What is the universe? Which one seems more likely to you?

[Rick O'Shez]

Sorry, that is wrong. Science rests fundamentally on faith. Once that is accepted, the assumptions come into play.

No, science rests on testing theories and looking for objective evidence to support them. Religious belief rests on subjective wishful thinking, confirmation bias and clutching at metaphysical straws.

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm saying before theory comes the faith.

Nope... Before theory comes experiment
Before experiment comes observation
Before observation comes knowledge
Before knowledge comes assumption
Before assumption comes an idea
Before idea observations
Before observations comes facts

For example (Not real.. just for making my point):

Someone (A scientist for the argument sake ) sees ants are joining feelers when they meet
This is a Fact...
Then he observes and sees that each and every ant does the exact same thing but only in specific conditions
Then he ASSUMES that this is some sort of a communication mechanism...
Its not an issue of Faith.. its an assumption.. He might hope its the right assumption.. but the assumption is based on something real...
He then learns the subject
and do more observation based on what he learned
Then starts the experiments.. he tries to prevent ants from meeting..
He tries to disorient ants and see what happens...
He tries to see if different types of ants do the same and so on...
Then.. and only THEN when he can show that the experiments and observations and facts and ideas all WORK and provides true assumptions..He can declare it as a theory...

I'm still seeking whatever objective evidence anyone wishes to provide that the physical realm exists objectively. Alluding to physical senses as way to provide evidence is on par with saying God of the bible exists, because the bible says so.

Well.. you can't... and you won't.. But the difference is that the Estimations and assumption WORK, Unlike the Spiritual assumptions and estimations.

Never have even one single spiritual claim have proven itself to be more than a statistical claim.
Every person who ever claimed he poses super natural powers, have been falsified when facing the experiments.
There is a Hugh cash reward offered to the one person that will undoubtedly show that he truly posses above natural abilities...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

Unlike Any valid scientific theory, that actually works (This is how we have the technology we have!!!)

Likewise, saying the universe is nature and leaving it at that, really isn't saying anything. Again, I see it as equivalent to saying the universe is illusion, nothing more, nothing less. And leaving it at that. I'm not sure if there's a word that can't be used in that type of claim and be equally valid.

Well.. I'm not a naturalist.. so i can't speak in their behalf.. But who said the universe is nothing but natural?
All atheism is saying.. is that unless PROVEN .. there is no valid point in believing the super natural!

How comfortable is it that the spiritual cannot be proven

I Understand your confusion..
But go and learn how scientific discoveries came to be..
Learn a bit how theories were formed...
Almost none of them are based on a "Wild guess"...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hi all,
These days there are numerous Major theories what our universe is...
In a nut shell:

1. Creationism - God, a super natural deity, created, designed and controls our universe.
2. Aliens - Our universe was created as an experiment / solution / mistake by an advanced alien specie
3. Simulation - Our universe is actually a computer simulation and we are all just an AI on some super advanced computer
4. Naturalism - All there is is Nature, Nothing more, Nothing less.

Regards.

4, as far as we can tell. But there are firewalls keeping us from gathering evidence from "before" (the Big Bang), "inside" (Planck spacetime limits to the division of spacetime), and outside (the universe expansion accelerated to superluminal speed 13 billion light years in all directions). We have no evidence for how the universe came to be, or what ether, if any, in which it is suspended. Our insulated universe is natural, but we can't rule out external supernatural (whatever that means) conditions.

 

[Acim]

No, science rests on testing theories and looking for objective evidence to support them. Religious belief rests on subjective wishful thinking, confirmation bias and clutching at metaphysical straws.

Science rests on subjective wishful thinking, confirmation bias and clutching at metaphysical straws. Not really hard to establish this, but given that you don't establish the other, no need to do so in my post.

 

[Acim]

Nope... Before theory comes experiment
Before experiment comes observation
Before observation comes knowledge
Before knowledge comes assumption
Before assumption comes an idea
Before idea observations
Before observations comes facts

All hilarious. Before observations comes facts? Hilarious.
Would be interesting to see if you could back any of this up. Pretty sure you cannot.

