TM: >SCIENCE has shown the power of prayer....yet >im sure this "effect' will not be accepted as proof >of god. Concrete results of the power of prayer are not *necessarily* evidence of the existence of god. Science has shown the power of placebos as well. THE TEST??? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=433583#post433583 JB
TM: >>You just proved my original point from about 25 pages ago. >>My point was simply that we accept certain things like gravity >>and all the theories that go with it...yet when it comes to God >>we require a different burden of proof. Me: >You assertion that I proved your point is yet another >hollow and false assertion that you can't back up. I >specifically said that I DON'T require a different burden >of proof and offered to be involved in tests that would >apply the SAME burden of proof. >So, how exactly did I prove your point? Still waiting for your answer TM. JB
TM: >>You just proved my original point from about 25 pages ago. >>My point was simply that we accept certain things like gravity >>and all the theories that go with it...yet when it comes to God >>we require a different burden of proof. we can render gravity into a precise, explicit and predictive model. this gives us credence, explanatory power. knowledge. discovery. can you do same with your god? do it. :-/
Why would we need to? Can you render love into a precise, explicit and predictive model. Can you render how a woman is going to think and act in a precise, explicit and predictive model? Can you render which way LaDanlian Tomlinson is going to cut on a running play?
You just did it again!!!!....A rock falling is caused by what? Gravity most will agree...yet your only proof is an object falling which is an effect from gravity....not gravity itself.
to test it. otherwise, how do i distinquish fact from fiction? is any conception truth?? of course not.
I disagree. Science is not only about learning, but assuming that the fundamental root of knowledge comes only from a hypothesis that can be tested and confirmed by other scientists. These laws are then generally reduced to their most simplistic mathematical representations. There is not a single physical law of nature that has not been reduced to mathematics. Once a hypothesis is tested, retested and confirmed, then its relevance to other theories can be ascertained with mathematics. In fact, that is the whole premise behind a unified field theory and TOE. It took scientists the better half of the the 20'th century -- up to around 1983 -- Until the discovery of the W and Z particles, which led to a unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions since the particles are theorized to be identical above 100 GeV (very earliest conditions of the universe). The point is that until that time, scientists were unsure if the forces could be combined -- Einstein worked on it until his death, but was unable to formulate a TOE. Even today, scientists are still at a loss to combine the holy-grail of theories, the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity. I was just curious by a comment you made earlier about how you see no sign of creation when running experiments. If you honestly think that you can test a hypothesis of god by using science, you are sadly mistaken. Sir Francis Bacon set a system of procedures through induction that led in part to the scientific method. However, you know as well as I that the entire premise of science is observation. Without observation, there is no science. Observation can only take place by processes both external of the observer and also within the observer. The magic with science is that the observer is trained to use a rigorous system of formal logic to explain an observed process. In contrast, you and I can both go into an art museum and observe paintings together, but in doing so we both recognize that using logical induction to explain a painting is an incorrect way of interpreting what is observed. In discussions about god, an even greater problem occurs. If god does exist, then there is the possibility that he exists outside of the laws, procedures and observations contained within the universe. This is exactly why science fails, because we are using process of induction from observed laws to prove the existence of a superset of laws -- and that can only remain an unprovable theory at best. This is why science is an incomplete process for which to decipher god. That belongs to metaphysics, which in itself is not necessarily bad but outside the grasp of normal physics and everyday induction.
this is sad. and disturbing. wher do these irrational people come fro. we need to stop it wherever it is. >>"then there is the possibility that he exists outside of the laws, procedures and observations contained within the universe." there is the possibility that my dick is god, is it not. maybe my dik exists outside laws on nature, outside grasp of physics. it is GRANDIOSE . i dont need proof do i?? you believe me, have faith. it is a possibility is it not. get on your knees and worship my dik. --------------------------- the mere fact you cannot immediately explain ALL THAT IS in one fell swoop does NOT give you the right to concoct grand CRAPOLA. are you an intelligent being in this universe? then start acting like it. :-/