Proof of God
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: Proof of God
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
I did not say "certain" but a level of certainty. Scientific method is a formulation of Hypothesis based on observation with consecutive experimental design attempting to disprove the hypothesis. If the data reveals a significant difference from the Null hypothesis, it means that hypothesis couldn't be disproved, so it holds. Multiple experimental data unable to disprove the hypothesis becomes a Theory with certain level of confidence, until some deviation from the theory is observed as special case, where the math is tweaked. In some cases in history, the belief in the theoretical model was so strong that people who opposed such theory would be ridiculed, imprisoned, or even killed. Ex. Earth being flat or Copernicus proving that Earth circled around the Sun.There is never certainty. That is a defining feature of the scientific method.
Ranvier:
Dolphin42A scientific mind will think in terms of logic and deduction, offering mathematical equations as proves that are able to predict the reality.
I'm not quite sure what's your objection here, scientific mind doesn't use logic? So, "Physical laws are models of reality expressed mathematically?" Look, reality is reality, what we can perceive as reality is something different. Physical phenomena are what we all can experience, such as Gravity, magnetic field, or electromagnetic current when we zap a friend. Naturally in a desire to describe these things we give them names so they can be represented them mathematically as some letter of alphabet or other mark, then we whip out our measuring devices and measure these things in arbitrary numbers to get a general idea of magnitude. Then we look at these numbers an look for patterns, at least that's how it should be. In modern physics we come up with a model that would explain the data that we collected and play with math to prove that data to fit the model (theoretical physics), based on the math (so we don't blow up ourselves or do something silly), we perform experiments that will generate data to be analyzed to prove or disprove the model (experimental physics). This is all fine because we can predict things and build new technology based on those ideas. But this has nothing to do with reality, we still don't know what's gravity or electromagnetic field other than the description of the force. Now, you don't have to be a physicist to ask yourself what happens to Einstein's spacetime as forth dimension accredited to generate Gravitational force within expending and accelerating Universe, where surely such "field" would decrease in strength over time.No, as models for modelling reality. Physical laws, expressed in the language of mathematics, are models of observed reality. Like all models they are more accurate in some areas than others. Like all models they are not intended to reflect every aspect of reality.
Ranvier:
Dolphin42Similarly, a religious messiah or the originator of specific religious belief has such certainty from direct communication with God or deep level of thought, predicting outcomes of human behavior proven by results in reality from those who adhere to such beliefs.
Well, I don't want to be sarcastic but I hope you aren't comfortable with speaking nonsense. If you say something I'm sure you're fairly comfortable (certain level) of what you're conveying to be true, unless someone is purposely misleading others for some specific reason.I don't know whether religious messiahs have certainty. I've never met one.
Ranvier:
Dolphin42:Both are appealing but to different brain hemispheres, where the left side of the brain is typically more focused on detail and logic and the right side is more focused on the general big picture and abstract thought.
Of course it's over simplistic, after all there are left handed scientists. This was my fault in using this as an analogy to why people choose different majors in college, due to their diversity in brain architecture stemming from genetics and environmental factors that causes people to be attracted to different types of information.I've no idea to what extent this is true because it's not my field of expertise. I've read in popular science articles that this old idea of the functions of the brain's two halves is over-simplistic. But I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions without specialist knowledge.
Dolphin42:
The concept of a "zero mass or momentum at rest" particle is either useful at describing and predicting observations or it isn't. Actually, zero mass particles are not at rest. They travel at the speed of light. In fact, "speed of light" is a bit of a misnomer. It is more accurately described as "speed of zero mass particles".
Because this is a figure of speech and to denote a subjective view without offending others who believe in zero mass particles.Why do you put the word gibberish in scare quotes?
What you're saying is that you have certain degree of knowledge in physics and hence you would be reluctant to dismiss a well accepted concept and I'm either a physics genius equal to Einstein or a narrow minded ignorant fool. I guess time will tellThe thing to bear in mind is that a statement such as "there are particles with zero mass" does not stand on its own. It has beneath it a large body of knowledge. I studied physics to degree level but I am still not qualified to fully explain why the concept of zero mass particles is considered useful in physics for describing and predicting observations. So if it is gibberish to somebody who has not studied the subject, then that is for the same reason why any piece of knowledge at the advanced end of a specialist subject might seem like gibberish to somebody who has not studied it.
Good question and in the future I'd prefer this type of posting rather than lengthy quotation polemic. There is a great difference in knowing something and understanding something. I believe that we all have adequate minds that compel us to ask questions on any subject but it's even better to ask educated questions.[/quote]Question: In order to understand a subject (not just physics but any subject) do you think that it is necessary to study that subject?
-- Updated March 2nd, 2017, 2:43 am to add the following --
Let me clarify, nobody understands anything! Only fools can make such a claim. That shouldn't preclude us from asking educated questions.
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Proof Existence---See Humans
Here is Fullers proof of God
..."EVER RETHINKING THE LORD’S PRAYER
July 12, 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions
must be stated
in terms of experience......--> ..."
Rr6 wrote:Concepts do exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. See dictionary.
r6
Rr6 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
A pool of anti-matter occupies space, just as matter does.
Few people grasp what a true non-occupied space, true void is, or that it also what embraces our finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-Verse.
Even less acknokledge this rational logical conclusion, and even fewer have a rational, logical conclusion that invalidates this cosmic conclusion. imho
r6
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
(**) I think About Something With a Brain Ergo I Exist
1} "U"niverse = "G"od
.....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of Space, God, Universe, dogs, cats, and our spirit-of-intent,
-------------------line of demarcation-----------
......1b{ macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,
......1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be. Simple to grasp. imho
The most critically dangerous aspect facing humanity is ego. Ego falls into the 1a catagory above.
Like anything ego cuts both ways or has two sides. The bad side is expressed very well by the current U.S. president.
The good side is expressed by those searching for truth to expose the presidents lies. imho
r6
Rr6 wrote:https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/1 ... ds-prayer/
Here is Fullers proof of God
..."EVER RETHINKING THE LORD’S PRAYER
July 12, 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions
must be stated
in terms of experience......--> ..."Rr6 wrote:Concepts do exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. See dictionary.
r6
(Nested quote removed.)
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
-- Updated March 5th, 2017, 11:23 pm to add the following --
We made a full circle. I hope that Jesus did not die in vain but how come then there are so many Christians in the military?
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
Are you not in the military because the military has to fight and die to protect our country? Most of the military people are Christians and most Christians are patriotic. My point is God is not against war if it is to defend and protect our country and its people. Our enemies are not Christians.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Proof of God
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am
Re: Proof of God
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023