What would be proof that God exists?

  • Thread starter Laser Eyes
  • Start date
  • #226
Gokul43201 said:
Aaarghhh ! A nature worshipper ! Heretic ! Pagan ! I shall set my knights upon thee and thine unholy cult !

Yeah, that's the spirit....nature worshippers.... I was at a nudist colony once and you know what, I found out I was god.... at least that's what she kept calling me that night.
 
  • #227
olde drunk said:
Cut that out! Are you guys trying to get me PO'ed?? Here I am looking forward to a nice quiet Sunday off (do you remember honor the sabbath?), and you're cracking wise about who is god.

Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them.

now stop talking about what god is or isn't and get the word out that i want you to love all of nature and preach peace. humans are to far evolved to still mess with violence.

OK< now who's got the comics and my sports section??????????????

love&peace,
god

"Look, you can mess with your lives as if you were god, but we gotta work together on these hurricanes and such. They only happen when your mass subconsiousnesses invite them. "

sounds like the current Presidential Campaign, only they're blaming each other for these hurricanes!
 
  • #228
69
0
Gokul43201 said:
I think omnipotence leads to logical contradictions, in the same way that time travel does. That is one of the problems I have with accepting the existence of an omnipotent being.

If someone can lay down the axioms of a system of logic where omnipotence does not result in inconsistencies, that will help open me up to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being.

Tigron-X, cut out the holier than thou attitude if you want to contribute to this discussion meaningfully. You've shown that you don't possess a sense of humor. So, at least stick to the topic of discussion. This is not a forum for you to preach.
How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?

holier than thou? Riiiiiiiiiight... Don't worry I'm on topic. It's just most lkely not what you want to hear. Maybe because I explained somethng using a metaphor, and you don't like that...?

The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny? lol... and you say I don't have a sense of humor. Anyhow, I throw it back in your face, and you seem to not have liked that too much... yet because of that, I don't have a sense of humor and I have an attitude?
Am I following along your thought process correctly?

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.
 
  • #229
107
0
The phenomena of channeling is fairly common, but outside the realm of scientific investigation due to its subjectivity. Channeling is where some disemboded entity speaks to you through your inner ear. Some people can allow the entity to speak the entities words and with the entities accent. I have a friend with that abitity.

Now at one point in my life my friend channeled an entity who wanted me to take a certain action in my life. What the action was is beside the point. But the groundrules were that he/she could only answer questions that I posed.

So I asked if he/she were God or a god. No, he/she had just recently died. Later I asked him if there were a god and the reply was yes. Now this entity provided information to me that neither I nor my friend knew or could know. But I could check out its veracity with a simple phone call. In every case the information was correct.

So that data is the closest I have ever come to a proof of God or gods. But it is hardly a proof; just one dead person's opinion, assuming that the dead person had some form of existence and could interact with physical life with sound. It is said that the location of the interaction is in the inner ear. But as far as I know, there is no explanation or known mechanism for how it happens. What I do believe is that this is how revelation occurs.
 
Last edited:
  • #230
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
Tigron-X said:
The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny?
I didn't crack any jokes to blow you off. I merely made a joke at olde-drunk's closing line, and had no idea that you would take offense. In fact, he too was only addressing amwbonfire. The only person that made any reference to your post was Smurf.

And suddenly, out of the blue, you decide to make this personal.

Listen, if I offended you by my joke, I'm sorry. It was not intended to deride.

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.
I certainly don't know you at all. I spoke in response to your personal attacks, which (to me) were unfounded. Now I see that they arose from a possible misunderstanding.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.
Agreed. If you'll forgive my tirade, we can set this aside and get back to the discussion.

Tigron-X said:
How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?
One has to first set up an axiomatic framework before addressing this. Answering the following questions (rigorously, leaving no room for doubt) would help set up the required framework.

Define 'omnipotence'. Can an omnipotent being perform tasks (do things) that are in violation of our currently accepted science ? Is there any task that an omnipotent being can't accomplish ? If there is, what defines this set of tasks ?

