Science is UNPROVABLE but God is TRUTH

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Untun

The collapse of the Precursors' Birch World that took out the previous universe due to a failure of the Novae Reclaiment bridge that sustained it. The supermassive black hole at the heart of the Birch World was converted to a white hole. The new supermassive white hole expelled such a vast amount of matter that it caused gravity to pull in the previous universe akin to a "big crunch". This created a hypermassive black hole which through omni-directional quantum bending consumed the supermassive white hole. Eventually the singularity caused by this event triggered the big bang that is why our universe exists today.

Yes I just made all of that up. Scientifically it is as valid as "God did it".

The actual and honest answer is "I don't know". And neither does anyone else. They have theories & hypotheses.

I assume it's not plausible not to know God did it, too.

Have a Nice Day.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ltrz2025

This is just complicated sophistry to say "God did it".

Science doesn't try to answer if God does or does not exist. It's not a scientific question. Nor a mathematic one for that matter.

You are just using God to fill the gaps in human knowledge. That sort of thinking is what led to the dark ages & is inherently one of stagnation.

What I write is not "complicated" at all. I put everything in simple terms, and I even made simple analogies to explain what I'm saying. My words probably create cognitive dissonance in your materialistic mind, because you are not used to talk at this level. You clearly know nothing of metaphysics, which humans have been doing even before civilization started. You live in the western world and all that has been denied to you. I understand that and put no blame in you.

True when you say: "Science doesn't try to answer if God does or does not exist, it's not a scientific question, nor a mathematic one for that matter". That's what I've been explaining all the way. Your dishonesty lies then in that you only seem to accept this thing you call "science" as the only source of valid information. That's a very narrow window you have, which I respect, you can believe what you want. But the fact that you cannot see the other windows, doesn't mean that they don't exist. Just that you can't see them.

Then, when you are telling me that I'm "just using God to fill the gaps in human knowledge", that's an assumption from your part, a "belief" that you have, without knowing me. Are you then using your "personal fantasies" as a way to "fill the gap" of your lack of understanding towards my words?... I know you are probably a nice person, but you are also being a hypocrite and, therefore, dishonest. Mean no disrespect, I swear.


And I won't debate this any longer. There is no point really.

a reply to: neoholographic

Our curiosity, our overwhelming desire for knowing, our need for understanding, and being understood, comes with solutions that will guarantee confusion and conflict when presented to others. Our need to name and label everything, serves the purpose of sharing what we have determined to be truth. We share our beliefs to confirm our beliefs to ourselves and to form agreements that may aide in making new discoveries.

We both may be looking at a rose, but if I have labeled a rose as a vegetable, and you have labeled it as hypithous, it does not change what the rose actually is. It only makes the rose an area of contention.

A rose by any other name, few have not heard those words, but we hear, we process what we hear and see, and it is filtered through an often faulty, and limited processor.

People do not easily let go of things that they have been taught to believe, either by education or by experiences. Belief is much stronger than truth, because truth is easily destroyed. It can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye. While belief has usually been ingrained in you for years.

Personally, I think fighting over what is true, when there is a conflict, is a waste of time. I think the energy is better spent, looking at what you have to deal with, working a the solution that best fits, and looking at how you got here, only after the solution is in place, solid, and working. Hindsight works as prevention for something that has already failed. It usually is not visible until after the damage has been done.

Another ignorant post by the OP.

Science has NOTHING to say about a god or supernatural creatures. Why? Because neither side of the issue can present hard evidence. Neither an atheist nor a believer can produce evidence that science can test and analyze.

The problem with the OP and others is that they don't understand how science works. Science is discovery, evidence and repeatability. That's why we use the scientific method as a guide.

Bottom line is: no evidence, no science. And stop blaming science for your own ignorance. End of message.

a reply to: Phantom423

Bravo!

a reply to: ltrz2025

The point is atheism confuses some facts for valid points in an argument entangling the whole situation as a blender into a mix of gwar gwar, undeniably.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Also science is UNPROVABLE!

Science is a system - many different systems, in fact.

The scientific method/process can be used to 'prove' or 'disprove' (or fail to 'prove' or 'disprove') individual hypotheses.

It can also be misused in the same way by those with selfish (greed) or malicious (evil) intent to manufacture false evidence of 'proof' or 'disproof' of any given theory/hypothesis.

In this context, it is - or should be - understood that 'prove or disprove' don't mean 'to a degree of certainty that is absolutely 100% beyond question', as I would agree that nothing should ever be considered in such absolutes.

But, it is beyond question that science can provide objectively supported reasonable explanations for observed phenomena that satisfy to a great degree the likelihood of something being true or not true to one degree or another/one way or another, enough to do things like build airplanes that can reliably move people and goods around the world.

LOL. Everyone today "worships" science because that's what makes their little mobile phones and internet work.

Sadly, today, people's lives (specially for those under 40 years old) consists basically on their INTERNET LIFE, their social media, their contacts and emojis in Facebook and Whatsapp, or whatever crap they are using these days.

Real life, real love, real friends and real relationships seem to have stopped existing for the vast majority of people under 40. But they don't see it, because they simply don't have anything to compare it to, and their parents are "dumb boomers"...

But these young people have very limited understanding of the very limited reach that this thing that today they call "science" has. Science will never DEFINE things, it's useless to try to find any answer in science. Science, in the best and very limited scenario, can explain "sort-of" how things "seem" to function, and nothing else.

For example, using "science" we know HOW to make a plane fly, how to build it, what material to use, what engine, etc. We know that if we tie a brick to a turbine and turn it on, at certain velocity, the brick will fly. But "science" HAS NO IDEA what gravity is or what causes it, or what ENERGY is, or what a FIELD is, or where MATTER comes from, and will never know that.

