Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

As I have reminded you at least several times before. Science does not support the old notion that the origins and the the evolution of life came about by chance nor randomness. The current definition of evolution does not include chance nor randomness

Please stop with the ignorance thing. As I said it doesn't bother me, but it just doesn't reflect well on you. It's just a stupid argument and I know you are smarter and better than that. Having said that, there certainly things I am ignorant of as I'm sure there are for you. So what? Who ever knew everything?

I must admit this is the first time I understood you to say that evolution is not chance nor randomness. At least I finally got it. Thanks for your persistence. Would it be very hard to explain to me the new theory. If not by chance or randomness, how does it occur? Is there any way to tell what new genus will spring from humans in the next 100,000 years? If not by chance, it seems it ought to be predictable. True?

These are serious questions. I'm done talking about the scriptures to you, but I would like to get a handle on the newest research.

 

[halbhh]

halbhh...I thinking you are missing the points in the definition.

Yes, superstition is unsubstantiated belief in supernatural, but you need to understand that word SUPERNATURAL, which is clearly what you have overlooked when you copy-and-paste the definition to “superstition”.

Supernatural is anything to do that isn’t “natural” and that defied the “laws of nature” or the “laws of physics”.

Supernatural may include entities or events, but it can also be both - where you could associate supernatural events to supernatural entities.

But more often than not, it can be also be associating natural events to supernatural being.

For instances, in the Book of Job, there are passages of many natural phenomena (eg rain, snow, lightning, thunder, cloud, moon, sun, stars/constellations, sea tides, etc, that were only given the claim of “God did it”. Not a single event or phenomena was ever given natural explanation. All those passages are just filled with archaic superstitions.

The person who wrote Job, was clearly superstition man, with no understanding of how nature work. To give you an example of the author’s lack of education, look at this passage:

​

Clearly, the author was well aware of the Greek myth about the hunter Orion and the Pleiades, and with their myth relating to the star constellation Orion and star cluster Pleiades. According to the myth Orion chase 7 sisters who were nymphs, trying to rape them, but the gods helped them escape from their would-be rapist, by turning them into stars.

The thing is, the imagery used to describe the Pleiades with chain and Orion wearing belt, were man-made description of the star constellations, but none of them are real, there are no real chain or belt.

And yet the author stupidity think these pattern of the constellations were real. And the worse the author did, was putting this superstition in God’s mouth, which would make god sounds like uneducated superstitious fool.

But superstitions can also be mortals performing supernatural events, such as turning water into wine, walking on water, stopping storm with few spoken words, healing the sicks by touching people with his hands or through spoken words like “Go and sin no more”, bringing the dead back to life (eg Lazarus), or raising whole bunch of dead saints and prophets from their graves/tombs, etc.

All these miracles of Jesus, would be considered as superstitions, all of them defying the law of nature.

The world is full of myths.

In my view, no one could know whether God exists -- the ineffable behind appearances -- without some kind of proof.

That's just me. (some people are like me in that way, and others very different)

Of course, all sorts of things we didn't know existed have been found over time, and a scientific attitude is to try to find what isn't yet found.

I was an atheist and then agnostic, for about 25 years altogether.

God not being a mere inert object nor a mere force of nature, but instead a conscious being with autonomy -- the instant implication is He might or might not choose to help you connect.

He might specifically choose to keep a person out, such as if the person is a waste of his time, for instance, due to some serious harmful attitude like personal arrogance, for instance.

It stands to reason you'd have to somehow meet the requirements of an ancient being who can choose whether to relate with you, his requirements.

Just to have any chance for him to be willing to answer the door when you knock.

Those requirements are findable, if one listens to one of the relayers in scriptures (of the common bible), and so anyone could then follow the instructions, and find out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've met humans that might seem to be apes, but all humans are in fact of the genus homo and apes are not.

Once again, genus Homo is in the family Hominidae. That family includes Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos besides humans:

Hominidae - Wikipedia

By the way that also means that we are in the Super Family Hominoidea. Or in other words we are apes:

Ape - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

In my view, no one could know whether God exists -- the ineffable behind appearances -- without some kind of proof.

That’s why believers need FAITH in their beliefs.

FAITH is trust or conviction in belief that is true, without relying on evidence.

And the BTW, mathematicians relied on proofs, scientists (in natural sciences) relied on evidence. Proof and evidence are two different things to mathematicians and scientists.

