What if god...

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Kassander said:

This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the topic.

The “topic” is seeing how long he can keep people engaging, how long before he can make them emotional and lash out, and how long it takes staff to shutoff his account 

[Kassander]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

The “topic” is seeing how long he can keep people engaging, how long before he can make them emotional and lash out, and how long it takes staff to shutoff his account 

I know he is a classic troll, but I still thought it was important to refute arguments and rhetoric. Even a troll can provide good templates for making your own position public.

Edited Sunday at 07:27 PM by Kassander

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

 

 

 

Just now, swansont said:

To make yourself a better person.

That this does not occur to you means it’s unlikely you would understand what motivates others who aren’t like you. But they/we exist.

 

But what are your criteria of being good or bad?

Just now, Kassander said:

I know he is a classic troll, but I still thought it was important to refute arguments and rhetoric. Even a troll can provide good templates for making your own position public.

No, I am not a troll. I am a person. I just ask you some questions, and you attack and insult me in response. I thought it was a scientific forum. 

Good offence is the best defense, classic.

Edited Sunday at 07:38 PM by m_m

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Distinction without a difference.  To describe how something works one looks at underlying mechanisms.  

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

But what are your criteria of being good or bad?

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around?

Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? 

Quote

No, I am not a troll. I am a person.

But you are acting like a troll.

Quote

I just ask you some questions, and you attack and insult me in response.

Sealioning. Textbook example.

Quote

I thought it was a scientific forum. 

And here we are discussing belief in gods.

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

How do you tell if you have uncovered reality? Is there a way to test it?

If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around?

Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? 

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

But yes, it does matter, because we have to judge. Judgments create our values. And it does matter on what values you judge yourself and others. 

Just now, swansont said:

But you are acting like a troll.

 What of my words made you think I am a troll?? I didn't know that asking questions meant trolling.

If I disagree, how should I react to not being considered a troll? How should I behave?

Just now, swansont said:

Sealioning. Textbook example.

NO.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

But yes, it does matter, because we have to judge. Judgments create our values. And it does matter on what values you judge yourself and others.

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

 

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

 

Yes, I judge. Not in the sense to compare: if you are bad, then I am good. Though it is said not to judge. And I have no right to judge, because if something happens - this was meant to happen. 

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, m_m said:

Though it is said not to judge

You’re the one who introduced the subject of judgment. 

3 hours ago, m_m said:

If there's no God, who will judge your thoughts and actions?

Circle. Circle. Circle. Jerkle. Jerkle. Jerkle. 

54 minutes ago, m_m said:

I didn't know that asking questions meant trolling.

Strawman. It’s actually worse if you’re not a troll bc it means you’re a moron. 

Edited Sunday at 09:49 PM by iNow

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, I judge. Not in the sense to compare: if you are bad, then I am good. Though it is said not to judge. And I have no right to judge, because if something happens - this was meant to happen. 

Well that’s not very clear. Telling how you don’t judge isn’t very illuminating, and admitting you violate a religious teaching? That can’t go over well with the eye in the sky.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

That's debatable. Science aims to understand how nature works, by making models that successfully predict what observations we can expect. Views vary as to the degree to which science tries to uncover "reality". After all, history shows us that our models tend to be imperfect, requiring periodic revision, sometimes radically so. It has been said that all scientific "truth" is merely provisional, pending some possible new development, requiring a better model. (In my own subject, it is commonplace to use different models for the same thing, depending on the problem at hand. This is done in the full knowledge that the models are approximations and not to be taken entirely literally. So what, in that case, is "reality"?) 

My personal view is that science seems to approach reality asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite definitively  getting there. 

Edited Sunday at 10:08 PM by exchemist

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, m_m said:

Why is that? 

Are you at all familiar with how the world works? People die. Every day. Often with no warning. That is why. Geez.

[m_m]

Just now, zapatos said:

Are you at all familiar with how the world works? People die. Every day. Often with no warning. That is why. Geez.

I know very well that people die every day. Some people die because of other people. Not because of God's Will, but because of other people's will. But everything happens according to His Plan. 

I don't know whether I will wake up tomorrow, because for me everything is in His power. 

And why are you not sure of one's longevity?

[Luc Turpin]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

1-But they are not on their own, right?

2-They are part of a larger structure?

3-And the larger structure is alive?

4-And the structure will not be alive without those molecules?

5-Sure we have. We eat the apple, the apple is digested, the molecules are used to build proteins, the proteins are incorporated into the body, the body is alive.

 

.1 to 4 - yes

5- Molecules that make up proteins in the body remain lifeless on their own, even though they are integral to a living organism. It is the body as a whole that is alive, not the individual molecules. However, the key point is that the transformation of matter into living organisms has neither been observed in nature nor replicated in the lab.

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

My personal view is that science seems to approach reality asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite definitively  getting there. 

Nonetheless, we continue striving to understand nature, a significant portion of reality, even if our understanding can only approach it asymptotically.

6 hours ago, Kassander said:

 

Therefore, modern theologians no longer try to use God as a hypothesis for scientific phenomena such as the phenomenon of the origin of life that you described.

+1 for the post.

However, I am not implying that God transformed non-living matter into living organisms. What I am stating is that, as of now, we have not observed non-living matter turning into a living organism, either in nature or in the lab. This is a factual observation, not a matter of belief.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

Speaking of physics, Heisenberg emphasized how science (quantum mechanics) shapes our understanding of reality. Or more broadly, Kuhn exploring how science expands our understanding of reality by examining shifts in scientific paradigms. Numerous renowned scientists believe that science plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of reality.

