The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[Ivan Seeking]

Take the moon landing. It has been shown that everything to do with the moon landing could have been done on the stage quite easily and that all transmissions could have been hoaxed. Many scientists say it was a hoax while others say it was real. .

That is not true. You are free to describe personal experiences, but statements like this will get you banned - instantly. Please see our banned topics list and review the guidelines to avoid problems.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929
and
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2269439#post2269439

Also, you are only free to describe what happened. Fringe theories and non-mainstream explanations, are not allowed. For example, if your clothes magically folded during the night, you are free to say so, but you are not free to assume the proper explanation for this alleged event and argue the point.

 

[Chronos]

We are a fickle bunch and do not like being trifled with. Bad science is a phobia in this branch of the net.

 

[FlexGunship]

So, what does science have to say about the existence of God?

Existence? Nothing.

What does it have to say about his ability to listen to prayers, influence the natural course of events, design or create species, or interfere in any way with the order of the universe as science understands it? Everything!

Rarely is a claim of existence ever made without reference to an event that person's god supposedly influenced. "God cured my cancer." "God created this beautiful day." "Humans are a produce of evolution and design." "God (sic. Saint XXX) helped me get that job."

Every one of those is a SCIENTIFIC statement.

To posutlate the existence of a non-existent entity is trivial (diety or other... let's not get huung up on details). But assigning actions (even passive), influences, and intentions are profoundly non-trivial.

 

[DaveC426913]

Existence? Nothing.

What does it have to say about his ability to listen to prayers, influence the natural course of events, design or create species, or interfere in any way with the order of the universe as science understands it? Everything!

Rarely is a claim of existence ever made without reference to an event that person's god supposedly influenced. "God cured my cancer." "God created this beautiful day." "Humans are a produce of evolution and design." "God (sic. Saint XXX) helped me get that job."

Every one of those is a SCIENTIFIC statement.

Really? Show scientifically that God is not responsible for those events.

 

[FlexGunship]

Really? Show scientifically that God is not responsible for those events.

The burden of proof is quite the opposite. I will leave it to you to show that we need something in addition to science to explain these things.

 

[JaredJames]

Event X happens.

Science gives an explanation of what caused event X and how it happened.

If a person wants to claim "god caused event X" or "god influenced event X", it is not down to science to prove or disprove gods involvement. It is down to the claimant to prove that god was involved/caused it. Science has given its view on the matter, it has no more to say and no reason to try.

 

[DaveC426913]

The burden of proof is quite the opposite. I will leave it to you to show that we need something in addition to science to explain these things.

No, that's not the topic at-hand. You're stuck in a circular logic loop. You are demanding that I discuss a non-scientific topic within the bounds of science. I am saying it does not fall within the bounds of science. There are plenty of things to discuss that do not require the burden of proof. My feelings are one, as are the other dozen or so examples I listed.

You are insisting that these things can be explained with the realm of sciemce, so in that framework, you must act on it scientifically (you are imposing a burden of proof upon yourself) to show that it can be done.

I am perfectly capable of - and free to discuss - my feelings or dreams or the impact of God without having any requirement to show any verifiable evidence.

In short:

My feelings and dreams and belief about God are not subject to any burden of proof. They just are. I have successfully made the case that they are a valid topic of conversation.

Now you have the burden of proof to discuss them scientifically - to try to demonstate that my feelings are not valid, that I did not dream of my dead grandmother and that I am falsely believing what I believe about God.

 

[JaredJames]

For the record, I think I've lost the plot of this discussion. My whole argument has been stemming back to the initial issue regarding claims being made as factual requiring evidence to back them up and science being able to provide explanations.

I do agree, you are allowed to discuss what ever you like, however, you cannot assert as fact, your opinions. This is the whole purpose of my posts so far.

This whole proving something invalid issue, no idea.

 

[DaveC426913]

...you are allowed to discuss what ever you like, however, you cannot assert as fact, your opinions...