Proofs are logical or mathematical models that often expressed in the forms of equations, formulas, constants or metrics.

When you words such as “prove” or “disprove”, you are trying to solve equations using various mathematical techniques, such trying to simplify complex equations (eg breaking down a larger complex equations into multiple smaller equations), or trying build a larger equation from multiple smaller equations, etc.

Evidence, on the other hand, are some things physical that can be observed or detected, quantified, measured, compared, tested, refuted, verified.

Evidence are used to either - (A) verify if the model (eg explanatory/predictive model such as theory or hypothesis) is true, or (B) refute the model if it is false.

In another word, you are using the evidence to test the model (eg theory, hypothesis). Evidence are what determine if the model is science (probable) or is not science (improbable).

Science does use proofs (eg mathematical equations or constants) as part of the explanatory model, because maths are useful tools. Just as physicists use evidence to test the explanatory/predictive hypothesis (model), they also use the evidence to test the equations or test the maths; equations are mathematical models that require testing, tests that will determine if it is correct or wrong.

Your opening paragraph should be rewritten: Faith is conviction “without some kind of evidence”.

 

[Astrophile]

Where's the observation of one genus evolving into another. I understand we have fossils, DNA, etc, but all conclusions are inferences, not direct observation,

There is one simple argument, which goes as follows. There are no fossil humans, chimpanzees or gorillas in Miocene rocks, but it is obvious that modern humans, chimpanzees and gorillas must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch. (This follows from the principle that all life comes from life, that living organisms are not produced from non-living matter by spontaneous generation.) Therefore the Miocene ancestors of modern humans, chimpanzees and gorillas must have belonged to different genera from Homo, Pan and Gorilla. This proves that the ancestral Miocene genera must have evolved into the modern genera. Discuss.

Incidentally, the similarities between the DNA of the three modern genera, combined with the observed rates of genetic mutations, imply that the modern genera (Homo, Pan and Gorilla) diverged from a common ancestor that lived in Late Miocene times.

Suppose that Mr. Smith's house was broken into and some of his property was stolen, and that soon afterwards that property was found in the house of Mr. Brown, who lived several miles away. Would you accept that this was evidence that Mr. Brown was the thief, or would you say that this is only inference and insist on having direct observation of him breaking into Mr. Smith's house?

In what way is the theory of evolution different from other scientific theories that you do accept? For example, do you accept the existence of electrons, and, if so, have you observed them directly, or do you conclude that electrons exist because you have inferred their existence from compelling evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop with the ignorance thing. As I said it doesn't bother me, but it just doesn't reflect well on you. It's just a stupid argument and I know you are smarter and better than that. Having said that, there certainly things I am ignorant of as I'm sure there are for you. So what? Who ever knew everything?

Your misuse and use of old not relevant definitions and concepts in science deserved no quarter nor even symapthey

I must admit this is the first time I understood you to say that evolution is not chance nor randomness. At least I finally got it. Thanks for your persistence. Would it be very hard to explain to me the new theory. If not by chance or randomness, how does it occur?

Frist, I will search and cite another thread you authored where this is discussed concerning evolution in terms of Charles Darwin's writings, which are significant in history, but do not represent the science of evolution today.

Chance and Randomness are not a cause of anything. Fundamentally the Laws of Nature and natural processes determine the outcome of the cause and effect outcomes of the events in the evolution of life within the range of possible outcomes.

More to follow . . .

Is there any way to tell what new genus will spring from humans in the next 100,000 years? If not by chance, it seems it ought to be predictable. True?

No, false. I previously described how consistency and predictability functions in the science of evolution and you apparently ignored it.

These are serious questions. I'm done talking about the scriptures to you, but I would like to get a handle on the newest research.

These are serious science questions as per the topic of the thread. If these are science questions they are neutral to consideration of the Bible, which is not a science book, nor does the Bible address science.

If you want to start threads covering the Bible start one and we will discus the Bible.
.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please stop with the ignorance thing. As I said it doesn't bother me, but it just doesn't reflect well on you. It's just a stupid argument and I know you are smarter and better than that. Having said that, there certainly things I am ignorant of as I'm sure there are for you. So what? Who ever knew everything?

I must admit this is the first time I understood you to say that evolution is not chance nor randomness. At least I finally got it. Thanks for your persistence. Would it be very hard to explain to me the new theory. If not by chance or randomness, how does it occur? Is there any way to tell what new genus will spring from humans in the next 100,000 years? If not by chance, it seems it ought to be predictable. True?

