Battle : Science vs. Religion

[PeterJ]

It's a pity there is this widespread assumption that all Science needs to do to demolish Religion is to disprove God. Buddhist philosophers disproved him many centuries ago and it would be nice to move on.

 

I suppose we were all brought up as monotheists so are inclined to see monotheism and religion as the same thing. But let's just be clear, many religious practitioners do not believe in the speculative God that is the target of so much criticism on this thread. This would include many Jews, Christians and Muslims. I wouldn't say that God is a straw-man, but refuting him would not be enough to defeat Religion, only certain religious dotrines, doctrines which have been the target of internal criticism within these religions since the day they were first put forward. If someone could disprove such a God once and for all then many religious people would applaud the loss of this naive idea.

 

I still see no need for friction between Science and Religion. Is there an issue which forces us to choose only one approach? Is there even an issue on which they disagree? I've spent ten years looking for one and have had no luck so far.

[Phi for All]

Such (though completely different in intent and prosecution) is not unlike "believing" that the proper way to relate to the universe is through the scientific method. That this is the "right" way to be. And ones association with this "family", this scientific community, puts you above all those wallowing around in error. That ones own "god" is the right one, and the "god" of another is suspect.

I see where you're coming from but I still think reality shows that the scientific method, while not attempting to be "proof" of anything, offers the best course for natural explanations of various phenomena, requiring no unobservable, supernatural, paradoxical entities and the suspension of rational thought. None of the thousands of religions can even come close to matching the scientific method for its ability to minimize doubt's shadow.

 

I still see no need for friction between Science and Religion. Is there an issue which forces us to choose only one approach? Is there even an issue on which they disagree? I've spent ten years looking for one and have had no luck so far.

Certain religious approaches, such as young-Earth creationism and Intelligent Design, are in direct conflict with what science has observed. Others assign supernatural causation to phenomena science can explain naturally. While the existence of deities themselves are beyond the purview of what science concerns itself with, their involvement with what we can observe is always a point of disagreement.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

I have no objection to what you say. I like the scientific method.

 

But it is not the "only approach". There are places on the Canadian/U.S border where there are no fences or demarkations. No amount of experimentation would allow you to actually find it. It is where we say it is.

 

Its still real.

 

Additional approaches to determine what is real, are evidently in order.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Phi for All]

But it is not the "only approach". There are places on the Canadian/U.S border where there are no fences or demarkations. No amount of experimentation would allow you to actually find it. It is where we say it is.

 

Its still real.

It's very real. And relativity gives us the GPS system. Using that and adjusting between the WGS84 and NAD27 map data, you could plot the border's coordinates to within about 100 meters. That's quite a bit more accurate than "It is where we say it is". No need to go beyond a shadow of a doubt when you can get that close.

[imatfaal]

Phi for All,

 

I have no objection to what you say. I like the scientific method.

 

But it is not the "only approach". There are places on the Canadian/U.S border where there are no fences or demarkations. No amount of experimentation would allow you to actually find it. It is where we say it is.

 

Its still real.

 

Additional approaches to determine what is real, are evidently in order.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Just as an aside, and not dealing with the theoretical implications; is that assertion about the USA Canada border true (I have never ventured there so I am in the dark)

 

wikipedia says this

In 1925, the International Boundary Commission was made a permanent organization responsible for surveying and mapping the boundary, maintaining boundary monuments (and buoys where applicable), as well as keeping the boundary clear of brush and vegetation for 6 metres (20 ft). This "border vista" extends for 3 metres (10 ft) on each side of the line. The Commission's annual budget is about $1.4 million (USD).^[3]

USD1.4 mill doesn't seem a lot for the longest border in the world so I am quite prepared to believe that some lengths of the border are not defined

 

the International Boundary commission says

f you look along the International Boundary between Canada and the United States in any forested area, it will appear simply as a 6 metre or 20 foot cleared swath stretching from horizon to horizon, dotted in a regular pattern with white markers. Over mountains, down cliffs, along waterways and through prairie grasses, the line snakes 8,891 kilometres or 5,525 miles across North America, tranquil, undefended but not uncared for. The boundary vista must be entirely free of obstruction and plainly marked for the proper enforcement of customs, immigration, fishing and other laws of the two nations.

on the theoretical side - there is no way to empirically determine the border between two countries (nation states are a political not scientific construct) without assuming the border treaty as axiomatic - and once the border definitions in law are accepted into the argument there will always be a method to determine (because the law does not like grey areas and will change to remove newly discovered ones)

[tar]

I have no doubt that if one simply knew their exact latitude, and knew what latitude line the border was on, they could know if they were in Canada or the U.S. or standing on the border.

