Can science prove God ?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

The study of alignments of random points in a plane seeks to discover subsets of points that occupy an approximately straight line within a larger set of points that are randomly placed in a planar region. Studies have shown that such near-alignments occur by chance with greater frequency than one might intuitively expect....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignments_of_random_points

 

 

+1

Or you can do my sheet of paper an peperpot (ink sander) experiment.

 

Another variation to play with is Buffons needle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle_problem

[mar_mar]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:34 PM, mar_mar said:

Perhaps. Maybe I've hasted with conclusions. Do you think, those, who believe need God? If yes, what does this mean?

What sence do you put in the word to need? Needing of what?

I'd like to answer to myself, if it's not against rules.

I think that there's place for need, yes. But not in sense of lack of something. It's a need for hope.

I've reread mith about Pandora's box recently. And decided that one shouldn't hope, that hope is forbidden thing. It withdraws attention and strength from what is happening now. One should face reality. But no, there's hope for God's mercy.

 

 

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I've reread mith about Pandora's box recently. And decided that one shouldn't hope, that hope is forbidden thing. It withdraws attention and strength from what is happening now. One should face reality. But no, there's hope for God's mercy.

Be careful mixing your mythologies. It sounded like you just claimed that hope is bad unless you believe in the supernatural. 

And if that IS what you're saying then I, for one, am tired of this morbid, self-hating, mind-crippling preaching about your god being merciful. This isn't a discussion when you're standing on a soapbox telling us the only hope is believing the way you tell us to.

[mar_mar]

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It sounded like you just claimed that hope is bad

I'm not saying that hope is bad thing without faith.

Edited December 24, 2023 by mar_mar

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I'm not saying that hope is bad thing without faith.

This supports a stance about belief I've developed over the years. Most belief falls into three categories; things you believe because you've reasoned them out enough so you trust them, things you believe because you hope they're true, and things you just believe on faith without any reason. You seem to be saying that your faith is undermined by hope, do I have that right? And is it undermined by trust, by using critical thinking to analyze and evaluate the things you believe in? Does your god hate the scientific method?

This leads me to believe that many religious people think blind faith is the strongest form of belief possible, while evidence shows me it's the weakest. And I think using faith to form their beliefs makes them easier to manipulate, since they rarely question what they're told. 

[mar_mar]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This supports a stance about belief I've developed over the years. Most belief falls into three categories; things you believe because you've reasoned them out enough so you trust them, things you believe because you hope they're true, and things you just believe on faith without any reason. You seem to be saying that your faith is undermined by hope, do I have that right? And is it undermined by trust, by using critical thinking to analyze and evaluate the things you believe in? Does your god hate the scientific method?

This leads me to believe that many religious people think blind faith is the strongest form of belief possible, while evidence shows me it's the weakest. And I think using faith to form their beliefs makes them easier to manipulate, since they rarely question what they're told. 

I didn't want to write this, because freedom to choose, anything, is the highest virtue for me. And freedom to choose what to believe in as well.

I believe your belief system is experienced.

So, what is  hope? I think, hope is expectation, that things will be placed according one's mind. This is not even expectation, but longing. Like somewhere inside you, you know, that things can be placed according your desire. Someway and somehow. How?? By some supernatural power??

What are the rational reasons to suppose things will go your wish?

Hope leads to disappointment. That's why, I think, it is forbidden thing. But it is impossible to live without hope either. So we hope. But have different sources. I explained mine.

*

By the way. What evidence of existence of a soul would be appropriate for science? Like, it must be measured or filmed, or what? The evidence that you breathe, think, walk are not enough? I even don't ask about the evidence of existence of God.

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

What evidence of existence of a soul would be appropriate for science?

Start by defining it in a falsifiable way and we’ll go from there. 

6 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I even don't ask about the evidence of existence of God.

See above. Also… Which one(s)?

Edited December 24, 2023 by iNow

[mar_mar]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Start by defining it in a falsifiable way and we’ll go from there. 

OK. The soul is our heart, because it (a heart) moves our body.

[KJW]

32 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

OK. The soul is our heart, because it (a heart) moves our body.

So, you have reduced the notion of a soul to mere physiology. The heart obviously exists, but what connection does it have to religious belief? You say the heart moves our body. Are you sure you're not talking about the brain, the nervous system, or muscles?

 

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by KJW

[iNow]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

The soul is our heart

By this definition then it obviously exists. The problem you face is this definition isn’t agreed upon by anyone but you (and maybe your mom). 