These are serious questions. I'm done talking about the scriptures to you, but I would like to get a handle on the newest research.

I found one of the posts I previously addressed the question of 'chance' or randomness in evolution in post #45 jn
'The Believabliltiy of Evolution' The Believabliltiy of Evolution

Maybe a "perfectly precise order" was not the best way to put it. But, whatever arose by chance would have to depend on it's nourishment (and many other environmental variables) arising at the same time.

"Science does not propose life arose by 'chance.' Your statements remain not remotely how the objective verifiable scientific evidence supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis and evolution."

I will summarize the problem 'again' in another post shortly.

 

[halbhh]

That’s why believers need FAITH in their beliefs.

FAITH is trust or conviction in belief that is true, without relying on evidence.

And the BTW, mathematicians relied on proofs, scientists (in natural sciences) relied on evidence. Proof and evidence are two different things to mathematicians and scientists.

Proofs are logical or mathematical models that often expressed in the forms of equations, formulas, constants or metrics.

When you words such as “prove” or “disprove”, you are trying to solve equations using various mathematical techniques, such trying to simplify complex equations (eg breaking down a larger complex equations into multiple smaller equations), or trying build a larger equation from multiple smaller equations, etc.

Evidence, on the other hand, are some things physical that can be observed or detected, quantified, measured, compared, tested, refuted, verified.

Evidence are used to either - (A) verify if the model (eg explanatory/predictive model such as theory or hypothesis) is true, or (B) refute the model if it is false.

In another word, you are using the evidence to test the model (eg theory, hypothesis). Evidence are what determine if the model is science (probable) or is not science (improbable).

Science does use proofs (eg mathematical equations or constants) as part of the explanatory model, because maths are useful tools. Just as physicists use evidence to test the explanatory/predictive hypothesis (model), they also use the evidence to test the equations or test the maths; equations are mathematical models that require testing, tests that will determine if it is correct or wrong.

Your opening paragraph should be rewritten: Faith is conviction “without some kind of evidence”.

Faith is to believe without having seen.

Or to be really exactly on that key thing, to believe before seeing.

For example, to believe when one prays the Lord's prayer that our Father will do for us as the words in the prayer ask, to believe when we pray, and thus before the outcome. (and faith is required for prayers, we learn in Mark 11 and elsewhere)

I don't know if I'm like 20% of people, or 50% or what, but if none of the prayers were answered, then I'd guess, or I'd make the estimate, that in time the outcome of that (if it had happened that way) would have been that I would not have become a believer (one that has a strong and steady faith).
(I have to estimate what I'd think/conclude in that scenario, since in the real world all of my prayers have been answered, so I can only make a reasonable estimate of what might have happened in a whole different universe/situation; the real world fact is that God exists and answers prayers I discovered, to my considerable surprise (back in those days before I became sure about Him). I was surprised -- even though I'd managed to take a real leap of faith that first time. It took years though, much more testing, until I finally intellectually admitted there was no other explanation, after the continued proofs in widely varied situations continued to accumulate into the obvious. Once you see enough of sunlight over enough of days, no mattered the varied weather of various days, after a while you finally accept the sun will shine as being the real, the realistic view.)

 

[rrobs]

"Science does not propose life arose by 'chance.'

Now I'm really confused. Assume I am rather dull but am a student in one of your classes. Naturally, as a good teacher, you would do all could to help me pass your class. So here is what I am too dense to understand; since life is not by design, nor by chance, how did it begin? Remember, I'm a bit slow, so you would need to frame your answers in simple terms. If that is not possible, then I am doomed to fail your class. Since I'm really not an idiot, (3.8 GPA at Georgia Tech) surely you, as my teacher, would share part of the blame for my failure to get the right answer on the final.

So, very simple question, if life did not come by chance nor design, how did we get it? If the answer to a simple question like that is too complicated to explain to a simple but with a modicum of intelligence individual such as I, then the answer is suspect.

 

[shunyadragon]

Now I'm really confused. Assume I am rather dull but am a student in one of your classes. Naturally, as a good teacher, you would do all could to help me pass your class. So here is what I am too dense to understand; since life is not by design, nor by chance, how did it begin? Remember, I'm a bit slow, so you would need to frame your answers in simple terms. If that is not possible, then I am doomed to fail your class. Since I'm really not an idiot, (3.8 GPA at Georgia Tech) surely you, as my teacher, would share part of the blame for my failure to get the right answer on the final.