 

My point was that a fish or a bird or an ant, or a creek, or sunlight, or a tree, would not notice it. And without "what we say" (that the border exists on this latitude line and shall be demarked in this manner) the border does not "really" exist in a manner that can be experimentally acertained.

 

We all agree that the border exists and is real. In fact we all agree that it exists in exactly the way we all have agreed. The border itself though is not matter or energy. It is a human thought. Brought into reality and demarked with cleared vegetation, markers, fences and such. If these markers were obscured, the border would still exist, as long as we said it did. And as long as we had a commission, and two states to hold to the agreement.

 

There are borders in the world that are not so regulated and agreed upon. Such as one demarked by a river, that changes course.

 

My point was that in the battle between science and religion, one should not discount the importance of agreement.

 

As in, if 300 million people say they are U.S. citizens...then they are.

 

And if a billion people say they believe in Allah...then they do.

 

It is a fact which can not be empirically arrived at, using only the scientific method.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ponderer]

Ok lets see who wins

 

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models. We may take these two behaviors in physics and form a generalized logical premise for a TOE.

 

On sub-atomic and cosmic scales the simplest answer is the correct one, the simplest answer will be expressed purely in dynamic geometry, and the simplest answer must always consist of the simplest explanatory geometry, judged only by geometric complexity.

 

From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists. Of course you can always reject the premise, in which case the alternative ultimate explanation must lose comprehension, eloquence, and simplicity, if you can find one.

 

Other arguments about creationism, Noah, the Garden of Eden, etc..., based on tribal verbal traditions, are secondary.

 

The dicotomy between science and religion, is more along the lines, of geometric existence and spiritual existence. As such the real area of contention becomes sociology and religion, where sociologist may contend over moral issues, and social practices. Here we may see a disagreement between instituionalized religion and science.

[Moontanman]

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models. We may take these two behaviors in physics and form a generalized logical premise for a TOE.

 

On sub-atomic and cosmic scales the simplest answer is the correct one, the simplest answer will be expressed purely in dynamic geometry, and the simplest answer must always consist of the simplest explanatory geometry, judged only by geometric complexity.

 

From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists.

 

Ummm No.... Why is god the simplest answer?

 

 

Of course you can always reject the premise, in which case the alternative ultimate explanation must lose comprehension, eloquence, and simplicity, if you can find one.

 

Yes, "there are no gods" is both eloquent, the simplest, the most honest answer, it is also the default position, any other position on the existence of god requires observable evidence and for the positive assertion of the idea of any god much less any specific god there is none...

 

Other arguments about creationism, Noah, the Garden of Eden, etc..., based on tribal verbal traditions, are secondary.

 

How so?

 

The dicotomy between science and religion, is more along the lines, of geometric existence and spiritual existence. As such the real area of contention becomes sociology and religion, where sociologist may contend over moral issues, and social practices. Here we may see a disagreement between instituionalized religion and science.

 

There is no evidence for any spiritual existence and science explains the existence of morals with out god quite well....

[Iggy]

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models...

 

From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists...

Which physics model includes God?

[mooeypoo]

Ummm No.... Why is god the simplest answer?

Seemingly, because it requires no further questions -- it's an absolute answer.

 

But I do agree with this notion that you're raising with the question. I never quite got this 'simplest answer' bit either -- saying "God" seems to raise a LOT more questions than any naturalistic answer, since it requires the relying on a LARGE number of unsubstantiated "non natural" answers. I would say that's the LEAST simple answer, but I don't have the "blind faith" that seems to be required to answer questions with the "God" answer without challenging it.

 

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

Seemingly, because it requires no further questions -- it's an absolute answer.