{Usually the process of setting up these kinds of axioms eventually hinges upon the question : "what is a task ?". And it would seem that the only way to avoid inconsistency is to answer "anything that can be done by the omnipotent being is a task" (as opposed to "anything you can think of"). However, this definition can be applied to you and me as well. Finite sets of tasks are easy to hadle . Certain infinite sets are also fine. However, when you get to the 'set of all sets', you hit the Powerset Paradox. If you don't agree with this paragraph, let's start with answering the questions of the previous one and see where that goes.}
 
  • #231
69
0
Gokul43201 said:
Agreed. If you'll forgive my tirade, we can set this aside and get back to the discussion.
By all means, I apologize for the misunderstanding myself. Glad that didn't have to go any further. Anyhow...


Gokul43201 said:
One has to first set up an axiomatic framework before addressing this. Answering the following questions (rigorously, leaving no room for doubt) would help set up the required framework.

Define 'omnipotence'. Can an omnipotent being perform tasks (do things) that are in violation of our currently accepted science ? Is there any task that an omnipotent being can't accomplish ? If there is, what defines this set of tasks ?

{Usually the process of setting up these kinds of axioms eventually hinges upon the question : "what is a task ?". And it would seem that the only way to avoid inconsistency is to answer "anything that can be done by the omnipotent being is a task" (as opposed to "anything you can think of"). However, this definition can be applied to you and me as well. Finite sets of tasks are easy to hadle . Certain infinite sets are also fine. However, when you get to the 'set of all sets', you hit the Powerset Paradox. If you don't agree with this paragraph, let's start with answering the questions of the previous one and see where that goes.}
I'm not in the position of understanding what you're getting at quite yet since I'm unfamiliar with the Powerset Paradox. Before I define omnipotence, I want to tell you upfront that to me it seems that there is no such thing as a true paradox; only anomalies. Anomalies that we construe with limited knowledge since our language has not defined such content, or our minds have not imagined such logic, so our understanding is limited to a paradox. I'm not saying you don't have a paradox; just that I haven't found one. I look forward to hearing what it is.

Now there is a difference between an omnipotent being and the Omnipotent being. An omnipotent being is a being that understands the Omnipotent being well enough to mimic the knowledge of the Omnipotence in order to seem as such, but really the only creature that would claim such a beingness and having such knowledge as an omnipotent being is one who does not know any better to understand that the Omnipotent being is everything, beyond, between, among, and nothing. I can't say anymore than that because my ability to comprehend anything else, let alone those words, is something time or my experience in life has not granted me. My imagination can take me far, but I will never have an ending thought because I can imagine all sorts of combinations of logic, and my own words and thoughts can even turn things into illogical ones if I wanted the to, but what's the point? I do that enough when I find I missed the point. :P Anyhow, to me that's the power of thought and maybe even the gift of Life.

Now before I go off on a tangent, you asked if the Omnipotent being can do tasks. Well, the Omnipotent being would have to be considered the Creator, so the Omnipotent being can enjoy the Creation or extend the Creation. This could be considered the Will of Life which we better define through science. Since we could never be the Creator, we will never understand if the Creation has been extended or not. To us it would just be another experience of enjoying the Creation. I can go on, but to cut it short for the time being, the individual is the between, the among is the Life around, the nothing is what we haven't discovered yet since nothing is a word with illogical meaning, the beyond is the logical, and everything well... anything you can think of during your time of thinking.

Why doesn't one of the Omnipotent's tasks change logic? You have 10 dimensions that you can change in infinite ways by finding the anomolies within a dimension and walking through them. What is there to change? Infinity?
 
  • #232
Tigron-X said:
How does omnipotence lead to logical contradiction?

holier than thou? Riiiiiiiiiight... Don't worry I'm on topic. It's just most lkely not what you want to hear. Maybe because I explained somethng using a metaphor, and you don't like that...?

The first thing I say you guys crack jokes to blow me off, and I'm suppose to find that funny? lol... and you say I don't have a sense of humor. Anyhow, I throw it back in your face, and you seem to not have liked that too much... yet because of that, I don't have a sense of humor and I have an attitude?
Am I following along your thought process correctly?

Bro, I'm pretty sure you don't know me well enough to judge me and write me off as meaningless, humorless, and someone who thinks he's better than others.