Science is literally a blind dude trying to take a dump, and using his toes to detect where the toilet is. And, guess what, most of the times, it misses the toilet! Like the theory of evolution, which main aspects are "accepted", but no one has really any clue of how it actually works in detail, and frankly they know that no one ever will. The universe is simply TOO vast and TOO complex to comprehend.

Plus, the amount of corruption that today is present in "science' is simply off the charts. Just to give you an example, Coca-Cola is the main donor of money for nutritional studies... what does that tell you?....

Science will NEVER give you ANY answers. Any honest scientist will tell you this.

I wonder how God and Wave–particle duality work..

is god a wave sometimes and a particle other times ?
will god behave differently depending on how god is viewed, directly or indirectly ?

a reply to: Phantom423

Your post supports what I'm saying and shows how limited scientific evidence is because it's a posteriori truth. You put forth a strawman argument like you usually do because you can't debate or refute what I said.

You tried to put the believer and the non believer in the same weak boat that you're stuck in. You're limited to a posteriori truth which is contingent. So you're limited to what your shell can know through the scientific method in 3 dimensions. You're the one stuck in Plato's cave not me or other believers. Here's a good video on a posteriori truth if you don't understand what that means.



Your only truth is contingent and comes from the scientific method which leaves you with theories that are unprovable and contigent. Here's a quote from Einstein:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.

This is the limit of your knowledge! You're stuck in contingent truth that's unprovable. Here's more:

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

www.forbes.com...

Again, you made a strawman argument by trying to say the believer shares your weak position. They don't. You're the one that limits all that you can know to the scientific method. You're the one in a weak box where your knowledge is unprovable and contingent.

Let me say that again:

Again, you made a strawman argument by trying to say the believer shares your weak position. They don't. You're the one that limits all that you can know to the scientific method. You're the one in a weak box where your knowledge is unprovable and contingent.

The believer is not limited to your Plato's cave mentality. We can have a priori truth through reason and logic(watch the video if you don't understand the difference it's a short video).

The Bible tells us to think outside of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Jesus is not of this world, God is outside of our perception of time, Paul went to the Third Heaven, the Bible talks about everlasting to everlasting and the Highest Heavens.

So the Bible tells us there's a reality outside of our limited 3 dimensional perception that holds our reality together. The Bible says Jesus holds all things together with the Word of His Power.

What does your limited, contingent science say?

It says our perception of time is an illusion. Einstein said:

"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

In his book Relativity he said:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Again, all you can know about time is limited to a stubbornly persistent illusion. Here's more:

Why More Physicists Are Starting to Think Space and Time Are ‘Illusions’

A concept called “quantum entanglement” suggests the fabric of the universe is more interconnected than we think. And it also suggests we have the wrong idea about reality.
Link

Religious leaders and Philosophers have been saying for years that everything is interconnected using reason and logic and science is just starting to catch up.

So you and other atheist/agnostics in this thread still haven't answered the question. You just obfuscate and make strawman arguments.

So this is proof a God-like being is a necessary truth in all possible worlds unless you can show evidence that a possible world can exist without Transcendent Truth. Is there a possible world that can exist without Transcendent Truth?

Of course you will obfuscate because you limit ALL THAT YOU CAN KNOW to a posteriori truth which is contingent. You choose to remain stuck in Plato's cave and you can't limit believers to your closed mindedness.

The OP just shot off another failed hot air balloon.



Once again:

Science has NOTHING to say about a god or supernatural creatures. Why? Because neither side of the issue can present hard evidence. Neither an atheist nor a believer can produce evidence that science can test and analyze.

The problem with the OP and others is that they don't understand how science works. Science is discovery, evidence and repeatability. That's why we use the scientific method as a guide.

Bottom line is: no evidence, no science.And stop blaming science for your own ignorance. End of message.

Repeat after me: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.

Now theres a thought : Science IS Proven To Not Exist when the number absolute zero conflicts with itself and God is all thats left. It may be that all humanity will wake up one day and keep on keeping on ! a reply to: Terpene

I think it may depend on whether one believes in him. As in faith. That is why faith is so important to god (or the creation if you prefer to see it like that) and also the reason christianity makes so little sense to so many people.
a reply to: zerbot565

a reply to: neoholographic

Every age of mankind has been the "pinnacle" of science.

We (as a species) are so arrogant to think the "science" is complete and that there is nothing more to learn.

Wouldn't it be interesting if science proved thew existence of God.

a reply to: DBCowboy

We (as a species) are so arrogant to think the "science" is complete and that there is nothing more to learn.

Can you quote a single scientist who ever said that? I think not.

Wouldn't it be interesting if science proved thew existence of God.

When science is provided with the evidence, science will prove it right or wrong. No evidence, no science.

a reply to: Phantom423

lol

"The science is settled"

a reply to: DBCowboy


What's that supposed to mean? You settled the science?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Just in case you don't understand (obviously you don't) how that phrase is regarded by scientists:

No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Sadly, today, people's lives (specially for those under 40 years old) consists basically on their INTERNET LIFE, their social media, their contacts and emojis in Facebook and Whatsapp, or whatever crap they are using these days.

Does the irony escape you that you are doing exactly what you described here on ATS?

Science will NEVER give you ANY answers. Any honest scientist will tell you this.

Then don't go to the DR. when you get sick. The clerk at the 7/11 should be able to help you more than any dumbass trained in medical practices.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: DBCowboy

Just in case you don't understand (obviously you don't) how that phrase is regarded by scientists:

No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken.

Look covid proved that the "science" is never settled.

But look at every damned pundit and scientist on the tv saying it was.