computers.
Yet you make many positivistic assumptions. O well.
I don’t see any evidence that there are any non-physical things (that do not emerge from physical things).
Things that do not manifest in a measurable way are indistinguishable from things that do not exist.
I am assuming from your statement that you accept the existence of non-physical things. You infer the non-physical because you perceive its expression through physical events. But the idea that non-physical things “emerge” from physical things, is a non-scientific belief that you have included which really doesn’t have any evidence to back it, since you first assume without any evidence that because you “perceive” the non physical through physical processes that therefore physical processes are the ultimate cause of non-physical things. I see no evidence of that. In fact, my experience of freewill and my ability to imagine and abstract things from reality, strongly suggests if not proves to me that my intellectual will cannot ultimately be a nature event; despite my dependence on a brain to think. Assuming the very least, i see a relationship between the non-physical and the physical. In any case, i have good reason to think the non-physical things exists, for the simple reason that we cannot logical relate a natural event to an intellectual event; despite superficial appearances.
I’ll take your word for it…
Like you said, peer reviewed studies containing examples of thought occurring without a brain are very hard to come by… I’d be willing to wager that is because thought is physical and is dependent on a complex brain for emergence…
.I’m glad you mentioned that. I woke up about 0330 this morning. My conscience wanted my attention
.Well, it looks like it exploded, to our present instrumentation, so that’s all we can go with, at present.
Yes.
True, especially since previous practice has been that the conqueror wrote the history.
I’ve enjoyed it too…True, especially since previous practice has been that the conqueror wrote the history.
To my limited knowledge, the German and Japanese accounts after WWII was the first time both sides wrote and published histories of the same conflict. It could have happened before, but I haven’t seen it.
I really with you, about anthropological claims for what the evidence from their digs really mean.
Some times, I stop and really wonder, just how alien the pyramids, or Mojen Daro, or Zimbabwe, or the Anasazi ruins really seem, when compared to our culture and technology; now, I don’t mean ET alien, I mean how alien one set of humans can really be to another, and both sets native to the same planet or even continent.
I enjoy conversing with you.
I want you to forget particle physics and answer the question: what does the creation of matter have to do with angular momentum and the conservation of mass energy? If you know something that I don’t, I’d like to know? I suspect that your particle physics twaddle is nothing more than obfuscation.
I looked up “matter formation”, nothing there about angular momentum. What’s with the “baryongenesis” clue, I realized that what you meant was baryogenesis a mechanism I am familiar with and it has nothing to do with matter formation; it is a hypothetical theory that purports to explain the asymmetry of matter and antimatter, not the creation of matter.
You are certainly entitled to assume more credence for the Higgs Boson (sometimes referred to as the God Particle) than for God; but it is still a BELIEF and isn’t that the subject of this thread: science grounded in faith? What about the continuous space answer, any comment on that?
Well they certainly have hope that the Higgs boson shows up, but if it doesn’t then the Higgs boson will continue to be a scientific BELIEF that enhances the contention that there are scientific theories based on faith.
If you are implying that the inconsistencies in the model showed up before certain particles were discovered, it is true for some, but not for EVERY sub-atomic particle. Not so for the electron (1891); the proton (1918); the neutron (1932); the muon (1936); kaons (1950), and others. They precededthe mathematical inconsistencies.
If you are saying that: the type 1a supernovae confirm that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate which confirms the second law of thermodynamics that predicts a heat death, I’d have to agree with your round–about-way of making your point. Why not be more precise (scientific) and say the second law of thermodynamics predicts the heat death of the universe, period? Adding in the superfluous observation of type 1a supernovae is simplyconfusing. Even without the acceleration of the expansion rate a simple expansion will do the job.
But dark matter is a scientific BELIEF that gives testimony to the contention that science (not all, of course) is based on faith. You will concede that won’t you?
I was just testing your ability to answer a scientific question succinctly. You failed, and I don’t expect to find any value in engaging you in further discussion.
Hmm! For some reason or another I thought all of the items in my list are legitimately called “science” and that they are theories and abstractions considered as science by scientists. Have you any idea how much effort, time, and money has been expended by 100’s and 100’s of PhD’s in Physics on string theory in the last 60-years? And you, a mere Scotch Technician (or do you have an engineering degree?) consign them to the dust bin of Philosophy. Yikes! I am bailing on this discussion.
The question: “Does God exist? cannot be answered with a yes or a no; therefore the only way that I can see to produce epistemological knowledge is to start with the premise “God exists” then construct a model that gives a plausible explanation of HOW God might exist without contradicting any of our current scientific knowledge. The two kinds of knowledge exist at separate levels. I feel sorry for those that think that knowledge exists only at the scientific level; they are experiencing an incomplete life.
Yes engineering is an applied science, but it isn’t science and you should know the difference.
Actually, I’ve seen it spelled both ways and I knew that which ever one I picked you would pick the other. Tom-ay-to, Tom-ah-to.
It isn’t really an assumption as such if it is grounded in a working theory. It is a hypothetical construct, I accept that, but to call it a belief is a little disingenuous, and it most certainly is relevant to the subject of whether science is grounded in belief.
No comment.
The reason scientists are going to such great lengths to find it is to settle that question. That is hardly a matter of faith, but one of investigation.
Alright, let me rephrase. The reason sub atomic particles, from the Neutrino up, were discovered is because they were needed to make the difference in angular momentum before and after particle interactions equal to zero.
No. Thermodynamics only predicts the heat death of the Universe IF THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING AT SUCH A RATE THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT GRAVITY TO MAKE THE UNIVERSE COLLAPSE. Otherwise, the Universe would collapse into an unimaginably hot singularity again with precisely the same amount of energy as was released in the big bang.
Dark matter is a hypothetical construct that may or may not exist. We must have evidence.
Yes, I thought as much. It wasn’t really a scientific question, it would merely have proved I can use Google.
A mere Scotch Technician? Scotch is something you drink. As for my being “a mere technician” that is wild speculation on your part. Even if I were a “mere technician” I’d sooner you stick to my argument than make unwarranted assements of my career, which frankly is none of your business…
At least we agree on something. Yes, Does God exist cannot be answered by science.
Of course I do. You cannot be an engineer without some relevant scientific knowledge though.
I don’t need to. In the reality, what you call dependence is really complementarity. In order for mind to interact with the physical world through physical means, the human mind as we know it requires an interface with a physical substance that caters for our mental needs in terms of interacting with the world of our sense perception. The brain needs a mind to think as a mind, otherwise it is just processes and information. Nothing more. That we process information with the brain and and interact with the world though the brain tells me that there is a relationship in which both substances compliment each other. The dependence you speak of is functional in its implication rather than existential; and the rule of functionality applies only in so far as the mind interacts with the physical world. We have no idea what happens to the mind when brain dies.