For example (Not real.. just for making my point):

Someone (A scientist for the argument sake ) sees ants are joining feelers when they meet
This is a Fact...

Fact is disputable, but the idea that the scientist 'sees' a physical world at all is taken on faith.

Then he observes and sees that each and every ant does the exact same thing but only in specific conditions
Then he ASSUMES that this is some sort of a communication mechanism...
Its not an issue of Faith.. its an assumption.. He might hope its the right assumption.. but the assumption is based on something real...

The "based on something real" part is precisely the faith part.
All of what you're saying could occur in a night dream, and therefore equally applicable would be the assertion of "based on something real." The only reason that is disputable is because of awareness that it is a dream. Yet, still is 'really real' given the parameters, which are identical to what you are calling 'something real.'

He then learns the subject
and do more observation based on what he learned
Then starts the experiments.. he tries to prevent ants from meeting..
He tries to disorient ants and see what happens...
He tries to see if different types of ants do the same and so on...
Then.. and only THEN when he can show that the experiments and observations and facts and ideas all WORK and provides true assumptions..He can declare it as a theory...

Great, but none of this was necessary. Or as necessary as me going through the same wording of how this could occur in a night dream. Experiment is the part that once the fundamental faith is accepted, the assumptions and experimentation will follow.

Well.. you can't... and you won't.. But the difference is that the Estimations and assumption WORK, Unlike the Spiritual assumptions and estimations.

This would depend on the assumptions and estimations on both counts.

Never have even one single spiritual claim have proven itself to be more than a statistical claim.

Really? I'd make the spiritual claim that Now is the only moment that actually exists, and that (Now) exists eternally. Go prove that as a statistical claim. Get back to me when your proof is solidly made. Oh and good luck.

Every person who ever claimed he poses super natural powers, have been falsified when facing the experiments.
There is a Hugh cash reward offered to the one person that will undoubtedly show that he truly posses above natural abilities...

Again, this would depend on the assumptions and estimations being made. I assume the scientific method (or methods) to be supernatural. To not be physically observed in our world, to be supposition that adds to the value of actions in the physical realm. Certainly not natural to physical, but able to be done in relation with the physical (though not technically observable). So I estimate the scientific method (or methodology) is a super natural power.

I'd also go with Love (not the romantic, superficial variety) as supernatural power that is arguably occurring in this world, but is not of it.

Well.. I'm not a naturalist.. so i can't speak in their behalf.. But who said the universe is nothing but natural?

OP said, and I quote: "what our universe is...Naturalism - All there is is Nature, Nothing more, Nothing less."
This was one of 4 choices. Seeing that you and OP author kinda know each other, we can now assume that this 4th choice is not most likely to you.

All atheism is saying.. is that unless PROVEN .. there is no valid point in believing the super natural!

How comfortable is it that the spiritual cannot be proven

That Love exists cannot be proven? Like saying the scientific method cannot be proven to exist, but even better since Love actually holds value and meaning.
That Life exists, cannot be proven? That 'I am' exists cannot be proven?
Again, how is anyone (objectively) proving the physical exists, other than via faith or self justifying wishful thinking (such as a night dream has from the get go, or the physical realm has literally at all times)?

I Understand your confusion..
But go and learn how scientific discoveries came to be..
Learn a bit how theories were formed...
Almost none of them are based on a "Wild guess"...

Given my background and extensive understanding of philosophy, the mother of science, I'm kinda thinking I'm closer to accurate on what I'm speaking to. IMO, you're dealing with this from presumptions that philosophy 101 would hope the critical thinker would be willing to take quick remedial education classes, just to get up to speed.

 

[Perditus]

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · [more]

Scientists can have secular faith in their theories according to the textbook definition of "faith".

