So, when your point is dis~proven with pesky facts....it is time to resort to the fallback position and change subjects to something a bit more personal?
So, when your point is dis~proven with pesky facts....it is time to resort to the fallback position and change subjects to something a bit more personal?
I must step back a moment, you said that you don't understand how somebody can believe in God and be a scientist.
This was a brilliant statement. And I must retract my previous statement.
I don't understand how somebody can not believe there is a God when they study the Sciences. the sciences I studied seemed to be indifferent to the existence of a deity, I don't know why it seems to be so important to some people.
Okay...wait a minute, you make it very clear and in fact somewhat adamant that the universe is all there is, then go on a few posts later to claim you do not think it is?
You say this:
After stating this:
Do you see the problem here?
You didn't answer my question. How can you come to the conclusion that God exists if you are adhering to the scientific method? IF you are saying that you can't, then you agree with me in that believing in God is inconsistent with practicing good science.
Sorry but you can't just say it and expect people to believe it. There is too large a body of work and evidence suggesting otherwise- you need to either disprove that and bring us to square one where we don't know or prove something in favor of your argument which can be consistent with other proven findings. This is how science works.
You are welcome to this "Opinion"...just as those studying M~theory...Q~theory...String Theory...and Quantum Mechanics are welcome to theirs.
Thing is...Opinion without Data behind it does not compel.
The scientific method and science is a way of thought so of course it is. It is one of the reasons so many scientists historically have had an issue believing in a personal God. It isn't just a coincidence that so many scientists are atheists or agnostics.
It really annoys me when you do this clax. You do this a lot when it comes to technical topics- our discussion on monetary policy comes to mind. You can't just say no evidence exists because you haven't seen it. It does exist and it is out there on the internet for you to do a quick search with. The Hubble telescope has proven that other galaxies are getting farther than us amongst many, many other pieces of proof that show the universe is expanding. It is hard data.
The nature of the beast, yes?
I think I understand your ref. myp. But just to throw another wrench into the conversation, isn't it more likely that all the evidence that exists really does suggest a misinterpretation of facts, rather than a denial of them? I would argue that the historical references in the Bible, if true, have been misunderstood and assigned meaning that they shouldn't have been. Chariots of Fire? The burning bush, manna from heaven. The parting of the Red Sea. All of these events have been perceived in human context. Picture a Roman chariot streaking across the sky being pulled by flying horses....really?
I personally believe mankind has created myth out of fact in an effort to feel secure in it's existence, and to control society, not to discern the truth.
In my opinion, having studied archaeology in a religious context, the truth is most likely where the two intersect.
Having spent time evaluating more than a few theoretical physics papers I have come to the conclusion that the Membrane idea has merit. I do not claim to base my opinion on verified data, but instead on an accumulation of studies and theories pointing to a possible answer.
A way of thought is not a religion. You can think mathematically. You can think philosophically. You can think spontaneously. Etc. It is not religion. You just don't seem to understand the scientific method.
And either way, even if you were right and picking that way of thought was religion, that way of thought is science so my point that believing in God is not scientific still holds.
Most things are possible. But most things are not probable. While your theory is possible, I do not find it probable and even if it were, if one were to follow the scientific method, they could not arrive at the conclusion that God exists even with your theory. Unless there was further proof of course.
Similar threads