[mar_mar]

10 hours ago, KJW said:

So, you have reduced the notion of a soul to mere physiology. The heart obviously exists, but what connection does it have to religious belief? You say the heart moves our body. Are you sure you're not talking about the brain, the nervous system, or muscles?

 

 

But not in a literal way! If I said that that I put in all my heart in some work, it would mean that I put all my strength and energy. Soul is the source of life and heart is the source of life. In connection to religion i mean that one can understand about God not with the mind, but with the soul. It's a matter of feeling. Though I don't want to sound like preaching.

I think that heart moves our body in whole sense, life begins with the first heartbeat and the first breath.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

By this definition then it obviously exists. The problem you face is this definition isn’t agreed upon by anyone but you (and maybe your mom). 

I don't mean  that soul is heart literally. Anyway, nepeš and psychē are translated like you, heart,living being, etc.

Science doesn't have a definition for "energy" but operates with this concept.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

But not in a literal way! If I said that that I put in all my heart in some work, it would mean that I put all my strength and energy. Soul is the source of life and heart is the source of life. In connection to religion i mean that one can understand about God not with the mind, but with the soul. It's a matter of feeling. Though I don't want to sound like preaching.

I think that heart moves our body in whole sense, life begins with the first heartbeat and the first breath.

I don't mean  that soul is heart literally. Anyway, nepeš and psychē are translated like you, heart,living being, etc.

Science doesn't have a definition for "energy" but operates with this concept.

Does one still have a soul if one doesn't have a god?

[iNow]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I don't want to sound like preaching.

Too late

 

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I don't mean  that soul is heart literally.

And yet when asked for a falsifiable definition of soul, that is the one you shared. Pathetic. 

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Soul is the source of life and heart is the source of life.

Does that mean that bacteria have souls because they do not have hearts and they are alive.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Science doesn't have a definition for "energy" but operates with this concept.

<snort>

Try again. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.

[mar_mar]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

And yet when asked for a falsifiable definition of soul, that is the one you shared. Pathetic. 

 I think that it's not right to give definition to a soul. Feels like I dissect mine with this scientific method.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Does one still have a soul if one doesn't have a god?

You are free to choose your beliefs. It's your world and your choice. But I think it is good to integrate your beliefs into life. Because someone may ask you "where does your soul come from?".

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Does that mean that bacteria have souls because they do not have hearts and they are alive.

According to The Bible every alive creature has a soul.

Even plants feel when you speak to them. They grow better.

Edited December 25, 2023 by mar_mar

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

 I think that it's not right to give definition to a soul. Feels like I dissect mine with this scientific method.

Science has very little for you then.

 

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You are free to choose your beliefs. It's your world and your choice. But I think it is good to integrate your beliefs into life. Because someone may ask you "where does your soul come from?".

Or... we can acknowledge that there is no soul, nothing to integrate, nothing in eternal danger of being tortured by your loving god, and we can live free from the guilt and shame of imaginary sins.

Merry Christmas!

[mar_mar]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Science has very little for you then.

 

Or... we can acknowledge that there is no soul, nothing to integrate, nothing in eternal danger of being tortured by your loving god, and we can live free from the guilt and shame of imaginary sins.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Well, yes, of course. If it feels more appropriate, then..)

4 hours ago, swansont said:

<snort>

Try again. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.

So it is capacity..is it energy's entity?  Seems like this definition answers the question "what's energy for?".

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, mar_mar said:

life begins with the first heartbeat and the first breath.

I'm glad to see you are pro-abortion.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

So it is capacity..is it energy's entity?  Seems like this definition answers the question "what's energy for?".

Take it up in the physics section. You made an assertion, and you were wrong.

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

According to The Bible every alive creature has a soul.

It is your opinion that is what the Bible says.  There many Christians that think only humans have souls.  I was just curious what your take was.

[AIkonoklazt]

Can a Geiger counter measure length? Thought this thread ended on page 1

How many oranges is an apple?

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Can a Geiger counter measure length? Thought this thread ended on page 1

How many oranges is an apple?

Is this directed anyone in particular?

As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

Appears to be a sloppy form of the nonoverlapping magisteria position that science and religion are two circles in a Venn diagram with zero occlusion (another self-evidently false apologist assertion)

[AIkonoklazt]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is this directed anyone in particular?

As a rhetorical exercise, I fail to see the point you’re making.

You took up the question, so now it's to you.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Appears to be a sloppy form of the nonoverlapping magisteria position that science and religion are two circles in a Venn diagram with zero occlusion (another self-evidently false apologist assertion)

Uh, what? I don't see anyone in this thread successfully using science to prove anything, least of all you.