So yeah, lets discuss this openly and not judge each other and respect each others view points.
I'd like to jump in with my take on the concept of an omnipotent God as put forth by contemporary fundamentalist Christianity... here, the concept of a God that is ALL KNOWING...He is both the Alpha and the Omega knowing EVERTHING... such silly and useless things as all the hairs on your head, all that kind of nonsense.... If we are to take this kind of "understanding" of what God is, then we are smack in the middle of paradoxes... here's a God that cannot be surprised, he knows it all, from beginning to end... he allows babies to be born deformed, or into extreme poverty in places like the Sudan, where reports have surfaced of torture and mutilations of babies and all other age brackets... or babies are born conjoined, twins that failed to seperate in utero....severe mental retardation...incomplete physical development...the list goes on.... try visiting a pediatrics ward of a teaching hospital... it'll make you think when you see the horrors of an incomplete nature meted out on babies and children...

The idea of this kind of God allowing these things to happen is another confusing aspect of belief.... apologists come out of the woodwork to "explain" why God is this or that....there is NO documentation to support their enthusiastic "filling in of the blanks" to explain away the contradictions..... back to the Alpha-Omega thingy... IF we were to accept this concept of God, then we would have to accept that this kind of God is a machine, or worse, has nothing to look forward to... He just watches it all unfold, even though he knows the outcomes of literally everything and even though he is all knowing...he just sits on his big holy ass and does nothing...[sounds like the HAL 9000 to me] ... not a very convincing description of an omnipotent Being, is it?

What is God? Whose God do we worship, and why? Are our god(s) more powerful than the Hawaiian gods were, or the native Americans? Why? Because we had a more advanced warfare technology than they did... How does a mightier military become an automatic Manifest Destiny; when God is invoked? When our society vanishes into the annuls of history whose god will be left standing?

Votaire was a very wise and courageous philosopher... he continually reminded us that the Emporer was wearing NO CLOTHES...

We have to define God...until we do, we have no god; we merely have the desire to have a god.
 
Last edited:
  • #233
106
0
The omnipotent god

The idea that god is omnipotent can be proven just as easily as the fact that god has no power whatsoever. Got it? The word believe means 'to hold something as the truth.' With lacking evidence you can say whatever you want to say. Religion means freedom and as long as you bent to the facts you will have that freedom.

The platform of religion is different from the platform of science in that science works first with facts, and from the facts it creates theories (does anyone recognize the word 'theo' in theory?). In religion it is the other way around. A supposition that cannot be proven is considered the truth and from that center position everything else gets explained. It is difficult to get this distinction right immediately. The difference is as small as the difference between 'to get' and 'to bring.'

Sometimes evidence means that the center position (of what is believed to be true) must be changed, like what for instance happened with the vision that the earth stood at the center of god's work. Nobody in the world believes today that the earth is the center of the universe (that is, if they have knowledge of the facts).

There is an interesting connection with the English word god (which is the same in all germanic languages - though the pronunciation/writing is sometimes different (god in Dutch, Gott in German etc.) and what this word may have meant originally. The Dutch word god (god) and the Dutch word gat (hole) are pronounced almost the same way (the only difference being the vowel sound, which is like the u in but and the o in bot. 'Gat' can be used to deliver a final ending to a story for which there is not really an ending.

In English there is this interesting set of words that truly sound the same: hole (again, gat in Dutch) and whole. With god, with a hole, one can come to a whole. God can be used to finish the explanation. God can be the explanation. Very much like theorizing in science, god can be used to deliver a larger vision.

In the Romance languages one can see that the word god is based on a different model: dio, dieu, dios. Let me use some words here we are more or less all familiar with: Solo, duo, terzo. In Italian 'solo' means 'sun', while duo means two. Two can be seen as 'split' or division. The word 'terrestrial' is based on the word 'terre' which means earth. We can see a very familiar connection between one, two, three, and singular, in between, and third, and also sun, god, earth. In German the word for earth is 'Die Erde', while in Dutch third is 'derde' (earth is 'aarde'). The position of 'god' in one, two, three is that between the visible sun and the visible earth. The invisible split (hole) is nevertheless important because without the split sun and earth would not be separate entities.