Intelligence nor GPA is NOT the issue. You gave false uninformed anti-science definitions for evolution, theory, and evidence. It remains a fact that you present a lack of knowledge of basic science and Methodological Naturalism.

Just like the teacher does with a red pen I have corrected your misinformation concerning the definition of evolution, theory, evidence in science, and what consistence and predictability means in Methodological Naturalism as it applies to all of science.

So, very simple question, if life did not come by chance nor design, how did we get it?

Design is a theological/philosophical assumption for the 'belief', and cannot explain the physical evidence for the nature of our physical existence. Simply if our physical existence is Created by God, the natural physical processes that science describes objectively reflect the manner how God Created our physical existence. God does not leave contradictions in the evidence of God's Creation.

Again, chance (a layman's word that does not relate to science) nor randomness do not determine the course of abiogenesis nor evolution. Simply, as explained before By definition randomness only occurs in nature in the outcome of the timing of individual events. The outcome of each event and the outcomes of chains of cause and effect events is limited by Natural Laws, and the variability is consistent and predictable, and is described as fractal in Math. Read up on books on fractal math called Chaos theory.

The Laws of Nature and natural processes are responsible for the origins and evolution by the consistent and predictability of the evidence. The variability in the outcomes in the cause and effect outcomes of events in nature as well as all of our physical existence is limited and constrained by the limits of Natural Laws.

If the answer to a simple question like that is too complicated to explain to a simple but with a modicum of intelligence individual such as I, then the answer is suspect.

It is unfortunate that it is assumed by you to reject the science of evolution based on a lack of knowledge of the science regardless of evidence. Over time I have already addressed all your questions from the perspective of sound science and math.

I had posted a rather comprehensive sources on evolution, and so far you have not even acknowledged it. The rather comprehensive articles and films on a high school level are some of the best to understand the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

 

[rrobs]

Intelligence nor GPA is NOT the issue. You gave false uninformed anti-science definitions for evolution, theory, and evidence. It remains a fact that you present a lack of knowledge of basic science and Methodological Naturalism.

Just like the teacher does with a red pen I have corrected your misinformation concerning the definition of evolution, theory, evidence in science, and what consistence and predictability means in Methodological Naturalism as it applies to all of science.



Design is a theological/philosophical assumption for the 'belief', and cannot explain the physical evidence for the nature of our physical existence. Simply if our physical existence is Created by God, the natural physical processes that science describes objectively reflect the manner how God Created our physical existence. God does not leave contradictions in the evidence of God's Creation.

Again, chance (a layman's word that does not relate to science) nor randomness do not determine the course of abiogenesis nor evolution. Simply, as explained before By definition randomness only occurs in nature in the outcome of the timing of individual events. The outcome of each event and the outcomes of chains of cause and effect events is limited by Natural Laws, and the variability is consistent and predictable, and is described as fractal in Math. Read up on books on fractal math called Chaos theory.

The Laws of Nature and natural processes are responsible for the origins and evolution by the consistent and predictability of the evidence. The variability in the outcomes in the cause and effect outcomes of events in nature as well as all of our physical existence is limited and constrained by the limits of Natural Laws.



It is unfortunate that it is assumed by you to reject the science of evolution based on a lack of knowledge of the science regardless of evidence. Over time I have already addressed all your questions from the perspective of sound science and math.

I had posted a rather comprehensive sources on evolution, and so far you have not even acknowledged it. The rather comprehensive articles and films on a high school level are some of the best to understand the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

Thanks. I'm beginning to see what you are saying.

I understand that randomness only occurs within natural laws and are thus limited by those natural laws. I hope that is at least close to what you said. In any case, it makes sense to me (nothiwithstanding my apparently flawed sensibilities .) Assuming that to be the case, from whence arose the natural laws? I would assume they originated, as does everything, from the big bang. If so, was it a rigid "program" somehow coded within the singularity, randomness, or some other mechanism?

I appreciate your patience. Don't assume I haven't looked at the things you've given me. Since you've been kind enough to take the time to show them to me, I figure the least I can do is look at them, which for the most part I have. My not agreeing with them does not mean I haven't looked at them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. I'm beginning to see what you are saying.

I understand that randomness only occurs within natural laws and are thus limited by those natural laws. I hope that is at least close to what you said. In any case, it makes sense to me (nothiwithstanding my apparently flawed sensibilities .) Assuming that to be the case, from whence arose the natural laws? I would assume they originated, as does everything, from the big bang. If so, was it a rigid "program" somehow coded within the singularity, randomness, or some other mechanism?