I agree 130%*.


* 110% is for slackers. 130% is the new 110%.

 

[FlexGunship]

No, that's not the topic at-hand. You're stuck in a circular logic loop. You are demanding that I discuss a non-scientific topic within the bounds of science. I am saying it does not fall within the bounds of science.

I disagree strongly. There is a core fact we are not agreeing on, and I'd like to call it out now.

My gripe is NOT with the issue of the existence or non-existence of a given thing (or non-thing). Let us avoid visiting that topic again.

My gripe is with the idea that one can claim REAL events are caused by or influenced by entities with questionable (or unproved) existence. Re-read that if necessary; I've chosen my words carefully.

If your god or ghosts could add even one iota of potential or kinetic energy to an equation, or change the temperature gradient of a jet fuel fire, or change (no matter how slightly) the chemical reaction of cancerous cells to chemotherapy then you MUST admit that this is a scientific statement.

Your equation isn't balanced. Laws of thermodynamics are not preserved. Quanta of energy are added. Valence electrons are gained.

If your god (not "your's" Dave, I'm using "you" figuratively... I hope you'll grant me the literary leg room) can influence the real world, then he can be found in the equations that describe that world.

Since even Laplace found no need of him, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you plan to posulate a diety that can so much as whisper in your ear (i.e. empart acoustic energy into the air in your ear canal).

 

[DaveC426913]

My gripe is with the idea that one can claim REAL events are caused by or influenced by entities with questionable (or unproved) existence. Re-read that if necessary; I've chosen my words carefully.

OK.

The goalposts have now been moved so far from where they started, first by jj and now by you, that we're actually on a different field.

Frankly, the fact that we are no longer discussing the original topic is something that I choose to take as a sign that I've successfully fended off counterarguments to the original point. It is as close to a 'win' in a debate as one is ever going to get on the intertubes.

 

[Phrak]

As much as I am continually impressed by the ingenious insights of established scientific theory, I do not forget that it is theory not fact. We can be very smug and proud in what we think we know until it is rendered subordinal to the next better idea. As an offender, I know this personally.

I challenge anyone, using their latest and greatest science, to prove or motivate in a scientific way, say, that God did not start the universe and all we know, complete with memories, dinosaur bones, and the rest, yesterday at 3 pm.

 

[JaredJames]

first by jj

When was that?

As much as I am continually impressed by the ingenious insights of established scientific theory, I do not forget that it is theory not fact. We can be very smug and proud in what we think we know until it is rendered subordinal to the next better idea. As an offender, I know this personally.

I challenge anyone, using their latest and greatest science, to prove or motivate in a scientific way, say, that God did not start the universe and all we know, complete with memories, dinosaur bones, and the rest, yesterday at 3 pm.

Again, my whole point has been that you can claim what you like. But it is down to you to prove it and if you can't prove it, it remains strictyl opinion and not in any way factual.

I agree there are a multitude of things we can't explain. But that does not default the explanation to god(s).

If science offers an explanation for the formation of dinosaur fossils, and can provide evidence to back it up, that is what science has to say on the subject. If you want to refute this and say god did it, you have to back that up with proof otherwise it is meaningless and simply your opinion.
This is where things get sticky because you can, as you did above, claim god (or any higher being), 'planted' the evidence for us to find and create our memories.
However, just because of this problem area it doesn't make it fact or any closer to being fact. It is still opinion because you can't back it up with any proof.

Also, a theory is put forward by science based on the evidence at hand. No, it may not be completely correct (if not completely incorrect), but that doesn't make another persons 'theory'* on a subject stand on equal footing, especially with nothing to back it up (in other words it's sitting in the land of pure speculation and happy thoughts).

(*Theory as used in general conversation - aka hypothesis.)

 

[Phrak]

When was that?

Again, my whole point has been that you can claim what you like. But it is down to you to prove it and if you can't prove it, it remains strictyl opinion and not in any way factual.