 

But I do agree with this notion that you're raising with the question. I never quite got this 'simplest answer' bit either -- saying "God" seems to raise a LOT more questions than any naturalistic answer, since it requires the relying on a LARGE number of unsubstantiated "non natural" answers. I would say that's the LEAST simple answer, but I don't have the "blind faith" that seems to be required to answer questions with the "God" answer without challenging it.

 

 

~mooey

 

 

The idea that the big bang came from nothing is really a straw man often constructed to show how science is no better than religion at "knowing" where everything came from but in reality science doesn't say the universe came into being ex nihilo, science just says what happened after the expansion of space and time, we do not really know what happened before, it's possible we will never know for sure, still doesn't mean god did it....I'd like to add i have nothing against someone believing, in what ever god or philosophy he wants as long as it doesn't require he interfere with other people rights, sadly as we know religion isn't exactly the main champion of humans rights. I believe that even moderate religions bear some of the blame for the extremists, on some level the moderates lack of any self policing leads to extremism, there are always going to be people who need belief in their lives but what you believe to be true should never be asserted as actually being demonstrably true. belief does not equal knowledge...

 

But yeah i understand about the absolutes....

Edited November 24, 2011 by Moontanman

[ponderer]

Seemingly, because it requires no further questions -- it's an absolute answer.

 

But I do agree with this notion that you're raising with the question. I never quite got this 'simplest answer' bit either -- saying "God" seems to raise a LOT more questions than any naturalistic answer, since it requires the relying on a LARGE number of unsubstantiated "non natural" answers. I would say that's the LEAST simple answer, but I don't have the "blind faith" that seems to be required to answer questions with the "God" answer without challenging it.

 

 

~mooey

 

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way.

 

My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that.

 

I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need.

 

Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further.

 

You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not.

 

Good luck finding your way.

[Moontanman]

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way.

 

My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that.

 

I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need.

 

Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further.

 

You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not.

 

Good luck finding your way.

 

 

So you were simply proselytizing? You failed to offer any evidence for the existence of any gods much less any specific god then you assume we were are looking for god?

Edited November 24, 2011 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way.

 

My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that.

Great. I challenged yours back. That's why we're a debate forum, and not a religion-marketing yellow pages book.

I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need.

Of course there's a need. You just refuse to give proper reasoning, by saying "axiomatic", and you convince no one. We're not here to listen to you soapbox; do you want to debate, or not?

 

Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further.

Obviously you misread.

 

You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not.

I don't go around putting words in your mouth - don't put words in mine. Just like any other "scientific" claim (which yours isn't, 'cause it's unfalsifiable, but okay) the burden of proof seems to be on you. You just refuse to give it, claiming it's "axiomatic" and thinking we lost our way by not agreeing with you.

 

That's preaching. Not only will it not benefit anything in this debate, it's also against our rules.

Good luck finding your way.

You too.

 

 

[ponderer]

Great. I challenged yours back. That's why we're a debate forum, and not a religion-marketing yellow pages book.

 

Of course there's a need. You just refuse to give proper reasoning, by saying "axiomatic", and you convince no one. We're not here to listen to you soapbox; do you want to debate, or not?

 

 

Obviously you misread.

 

 

I don't go around putting words in your mouth - don't put words in mine. Just like any other "scientific" claim (which yours isn't, 'cause it's unfalsifiable, but okay) the burden of proof seems to be on you. You just refuse to give it, claiming it's "axiomatic" and thinking we lost our way by not agreeing with you.

 

That's preaching. Not only will it not benefit anything in this debate, it's also against our rules.

 

You too.

 

Perhaps you did not catch the discussion in the other thread. The reason that I wont discuss the proof is not because I will think you lost your way by not agreeing with me. It is because it would be an offense to God to prove his existence to everyone.

 

When I say I can prove God's existence, you are left to your imagination. You may imagine some Bible quotes, or some fossil thrown out as proof of God's existence. You are not likely to expect that the proof would be based on the premise shown. At least you now have an idea the proof started on a reasonable footing, with good intentions.

 

Proving God's existence was never the intention. It was a consequence.

 

Thanks

Edited November 24, 2011 by ponderer

[kla2]

Why not test for an answer? It has been presumed through all of history, as we understand that history, and we have been conditioned to think, believe and accept, that no way or means exist to confirm the potential reality we call God, by any evidence, causation based method or path of faith. At least that is what religious organizations, their apologists and adherents would assume. But if science tells us anything about the search for understanding reality, before any viable insight is discovered, one can explore an uncountable number dead end assumptions first. And it may now prove to be the case that religion, as we understand that word from tradition is no more than a collection of 'dead ends'!