The problem is that in religion nowadays god does not come at the end of the story anymore, but is put center stage. The 'hole' has now come to mean an omnipotent entity for which nevertheless no evidence will ever be found. Lack of evidence means the same as 'hole.' A belief is something considered to be true, and it can stand into infinity as long as no evidence has contradicted it. Evidence has the power to change a belief, but often one notices how the belief adjusts itself to the new information. It is hard to bent to the facts (because there is the existence of the 'hole'). Just like the earth no longer standing center stage in our universe, we still have a hard time not giving ourselves omni-importance, right?
 
  • #234
69
0
FaverWillets said:
I'd like to jump in with my take on the concept of an omnipotent God as put forth by contemporary fundamentalist Christianity... here, the concept of a God that is ALL KNOWING...He is both the Alpha and the Omega knowing EVERTHING... such silly and useless things as all the hairs on your head, all that kind of nonsense.... If we are to take this kind of "understanding" of what God is, then we are smack in the middle of paradoxes... here's a God that cannot be surprised, he knows it all, from beginning to end... he allows babies to be born deformed, or into extreme poverty in places like the Sudan, where reports have surfaced of torture and mutilations of babies and all other age brackets... or babies are born conjoined, twins that failed to seperate in utero....severe mental retardation...incomplete physical development...the list goes on.... try visiting a pediatrics ward of a teaching hospital... it'll make you think when you see the horrors of an incomplete nature meted out on babies and children...

The idea of this kind of God allowing these things to happen is another confusing aspect of belief.... apologists come out of the woodwork to "explain" why God is this or that....there is NO documentation to support their enthusiastic "filling in of the blanks" to explain away the contradictions..... back to the Alpha-Omega thingy... IF we were to accept this concept of God, then we would have to accept that this kind of God is a machine, or worse, has nothing to look forward to... He just watches it all unfold, even though he knows the outcomes of literally everything and even though he is all knowing...he just sits on his big holy ass and does nothing...[sounds like the HAL 9000 to me] ... not a very convincing description of an omnipotent Being, is it?

What is God? Whose God do we worship, and why? Are our god(s) more powerful than the Hawaiian gods were, or the native Americans? Why? Because we had a more advanced warfare technology than they did... How does a mightier military become an automatic Manifest Destiny; when God is invoked? When our society vanishes into the annuls of history whose god will be left standing?

Votaire was a very wise and courageous philosopher... he continually reminded us that the Emporer was wearing NO CLOTHES...

We have to define God...until we do, we have no god; we merely have the desire to have a god.
That's just the thing though. We can't completely define what we don't understand, let alone to fully conceive such a magnitude of existence. And the desire to have a god could be seen as the desire to understand God. You can define God as Life; "Alpha-Omega" is the samething.

As for "all the hairs on your head", who said that God sits there and counts them all, let alone sits up there in heaven or something? Many things in us and the world around us regulates how many hairs we have and such "nonsense". To say that God counts them would imply that God didn't know something, and that doesn't make sense if you just said that God is all knowing. I know you didn't say count them but that's the only thing I can think of that might have lead you to a paradox.

Why is it that when we say God is everything and then we try to imagine what God does, we seperate ourselves from everything?

The way I see it is God created God's own existence and we're parts of that existence living out the whole.

The problem with defining God is that by doing so we would be essentially giving God a purpose, but can we give a purpose to the Being that gave us purpose?

Can purpose define purpose?

Oh yeah... and all the suffering is a result of our ignorance.
 
  • #235
Tigron-X said:
That's just the thing though. We can't completely define what we don't understand, let alone to fully conceive such a magnitude of existence. And the desire to have a god could be seen as the desire to understand God. You can define God as Life; "Alpha-Omega" is the samething.

As for "all the hairs on your head", who said that God sits there and counts them all, let alone sits up there in heaven or something? Many things in us and the world around us regulates how many hairs we have and such "nonsense". To say that God counts them would imply that God didn't know something, and that doesn't make sense if you just said that God is all knowing. I know you didn't say count them but that's the only thing I can think of that might have lead you to a paradox.

Why is it that when we say God is everything and then we try to imagine what God does, we seperate ourselves from everything?

The way I see it is God created God's own existence and we're parts of that existence living out the whole.

The problem with defining God is that by doing so we would be essentially giving God a purpose, but can we give a purpose to the Being that gave us purpose?

Can purpose define purpose?