It is not my obligation to prove anything. And two, you've invoked a false dichotomy.

 

[JaredJames]

It is not my obligation to prove anything. And two, you've invoked a false dichotomy.

You can claim anything you want. I can make the claim that there is a purple unicorn hiding on the dark side of the moon, but it is strictly my opinion/belief speaking with said claim.

I cannot claim that statement as factual unless I can prove it.

If you want to make a claim such as the above, it is up to you to prove it. It's not for someone else to prove and it isn't for someone else to disprove.

Please explain the fallacy of my above thinking (including my previous post).

If I make the claim the Moon orbits the Earth, there is evidence to back it up. If I make the claim the Earth orbits the Moon, there is zero evidence to back it up. You can either back it up or you can't. Sketchy details don't make facts.

If there is no evidence, you can't state something as fact (see definition of fact). It is only your belief in that statement that makes it factual to you. If you want others to believe it, it is down to you back up your claims, no one else.

 

[DaveC426913]

first by jj

When was that?

In post 21 I quote you as saying "[nothing] is outside of science".

In post 30, you acknowledge that "a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist".

By post 55, you have acknowledged that many things are currently beyond the reach of science - though you argue that should some actual evidence present itself, science will have something to say about it then. Note again: until and unless evidence presents itself, science can't say much.

I'll clarify: unless evidence presents itself about somethinng such as ghosts, science can't say anything either way.

 

[JaredJames]

In post 21 I quote you as saying "[nothing] is outside of science".

In post 30, you acknowledge that "a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist".

By post 55, you have acknowledged that many things are currently beyond the reach of science - though you argue that should some actual evidence present itself, science will have something to say about it then. Note again: until and unless evidence presents itself, science can't say much.

I'll clarify: unless evidence presents itself about somethinng such as ghosts, science can't say anything either way.

I acknowledge science can't say anything until it has evidence. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe "nothing is outside of science".

Perhaps I should clarify, when I say "nothing is outside of science" I am referring to whether it be now or in the future. I'm saying that I believe that science has the potential to explain everything (or at least offer some sort of explanation), it's just that currently we aren't able to understand/describe/explain everything.

There is a difference between saying "it's outside the realm of science now" and "it's always going to be outside the realm of science". I don't believe anything will remain outside the realm of science.

Science offers an explanation of the 'whats' / 'hows' of the universe. If science has a reasonable and verifiable explanation of what caused an event or what happened, there is no need to include a 'god factor' (or any other spiritual/supernatural factor). It is a redundant issue. If it isn't required to explain the event, why include it? Because of the human need to believe in a 'bigger picture'? Who knows, each to their own. Science doesn't have to explain any non-existent entity (god, ghosts, demons etc) if they aren't required to explain an event. It is only when science requires [insert entity here] be present that it needs to have anything to do with it or attempt to show it's existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I acknowledge science can't say anything until it has evidence. However, that doesn't change the fact that I believe "nothing is outside of science".

These two statements are contradictory.

Statement 1 gives a clear example of one thing that is "outside of science", to wit: "anything that does not have evidence".


Note btw, that statement 1 is further strengthened because you must acknowledge the following correction:

...science can't say anything until and unless it has evidence.

Would you agree that it is possible (indeed, quite likely) that, on certain subjects (for example: God) no evidence will be forthcoming. Ever.

There is a difference between saying "it's outside the realm of science now" and "it's always going to be outside the realm of science". I don't believe anything will remain outside the realm of science.

I think it goes without saying (as in: we all agree) that - should any piece of evidence about any topic in the universe present itself - that piece of evidence can be examined scientifically.

All I'm doing is showing the corollary. That an absence of evidence can result in an absence of scientific discussion, yet there can still be discussion to be had (for example, logical, philosphical).