 

It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question have it wrong! The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution appears to be getting under way. With apologies to Shakespeare: To test or not to test that is the question. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

Edited November 25, 2011 by kla2

[tar]

Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries."

 

 

Sorry kla2, I am responding without reading your link. I would like to explain why there is enough evidence in the statement above, for me to know this is "nothing new."

 

Correcting human nature? What was it before the correction? What is it after the correction?

 

Was there a particular moment that this gene change occured? If It was only 2000 years ago, we can probably come up with some 2050 year old DNA and some 1950 year old DNA and see the difference.

 

Also, we could find where Human biology is altered beyond all evolutionary boundaries. I am thinking this unlikely, since we have evolved, and therefore have done it within whatever boundries exist.

 

Then there are some "silly" questions I have. Why would a divine power need to "intervene" in its own natural order? Would not the natural order be its to begin with, and therefore already include the possiblity for human conciousness to emerge within it? There is no need for a divine power to prove itself. The universe is already sufficiently wonderful.

 

"to confirm divine will, command and covenant"

 

Well, I would suppose that whatever the will of the universe is, it is already being done, and the "command" the universe has is evident anytime things don't go according to "our" will. And the "covenant" is already apparent. The universe is certainly holding up its end of the bargain. Otherwise, we would have nothing to exist in, and would have had nothing to emerge from, and we would have nothing to explore and wonder about.

 

What is the need to pin the universe down to a particular "state of mind". We are already a particular thought in the mind of the universe, if you want to look at it thusly. If you imagine the universe being part of you, this is fine with me, I do it myself. But I believe evidence suggests that I have no special relationship with the universe, that is not similar to the relationship that every other human on earth has. It seems rather odd, that some feel that the way you look at the universe, would make any difference at all to IT. All the difference that it makes, seems to be in our own human minds, and actions.

 

If there are beneficial ways to look at the universe and each other, they are benefits that would accrue to us. Not nesscessarily to the universe.

 

Why would a "new way" to look at Christ's life, be substantially different than the way his disciples saw it? That is, if it still was an "internal" communication and understanding. If there is substantial value in the teachings of Christ, which I think there may be, one can accrue the same benefits by understanding the "meaning" behind his words, and take figuratively that which is figurative, and take literally that which is literal.

 

A more scientific approach, would be to show some evidence. Not to pretend you have some.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 26, 2011 by tar

[ponderer]

Great. I challenged yours back. That's why we're a debate forum, and not a religion-marketing yellow pages book.

 

Of course there's a need. You just refuse to give proper reasoning, by saying "axiomatic", and you convince no one. We're not here to listen to you soapbox; do you want to debate, or not?

 

 

Obviously you misread.

 

 

I don't go around putting words in your mouth - don't put words in mine. Just like any other "scientific" claim (which yours isn't, 'cause it's unfalsifiable, but okay) the burden of proof seems to be on you. You just refuse to give it, claiming it's "axiomatic" and thinking we lost our way by not agreeing with you.

 

That's preaching. Not only will it not benefit anything in this debate, it's also against our rules.

 

You too.

 

You seem to think I set out intending to prove that God exists, or that I made some sort of logical copout. You imply prejudice that does not exist in the premise, or incompetence/ignorance in applying the reasoning.

 

Your lack of belief in my assertion requires that you attribute these qualities to me without even knowing me. You are making negative assumptions about me and being quite condescending.

 

This appears to be an emotional response based on my refusal to explain further, and the disruptive nature of the assertion within your world view.

 

I am sorry if I have upset you.

 

Have a nice day. Condescend some more if it makes you feel better.

[mooeypoo]

You seem to think I set out intending to prove that God exists, or that I made some sort of logical copout. You imply prejudice that does not exist in the premise, or incompetence/ignorance in applying the reasoning.

I think nothing. I asked you a set of questions, and you ignored them.

 

You still ignore them.

 

Your lack of belief in my assertion requires that you attribute these qualities to me without even knowing me. You are making negative assumptions about me and being quite condescending.