Oh yeah... and all the suffering is a result of our ignorance.
Today in America the prevailing, dominant "god" is of Christian. Tomorrow, who knows? God is ? Budhhist? Hindu perhaps? Whatever...

It was Jane Goodall who first observed chimpanzees in the wild adopt ritualistic behavior during a very torrid thunderstorm. What IS God? WHO is God, where did God come from if one really did exist? Whose god through all of history is really THE god? All this god talk is making my head explode. I don't see a need for any sort of god... it is a figment of our imaginations. Amen.
 
  • #236
69
0
FaverWillets said:
Today in America the prevailing, dominant "god" is of Christian. Tomorrow, who knows? God is ? Budhhist? Hindu perhaps? Whatever...

It was Jane Goodall who first observed chimpanzees in the wild adopt ritualistic behavior during a very torrid thunderstorm. What IS God? WHO is God, where did God come from if one really did exist? Whose god through all of history is really THE god? All this god talk is making my head explode. I don't see a need for any sort of god... it is a figment of our imaginations. Amen.
So you're saying that our understanding of "god" will change, and our understanding today is a figment of our imagination?

I would have to totally agree with you on that.
 
  • #237
Tigron-X said:
So you're saying that our understanding of "god" will change, and our understanding today is a figment of our imagination?

I would have to totally agree with you on that.

If you find that summary more comforting...for myself, no. I belong to the newest god religion, the Church of George Carlin.
 
  • #238
69
0
lol... George Carlin is by far my favorite comedian. He's hilarious.

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with that summary?
 
  • #239
45
0
Ummm... Hi. I would like to throw something minor in here. In all the debates on this subject I have seen you always get people attacking religion (or at least organised religion) by pointing out all the evils it causes. However I have thought about it and I can't see how you can believe in right and wrong / good and evil without believing in god. Surely they are one and the same thing?

p.s this is an honest question - please be gentle!
 
  • #240
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
I decide for myself what's right or wrong. I use a sensible approach to determine whether a given act is right or wrong (good or bad); on the basis of whether is harms or helps and not on the basis of whether it will or won't need a confession to some person sitting in a wooden box. Different Gods have different opinions of right and wrong, so that really doesn't help.

I think slavery is bad. I think it is bad to try to have as many children as you can. I think it is bad to impose your religion upon others, and use money as a means of conversion. I think it is terrible to mislead people by telling them that the Bible is consistent with science, or that science is wrong whenever there is a difference.

I don't think it is bad to 'check out a chick' or be homosexual, or work during the Sabbath.

I was stopped on the road the other day, by three college students who tried to help me ebrace Christianity. After about fifteen minutes of discussion, I realized that these folks are being lied to, and now walk about the streets with their eyes closed to the beauty and accuracy of science. I was too gentle with them.
 
  • #241
45
0
hmmm...

I decide for myself what's right or wrong. I use a sensible approach to determine whether a given act is right or wrong (good or bad); on the basis of whether is harms or helps and not on the basis of whether it will or won't need a confession to some person sitting in a wooden box.
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I'm sorry I realise I did't exactly define what I meant properly.

ok here goes,

assumption: There is no god. We evolved from animals. Evolution was started by a cosmic accident. We are animals. There is no God and no higher purpose to life.

Now most people would accept this. However most people would also say that killing is wrong. However surely if there is no god there is no right and wrong. There is no reason, for example, not to go around killing people. If we are just animals. Without ther concept of god there is nothing in which to anchor morality!
 
  • #242
45
0
p.s Not that I mean to suggest that murder is justifiable :-)
 
  • #243
69
0
Gokul43201 said:
I was stopped on the road the other day, by three college students who tried to help me ebrace Christianity. After about fifteen minutes of discussion, I realized that these folks are being lied to, and now walk about the streets with their eyes closed to the beauty and accuracy of science. I was too gentle with them.
15 mins, ay? They were that hott? :P

bd1976 said:
p.s Not that I mean to suggest that murder is justifiable :-)
No, but however killing is.

Anyhow, do you not believe in evolution?
 
  • #244
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
bd1976 said:
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I'm sorry I realise I did't exactly define what I meant properly.

ok here goes,

assumption: There is no god. We evolved from animals. Evolution was started by a cosmic accident. We are animals. There is no God and no higher purpose to life.