Science offers an explanation of the 'whats' / 'hows' of the universe. If science has a reasonable and verifiable explanation of what caused an event or what happened, there is no need to include a 'god factor' (or any other spiritual/supernatural factor). It is a redundant issue. If it isn't required to explain the event, why include it?

This is the stance science takes, yes. But 'why include it' is not the same as 'it does not exist'.

On the question of "but does it exist?", science is silent.

 

[JaredJames]

All I'm doing is showing the corollary. That an absense of evidence can result in an absense of scientific discussion, yet there can still be discussion to be had (for example, logical, philosphical).

Agreed, but as per previous posts, you can't discuss it as factual (basically my main point in this thread). I say A should float, you say A should sink, A can't be proven to exist so any discussion from us is based purely on our own opinions of what A is.

I think we can all agree on this point.

This is the stance science takes, yes. But 'why include it' is not the same as 'it does not exist'.

Agreed, but we don't have to assume it exists either. It should be dismissed (as it's not required).

For example, based on the fact I believe that science has the potential to explain everything I have no need to include a god (that is, unless some scientific theory requires it - in which case I want evidence for it). I dismiss the whole concept of god (or ghosts and the like), it's not about believing they do / do not exist. There's nothing to prove (or disprove).

This is why I say "nothing is outside the realms of science". Just because you discuss the possibility of something (for example ghosts to explain noises in the night), it doesn't mean they might exist. It simply means you are inventing something, in this case ghosts, and using them to plug the gap in your / current knowledge to provide a reason for the noises you hear at night. There is no basis for this solution to the noises.

Until we have evidence to evaluate regarding ghosts (or any of these entities) my stance is simple, I dismiss them. As far as I'm concerned they were never on the table in the first place.

These two statements are contradictory.

Statement 1 gives a clear example of one thing that is "outside of science", to wit: "anything that does not have evidence".

Please note my clarification below the quoted line of text. Like I said, when I say "nothing is outside of science", I'm not simply referring to the here and now. I am referring to now and in the future. I see no reason why there should be a phenomenon that science can't explain.

Note btw, that statement 1 is further strengthened because you must acknowledge the following correction:

Would you agree that it is possible (indeed, quite likely) that, on certain subjects (for example: God) no evidence will be forthcoming. Ever.

In addition to my response above, I'll add this:
I do agree that on a subject like god, no evidence will be forthcoming. But, given we don't have a need to use a god to explain anything why do we entertain the notion of one? So far we don't use it to explain anything, we don't need it to explain anything, so what is the purpose of said god (or any spiritualistic beings)? It's all very well saying we can't disprove it, but what is the purpose of it in the first place?
Until the need to include a 'god factor' or the 'ghost factor' or the 'unicorn factor' in the calculations occurs, it serves no purpose and should be dismissed in the same way as my moon roaming pink unicorn.

It's like writing a piece of code and leaving in a bunch of random, unused variables declared. They aren't utilised anywhere within the code and serve absolutely no purpose. So why would you do it? I wouldn't.

If science doesn't need something such as a ghost, why is it going to try and explain it? So far virtually every ghost out there has been debunked and so far non of the explanations have involved a ghost.

 

[FlexGunship]

OK.

The goalposts have now been moved so far from where they started, first by jj and now by you, that we're actually on a different field.

Dave, don't act surprised when that happens as a result of injecting specific examples. If your counter-argument includes counter-examples you must expect that someone will address those counter-examples, especially if they are controversial in their role as counter-examples.

Ill do my best to steer clear of feeding a roaming wildfire, but it seems that some people have chosen, a priori, that they want to believe in something un-proof-worthy. And then they start working from there with explanations and building models of the universe. These indiviuals declare, by fiat, that some ideas are beyond science. However, it remains that only the ideas they have invented are outside of science (gods, ghosts, and the like) and certainly not all of the other things that are discovered by the application of scientific principle.

If there's no way to tell the difference between a universe with invisible unicorns and without, then what is the point of postulating them?