We don't go by belief in this forum, ponderer, and I attach no attributes to you at all. I read your comment, I made comments of my own.

I don't really care if you're condescending or not, I care about the questions and comments I made. Do you have answers at all?

 

This appears to be an emotional response based on my refusal to explain further, and the disruptive nature of the assertion within your world view.

Actually, I asked for specific things.

 

You seem to be the one avoiding an answer.

 

I am sorry if I have upset you.

The only thing that upsets me is your refusal to cooperate and actually respond to questions. It's very frustrating.

 

 

Have a nice day. Condescend some more if it makes you feel better.

 

You're the one who made assumptions to begin with, and not for the first time. I answered in kind, after the second attempt to get you to cooperate.

 

You keep saying that the conclusion is a given, that you don't NEED to explain because it's so plainly visible, so obvious. It's NOT obvious, and you NEED to supply better proof. It takes two to tango, stop putting thoughts into our heads and tell us we are "convinced" by evidence far from convincing -- that's condescending on its own.

 

 

 

Are you going to stomp your feet on the ground about what we think of you, or are you going to actually answer our claims?

 

~mooey

 

ponderer, just another note here. Check out your OWN post (the one Ianswered) again.

 

see, here:

 

"I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need."

What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to explain any proofs because it's axiomatic. So if I don't accept your explanation I'm the idiot? What, really, are you saying?

You made claims, you need to explain them, and if you made explanations on another thread you should either link to them or explain them again. You're the one being condescending here. Making claims and then refusing to participate in a proper discussion because *you* think your own proof is axiomatic is not debating, it's LECTURING, and that (soap boxing, lecturing, preaching) is against our rules.

 

Also, "good luck finding your way" is condescending. I answered in kind.

 

Please answer my points.

[ponderer]

I think nothing. I asked you a set of questions, and you ignored them.

 

You still ignore them.

 

 

We don't go by belief in this forum, ponderer, and I attach no attributes to you at all. I read your comment, I made comments of my own.

I don't really care if you're condescending or not, I care about the questions and comments I made. Do you have answers at all?

 

 

Actually, I asked for specific things.

 

You seem to be the one avoiding an answer.

 

 

The only thing that upsets me is your refusal to cooperate and actually respond to questions. It's very frustrating.

 

 

 

 

You're the one who made assumptions to begin with, and not for the first time. I answered in kind, after the second attempt to get you to cooperate.

 

You keep saying that the conclusion is a given, that you don't NEED to explain because it's so plainly visible, so obvious. It's NOT obvious, and you NEED to supply better proof. It takes two to tango, stop putting thoughts into our heads and tell us we are "convinced" by evidence far from convincing -- that's condescending on its own.

 

 

 

Are you going to stomp your feet on the ground about what we think of you, or are you going to actually answer our claims?

 

~mooey

 

ponderer, just another note here. Check out your OWN post (the one Ianswered) again.

 

see, here:

 

"I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need."

What you're essentially saying is that you don't need to explain any proofs because it's axiomatic. So if I don't accept your explanation I'm the idiot? What, really, are you saying?

You made claims, you need to explain them, and if you made explanations on another thread you should either link to them or explain them again. You're the one being condescending here. Making claims and then refusing to participate in a proper discussion because *you* think your own proof is axiomatic is not debating, it's LECTURING, and that (soap boxing, lecturing, preaching) is against our rules.

 

Also, "good luck finding your way" is condescending. I answered in kind.

 

Please answer my points.

 

I was going to edit my post when I saw your reply. When I said "without even knowing me", I meant to say, "without even knowing the reasoning or me". So, you have no basis for believing the assertion, and no basis for disbelieving it, except that it conflicts with your world view, and you are possibly suspicious due to some past experience.

 

And that is of course your objection. That I am not supplying the reasoning.

 

If you are upset/frustrated, it is understandable.

 

You find no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion.

 

It is the way of things. I do not think you are an idiot. Once you look at the right facts in association something can look obvious. But you have to know what facts to look at.

 

That is not the point. The point is that if I am unwilling to substantiate a claim, I should not make it. It is bound to result in this sort of situtation.

 

Being unwilling to substantiate an assertion is the same as being unable from a functional standpoint, for the observer.