Now most people would accept this. However most people would also say that killing is wrong. However surely if there is no god there is no right and wrong. There is no reason, for example, not to go around killing people. If we are just animals. Without ther concept of god there is nothing in which to anchor morality!
I can give you a lengthy counter-argument about how your reasoning is not rigorous, but instead I'll give you a short counter-example (as that constitutes as disproof) : ME

I don't believe (yet) that there's a God, but I don't go about killing people. I do NOT anchor my moral values on some religious scripture. I anchor them upon my reasoning independent of any religious teaching.
 
  • #245
515
0
your religion is information and your god is science!

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #246
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.

Nevertheless, I agrre with the sentiment of your observation.
 
  • #247
Gokul43201 said:
But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.

Nevertheless, I agrre with the sentiment of your observation.
The current issue of Scientific American SPECIAL EDITION is devoted entirely to Einstein and the future of physics....

Yes, question science...without questioning science there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves.
 
  • #248
45
0
hmm.... Perhaps I'm being a bit dense here but am I wrong when I say that you can't base right and wrong on reasoning or on science?

On a lighter note. In respose to

""But I can question Science...and it does not work in mysterious ways that are beyond my comprehension.""

can anyone say quantum physics? :-)
 
  • #249
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
FaverWillets said:
Yes, question science...without questioning science there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves.
Just a caveat here:
"...without SCIENTISTS questioning science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves"
Non-scientists/specialists haven't got the competence to question science in an intelligent manner.
 
  • #250
arildno said:
Just a caveat here:
"...without SCIENTISTS questioning science IN AN INTELLIGENT MANNER there can be no progress in our understanding of nature or ourselves"
Non-scientists/specialists haven't got the competence to question science in an intelligent manner.
Actually you are right, but mostly in my choice of wording... yes, intelligent people can and do question science, but they usually lack the mathematical base and credentials that the scientific community covets. But there are also 'crackpot' scientists who "prove" things such as evolution wrong, etc... they don't of course, because they don't go about science in an intelligent and responsibile manner. They are religious zealots who have cast science aside due to their twisted sense of beliefs that they have 'discovered' new ways of disproving what they themselves find most uncomforting.... anyway.... It's like, if only I could disprove Einstein, I'd be world famous, rich and go down in history. Oh heck, the break whistle just blew...I'll start on it after work tonight."

how about this, "...without SCIENTISTS questioning science there cannot be effective debate yeilding any viable progress in our understanding of nature and ourselves."

Carl Sagan made this point in his book, The Demon Haunted World, when he used by way of analogy: [paraphrased] {consider that to even begin to hope to understand science today, a person must be willing to devote years of their lives to the study of mathematics, but it doesn't stop there... he/she must be willing to go through their first 12 years of primary/high school and major in mathematics and the sciences, then major in their undergraduate studies in the sciences and minor in mathematics, then go to graduate school and continue... all tolled they would have to be willing to invest 15 years of their lives minimum in order to have JUST THE MINIMUM baseline of background in order to begin to understand what the scientists are saying and doing.... or, they can choose the lesser of these and go to church.}

My point is that only scientists can wage an EFFECTIVE challenge to scientific findings, and only scientists as a group can even know how reported scientific findings were arrived at and then attempt to reproduce the same results in their own laboratories.

So, yes you are right. I am NOT a scientist, and certainly not even willing to attempt to balance my checkbook (which might explain a few things in my household budget "-) and though I can read Scientific American et al, I will never be able to go head to head with scientists in any meaningful way... best I can do is write an article that stirs up the hornet's nest and allow them to duke it out amongst themselves in the ensuing fray.

I do agree with your challenge to how I wrote that, and in and of itself, I couldn't agree with you more. And yes, scientist/specialists do have the advantage of bringing about meaningful debate.

Just remember the boys from Utah...you remember those idiots don't you?...the ones who went public with their world shaking discovery of COLD FUSION.... heheheh...funny guys, those Utah wizards.... it was scientists worldwide who exposed those frauds. I didn't have the means to test their hypotheses, didn't have the math skills to write out the proofs... but scientists and specialists did.


Phil
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on What would be proof that God exists?

  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
32K
Replies
222
Views
13K
  • Last Post
14
Replies
338
Views
21K
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
255
Views
24K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
Top