The corollary: if you can tell the difference between a universe with invisible unicorns and without, then isn't that a measurable difference?

Or, the converse: if there were hard scientific proof of a invisible unicorns, would you still claim these unicorns were outside the bounds of science and disregard the evidence?

 

[FlexGunship]

* 110% is for slackers. 130% is the new 110%.

Heh, I got a kick out of this.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, given we don't have a need to use a god to explain anything why do we entertain the notion of one? So far we don't use it to explain anything, we don't need it to explain anything, so what is the purpose of said god (or any spiritualistic beings)? It's all very well saying we can't disprove it, but what is the purpose of it in the first place?

Because, when all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there is more to being human than scientific analysis.

We all (me, you, Flex) have beliefs that we build our world from. Ours may not be about God, but make no mistake, we all choose our time to discuss things unscientifically. The fact that you may choose to do it showing your gf a beautiful sunset is really no different or more valid than someone else feeling that their life has a deeper meaning than simply aeons of biochemistry.

There's a time and place for scientific analysis, and there's a time and place for just being human.

 

[FlexGunship]

Because, when all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there is more to being human than scientific analysis.

And I disagree with your baseless assertion. When all is said and done, whether we like it or not, there's nothing special about being human. We are simply the pinacle of one particular branch of an evolutionary tree. We simply posses the most complex brain of any animal we know. Those complexities give rise to delusions of self-importance, such as the belief that our existence must be guided or pre-ordained by a god or gods.

I understand, but do not sympathize with, your feelings that "there must be more." There no reason to expect there's anything more, which is all the more reason to make every possible second count and enjoy the chemical aberrations we experience as love, joy, and excitement.

Just because we're nothing more than complex chemical reactions doesn't dimish in any way the art we create, the beauty we perceieve, or the emotions we feel and share with each other.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding existence, it is being asserted here that there are no mysteries; that we have a complete decscription of the universe, its beginning, and the physics underlying that beginning?

Where is our unified theory?

String theory offers some possible answers, but many physicists don't even consider that a legitimate theory. And the assertion that everything came from nothing is as much a statement of faith as any belief in a God.

 

[JaredJames]

I haven't said that ivan and I am not sure anyone has. I've simply said i don't see why science couldn't explain everything if provided with evidence.

Sure there are mysteries out there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't said that ivan and I am not sure anyone has. I've simply said i don't see why science couldn't explain everything if provided with evidence.

Sure there are mysteries out there.

I was responding to Flex and the claim that any potential need for a God to explain existence has been completely eliminated. That is simply not true. It is a statement of faith, not fact.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh, apologies. I am on my phone trying to skim read whilst waiting for a heavily delayed train.
Not exactly concentrating 100%.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, apologies. I am on my phone trying to skim read whilst waiting for a heavily delayed train.
Not exactly concentrating 100%.

Heh, I often try to chime in during brief work breaks and completely miss the train of the conversation. I hate it when that happens!

 

[FlexGunship]

Heh, I've been on my phone for the last few days. Visiting my sister quite a few states away. Doing the same as you all, skimming without trying to miss what's going on and still contributing in a meaningful way.

Regarding existence, it is being asserted here that there are no mysteries; that we have a complete decscription of the universe, its beginning, and the physics underlying that beginning?

I would modify that statement a bit. Its not that there are "no mysteries." Rather, there are so many mysteries that we hardly need to invent new ones.

There is no unified theory yet, but we certainly won't get one if we muck about with superstition and religion.

What happens if/when you're staring at that one-inch long equation which explains all things in the universe and there's no "god constant"? Do you throw out the equation, or throw out the god?

Its a hypothetical question, but see if you can answer it honestly and without dodging the core of the question.

 

[JaredJames]

Heh, I often try to chime in during brief work breaks and completely miss the train of the conversation. I hate it when that happens!

Ha, only just got that. This 4 hour train delay is putting a serious lag on my brain at the moment.