Edited yesterday at 12:04 AM by Luc Turpin

[Genady]

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

we continue striving to understand nature

No, we do not. We rather continue modifying our concepts and models and inventing new ones striving to make them fit signals we get from nature.

One can call the latter, 'understanding' if one wishes so.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

I know very well that people die every day.

So I suppose you were lying when you indicated you didn't know about why we might not be here tomorrow. 

If you are not a troll you sure are doing a good imitation of one.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, the key point is that the transformation of matter into living organisms has neither been observed in nature nor replicated in the lab.

Of course it has. Do you think we've not observed people eating? Food being digested? Proteins being made? Where have you been the last 200 years? This is Biology 101.

[TheVat]

I think he means abiogenesis.  And he keeps ignoring that we also haven't observed the big bang or macroevolution.  

Bob and weave.  SSDD.

[MigL]

This is an observation, and while off-topic, it is related to the OP ...

We seem to be losing  ( interesting and knowledgeable ) members because of posts (OP ) of this type, where people present their beliefs ( which cannot be proven/disproven in any way ), and are therefore resistant to meaningful discussion.

This is not science.
( have we ceased to be a science forum ? )

[iNow]

The enshitification of the internet and online watering holes more broadly isn’t restricted to SFN nor caused solely by ridiculous rejects trying to shoehorn religious topics into every discussion 

[m_m]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

So I suppose you were lying when you indicated you didn't know about why we might not be here tomorrow. 

If you are not a troll you sure are doing a good imitation of one.

I don't like when people think for me. 

My question was to the young man, who wrote this:

Quote

I think it's absolutely possible to be grateful that a new day full of possibilities has dawned without God being responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies.

...

But a God who is responsible for scientific phenomena doesn't seem necessary to me.

He is is sure the new day will come.

And then

Quote

Nobody knows whether he will live to see the next day or not, whether he believes in God or not.

So, why he doubts about the new day, if

Quote

In the course of the Enlightenment, the world was increasingly better understood and God was increasingly pushed back as an explanation. At first he was said to be responsible for the weather, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for health but also illness, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for natural disasters, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for the creation of the earth, today we know better. The more we discovered and the more we learned, the more God became superfluous and we began to understand that the universe functions without him

 

Edited yesterday at 07:11 AM by m_m

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

No, we do not. We rather continue modifying our concepts and models and inventing new ones striving to make them fit signals we get from nature.

One can call the latter, 'understanding' if one wishes so.

I do not contest the validity of your statement. However, are we merely seeking a conceptual fit to nature, or is science also attempting to explore and address the deeper questions of nature? To me, this equates to striving for a deeper understanding of reality. Many prominent scientists speak of "understanding" reality, and some even suggest that science plays a role in "shaping" it. That said, I acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted their ideas.

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Of course it has. Do you think we've not observed people eating? Food being digested? Proteins being made? Where have you been the last 200 years? This is Biology 101.

Biology 101: "Once ingested, food is broken down by the digestive system into nutrients, such as proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals. These nutrients are then absorbed and used by the body to support various biological processes like energy production, cell growth, and tissue repair." However, I have not encountered any mention that the food itself becomes "alive" within the body. That said, my main contention remains: non-living matter turning into living matter has not yet been demonstrated without the involvement of living organisms. Does this mean it is impossible? No, it does not. But the statement remains valid.

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think he means abiogenesis.  And he keeps ignoring that we also haven't observed the big bang or macroevolution.  

Yes, I am referring to abiogenesis.

While we have not directly observed the Big Bang, we have compelling evidence supporting its occurrence. The lack of direct observation does not invalidate the theory; it simply makes it more open to scrutiny.

Similarly, the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter turns into living organisms, without the presence of pre-existing life at the transition, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis. It merely makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

This is an observation, and while off-topic, it is related to the OP ...

We seem to be losing  ( interesting and knowledgeable ) members because of posts (OP ) of this type, where people present their beliefs ( which cannot be proven/disproven in any way ), and are therefore resistant to meaningful discussion.

This is not science.
( have we ceased to be a science forum ? )

I am not admonishing myself nor the OP, but long-term members have also contributed to making this science forum less welcoming through disrespectful behavior and pigeonholing some of us, often with the intent of fostering and maintaining an adversarial tone. The current environment is not conducive to rational discussion and frequently devolves into insinuations and outright hostility. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Many prominent scientists speak of "understanding" reality, and some even suggest that science plays a role in "shaping" it. That said, I acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted their ideas.

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

maintaining an adversarial tone

That’s a feature of science, not a bug

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, m_m said:

I know very well that people die every day. Some people die because of other people. Not because of God's Will, but because of other people's will. But everything happens according to His Plan. 

Ah, so your god has a Plan, but it's not aligned with its Will? People die because of other people, your god didn't will it, but it's part of its plan?! You've got this figured out where you never have to give a straight answer and you can always claim you're right!

[dimreepr]

On 1/19/2025 at 2:06 AM, Luc Turpin said:

1- I have been saying that all along.

2- Relying on their own individual subjectivity, which is not very good. I am talking about collective subjectivity though.

What does that even mean?

Mass hysteria?

I didn't vote for it... 😉

17 hours ago, m_m said:

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

Does that mean my kettle is wise?