I appreciate your patience. Don't assume I haven't looked at the things you've given me. Since you've been kind enough to take the time to show them to me, I figure the least I can do is look at them, which for the most part I have. My not agreeing with them does not mean I haven't looked at them.

Why are the natural laws what they are? The honest answer is "We don't know yet.". That does not imply that a god exists or that one is necessary.

 

[rrobs]

Why are the natural laws what they are? The honest answer is "We don't know yet.". That does not imply that a god exists or that one is necessary.

Sounds good. I can see why it wouldn't imply, let alone prove, that God exists or is necessary. But on the flip side, it does not imply or prove He does not exist.

Seems like not knowing where the natural laws came from casts doubt on every theory, indeed, any science at all, that relies on natural law. Not saying any or all scientific theory is wrong, but we really don't know whether it's genesis lies in creation or whatever is the proper scientific term for "not" creationism. I'll defer to you for that term.

The upshot seems to be that if we don't know where the natural laws came from, we can't say one way or the other about the origin of the universe. It could be from God as explained in Genesis (in 6,000 year old Semitic language terms, you could hardly expect them to know calculus or have atom smashers at their disposal. Doesn't make them stupid though). Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. In view of that, how can you all into question the intelligence of someone who believes God is the creator?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds good. I can see why it wouldn't imply, let alone prove, that God exists or is necessary. But on the flip side, it does not imply or prove He does not exist.

Seems like not knowing where the natural laws came from casts doubt on every theory, indeed, any science at all, that relies on natural law. Not saying any or all scientific theory is wrong, but we really don't know whether it's genesis lies in creation or whatever is the proper scientific term for "not" creationism. I'll defer to you for that term.

The upshot seems to be that if we don't know where the natural laws came from, we can't say one way or the other about the origin of the universe. It could be from God as explained in Genesis (in 6,000 year old Semitic language terms, you could hardly expect them to know calculus or have atom smashers at their disposal. Doesn't make them stupid though). Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. In view of that, how can you all into question the intelligence of someone who believes God is the creator?

What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. This is also known as a God of the Gaps argument. God keeps getting smaller and smaller over time with this sort of claim as various processes are understood. At one point God was needed for weather, and even the Sun rising and setting. Now we understand those phenomena. No need to insert a god in the process.

By the way, we know that Genesis is mythical. The sciences demonstrate that without a doubt. Though you are probably not a Flat Earther there is really no difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist. Neither has any scientific evidence for their beliefs and the other side has almost endless evidence. So why believe in creationism if you are not going to go totally bat**** crazy and belief in a Flat Earth as well?

And no one has called ancient Hebrews were stupid. They were merely naturally ignorant. It took thousands of years to build up the base so that we could make scientific discoveries. It is not a matter of people being smarter today. No one has claimed that.

 

[rrobs]

What you are proposing is a logical fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. This is also known as a God of the Gaps argument. God keeps getting smaller and smaller over time with this sort of claim as various processes are understood. At one point God was needed for weather, and even the Sun rising and setting. Now we understand those phenomena. No need to insert a god in the process.

By the way, we know that Genesis is mythical. The sciences demonstrate that without a doubt. Though you are probably not a Flat Earther there is really no difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist. Neither has any scientific evidence for their beliefs and the other side has almost endless evidence. So why believe in creationism if you are not going to go totally bat**** crazy and belief in a Flat Earth as well?

And no one has called ancient Hebrews were stupid. They were merely naturally ignorant. It took thousands of years to build up the base so that we could make scientific discoveries. It is not a matter of people being smarter today. No one has claimed that.

I think I'm clear on how you feel about Genesis. I respect your view. Now I'm trying to move beyond the Bible into science.

Specifically, I understand that a god need not be a part of the process. In my last post I was more interested in your take, from a scientific point of view, on a very fundamental part of the process, i.e. how the all the various interactions of matter occurred that resulted, after a period of 4.5 billion years, in our having a conversation.

In my ignorance I suggested chance. You let me know you are tired of hearing creationist use the word "chance" incorrectly. You were then kind enough to set me straight. Now that I've seen the light, I know that all those chance occurrences took place within a framework of "natural laws." That makes perfect sense.

Do you think science will ever figure out where the natural laws came from? Are they doing research along those lines?