[swansont]

The point is that if I am unwilling to substantiate a claim, I should not make it. It is bound to result in this sort of situtation.

 

Being unwilling to substantiate an assertion is the same as being unable from a functional standpoint, for the observer.

 

!

Moderator Note

Yes, that is the point. Instead of stating it, perhaps you could actually address the points made by other people and substantiate your assertion. Otherwise it looks a whole lot like trolling and soapboxing. So go ahead already.

 

Proceed with the discussion. Do not respond to this modnote.

[mooeypoo]

I was going to edit my post when I saw your reply. When I said "without even knowing me", I meant to say, "without even knowing the reasoning or me". So, you have no basis for believing the assertion, and no basis for disbelieving it, except that it conflicts with your world view, and you are possibly suspicious due to some past experience.

ponderer, I don't need to have a basis to disbelief, I need a basis to believe.

That's how science works. You're not in a religious forum, you're in a religion subforum inside a science forum. You need to follow our rules.

 

I am frustrated, yes, because you're not cooperating with the discussion. Unfortunately for you, my frustration is not going to last long. You're either going to adhere to our rules and start debating properly (hence solving my frustration) or you're not going to stay here for violation of our rules.

 

Either way, I'll be just fine.

 

Will you please answer the points made?

 

And that is of course your objection. That I am not supplying the reasoning.

Yes. Bingo.

 

Arguing against it is not going to help you. You made a claim, and it's up to you to support the claim. It's not up to me or anyone else to "disprove you", and until we do your claim is axiomatically correct. That's not the way science works.

 

 

You find no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion.

I'm not the only one who doesn't. Read the thread. People have been asking you to clarify. You insist you shouldn't.

 

It is the way of things. I do not think you are an idiot. Once you look at the right facts in association something can look obvious. But you have to know what facts to look at.

It's the way of axiomatic religious thought, perhaps, but not the way of scientific thought. This is your time to put up the evidence, or let it go.

 

I don't know which facts to look for. It's not my "job" to look for facts to support YOUR claim. It's your job to support your claim. You're being lazy. If the evidence is so obvious, show it to us, and have us blown away and convinced immediately of the absolute truth of your conviction.

 

I'm waiting for evidence.

 

~mooey

[Arete]

One is the application of Occam's Razor...

 

From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists.

 

It might be just me, but a sentient being capable of creating the universe is rather by definition more complex than the universe itself. Concluding that the most simple answer is God despite no supporting observational evidence of God's very existence is a rather disingenuous application of the concept.

[ponderer]

 

It's the way of axiomatic religious thought, perhaps, but not the way of scientific thought.

 

Say what?!

 

I am sure if you think that over you will reconsider.

 

If A=B and B=C, then A=C

 

Certain facts (A=B and B=C) in association will show the obvious (A=C). If you do not consider these facts together (A=B and B=C), you do not see the obvious conclusion. It is how science works. It is how axioms work. It is the way of things. I have no idea what you are intending to say. Every axiom must be considered to be timeless, so that there was for each a very long time before they were discovered, because no one happened to consider the facts together in such a way that the conclusion was obvious. I think you need to reread the premise. You seem to think all the facts are specifically itemized in the premise. It is a premise for a TOE! A premise for a TOE must include the given universe. Perhaps, it should read, "Given the universe we live in and that on cosmological and subatomic scales the simplest explanation is the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be expressed soley in dynamic geometry, and that only the simplest explanatory geometry will be considered, based soley on geometric complexity ....

 

In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion, so I appoligize for breaching the forum rules. I will refrain from making such assertions in the future and keep such things to myself. If I wish to share something I have discovered I will go through a publication process.

Edited November 29, 2011 by ponderer

[Arete]

...because no one happened to consider the facts together in such a way that the conclusion was obvious.

 

In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion.

 

Forgive me if I am missing something, but it seems like you've gone "Occams' Razor + reducibility = God axiomatically exists"

 

Occam's Razor states that if observations support two hypotheses equally, the simpler of the two is more likely to be correct. To evaluate the above proof, we need to know what the observations are, what the two competing hypotheses are, how you tested significance and how the you've justified one to be simpler than the other. Otherwise the premise is nonsensical, at least in a scientific context, which is more or less what I think people are taking issue with.