Take care

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I'm clear on how you feel about Genesis. I respect your view. Now I'm trying to move beyond the Bible into science.

Specifically, I understand that a god need not be a part of the process. In my last post I was more interested in your take, from a scientific point of view, on a very fundamental part of the process, i.e. how the all the various interactions of matter occurred that resulted, after a period of 4.5 billion years, in our having a conversation.

In my ignorance I suggested chance. You let me know you are tired of hearing creationist use the word "chance" incorrectly. You were then kind enough to set me straight. Now that I've seen the light, I know that all those chance occurrences took place within a framework of "natural laws." That makes perfect sense.

Do you think science will ever figure out where the natural laws came from? Are they doing research along those lines?

Take care

The reason that the word "chance" does not apply is because it is a statistical process and natural selection removes the elements of chance.


Think of it this was, every lottery tends to have an eventual winner. The amount of money keeps going up so the number of people that buy tickets continually increases. Any one winner will be a random event. But the fact that their will be a winner is not random. Merely when it occurs. And over time certain trends will become obvious. One can make predictions on roughly when a win will occur because of these trends.

As to where the natural laws came from some are understood, some are not. Often one answered question creates even more questions. Will we ever get an answer for the cause of the natural laws? It is hard to say. We keep making advances so I do not see why not, but some may be forever beyond our reach. I do not know exactly what the next step in particle accelerators will be, but it is likely that it will have to be built in space. It appears that we may be close to being maxed out for accelerators on the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Sounds good. I can see why it wouldn't imply, let alone prove, that God exists or is necessary. But on the flip side, it does not imply or prove He does not exist.

You are still missing the points.

Natural sciences explain nature through understanding the natural laws and through natural mechanisms.

Things like gods, demons, spirits, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, afterlife, are not natural, but if you you want to believe in such things, then that’s your personal choice.

But in natural sciences, such believe cannot be observed, nor tested, because it not possible to find evidence for the supernatural, therefore they are all irrelevant and would not be subjected to scientific investigation.

There are no such things as supernatural sciences or religion science or creation science or god science or magic science or psychic science, because they would be all pseudoscience.

There used to be attempts to scientifically study paranormal and psychic phenomena during the 20th century, called parapsychology.

Parapsychology would have fallen under the social sciences (like psychology, anthropology, etc), not natural sciences.

But after decades of not finding any evidence for psychic phenomena, parapsychology was deemed to be pseudoscience, therefore it would fail to fall under the category of “social science”.

There are studies for religions and their beliefs, they are called theology, biblical studies, comparative religion or comparative mythology, etc. They are not scientific studies.

 

[rrobs]

You are still missing the points.

Natural sciences explain nature through understanding the natural laws and through natural mechanisms.

Things like gods, demons, spirits, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, afterlife, are not natural, but if you you want to believe in such things, then that’s your personal choice.

But in natural sciences, such believe cannot be observed, nor tested, because it not possible to find evidence for the supernatural, therefore they are all irrelevant and would not be subjected to scientific investigation.

There are no such things as supernatural sciences or religion science or creation science or god science or magic science or psychic science, because they would be all pseudoscience.

There used to be attempts to scientifically study paranormal and psychic phenomena during the 20th century, called parapsychology.

Parapsychology would have fallen under the social sciences (like psychology, anthropology, etc), not natural sciences.

But after decades of not finding any evidence for psychic phenomena, parapsychology was deemed to be pseudoscience, therefore it would to fall under the category of “social science”.

There are studies for religions and their beliefs, they are called theology, biblical studies, comparative religion or comparative mythology, etc. They are not scientific studies.

The natural laws...where did they come from?

Subduction Zone, a geologist for 50 years, a anti ID guy said they don't know. I didn't ask him where the energy, the original mass, of the universe came from, but maybe you would know.

 

[ppp]

The natural laws...where did they come from?

Subduction Zone, a geologist for 50 years, a anti ID guy said they don't know. I didn't ask him where the energy, the original mass, of the universe came from, but maybe you would know.

And if he doesn't know where it came from, then what? Is your argument that if no one knows then it must be your god?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The natural laws...where did they come from?

Subduction Zone, a geologist for 50 years, a anti ID guy said they don't know. I didn't ask him where the energy, the original mass, of the universe came from, but maybe you would know.

Why do you keep asking this pointless question?

Part of wisdom is knowing which questions are of value and which ones are not.