Resisting using "faith" and "science" in the same sentence is ridiculous. I'm aware that science absolutely abhors any reference, however subtle, which might link them to anything religious in nature, but it is not out of line to apply the term to the process.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science rests on subjective wishful thinking, confirmation bias and clutching at metaphysical straws.

If you really think that, then you have not understood the scientific method at all. You seem to indulge in anti-science rhetoric as a way of distracting attention from the fragility of religious beliefs.

 

[Acim]

If you really think that, then you have not understood the scientific method at all.

I'm thinking I understand it (far) better than you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm thinking I understand it (far) better than you.

I think you see science through the distorting lens of your religious belief. Clearly you have an axe to grind.

 

[jeager106]

"Testing" religion by scientific methods is pure mental masturbation.
Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven nor disproved.
Atheists revel in saying "prove this and that".
I challenge "prove" God and spiritual matters do not exist.
Well, go ahead and prove to me there is no Power of the universe greater than man.

"There is no god, there is no god, there is no god, there is no god, there is no god,

naa, naa, naa, nah!"

Childish but cute what?

 

[jeager106]

I think you see science through the distorting lens of your religious belief. Clearly you have an axe to grind.

An ax to grind.

Well YOU brought it up!

 

[Acim]

I think you see science through the distorting lens of your religious belief. Clearly you have an axe to grind.

Your opinion is noted. I still think I have better understanding of science and its (alleged) methodology than you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Testing" religion by scientific methods is pure mental masturbation.
Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven nor disproved.
Atheists revel in saying "prove this and that".
I challenge "prove" God and spiritual matters do not exist.
Well, go ahead and prove to me there is no Power of the universe greater than man.
View attachment 14652

"There is no god, there is no god, there is no god, there is no god, there is no god,

naa, naa, naa, nah!"

Childish but cute what?

Why do you need to believe in something unprovable?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

faith
[fāTH]
NOUN

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · [more]

Scientists can have secular faith in their theories according to the textbook definition of "faith".

Resisting using "faith" and "science" in the same sentence is ridiculous. I'm aware that science absolutely abhors any reference, however subtle, which might link them to anything religious in nature, but it is not out of line to apply the term to the process.

Why "complete" trust or confidence? That sounds like a definition of blind faith. Faith, at its' core, is our emotional motivation to believe or trust in something, based on the degree of reason that can be applied to it. I think of is as a ship with reason at the helm and faith as the motive power. Without reason at the helm, the ship runs off course and eventually runs aground. Without faith as the engine, the ship is dead in the water.

 

[jeager106]

Why do you need to believe in something unprovable?

Need? Need? Who needs?

Prove your mother loves you.
Prove anyone loves you.
Prove you love anyone.
There are many things, situations, beliefs, where scientific proof fails.
Prove to believers there is no God.
Consider that last a sincere challenge.
Prove to me or anyone that there isn't a Power of the universe greater than man.
"God" is just a convenient term.

 

[jeager106]

Why "complete" trust or confidence? That sounds like a definition of blind faith. Faith, at its' core, is our emotional motivation to believe or trust in something, based on the degree of reason that can be applied to it. I think of is as a ship with reason at the helm and faith as the motive power. Without reason at the helm, the ship runs off course and eventually runs aground. Without faith as the engine, the ship is dead in the water.

It can also be said that not believing is blind faith in the assumption that there is no God.
Get that?
A statement:
Atheists are unable to prove there is no God.
Therefor there is no bases to not believe in a God.
Therefor there is no basis to believe in atheism.
Atheism is lack of belief in something that cannot be proven.
Do you love someone?
PROVE IT.

 

[Neo Deist]

You forgot option #5...

God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature that govern it. The universe runs on its own without God steering the ship, because it follows a natural course based on those laws. Our place in the universe is governed by our actions, our advancing knowledge, our explorations, and our ability to design and create with technology that is ever expanding. We have free will and control our destiny.

 

[viole]

It can also be said that not believing is blind faith in the assumption that there is no God.
Get that?
A statement:
Atheists are unable to prove there is no God.
Therefor there is no bases to not believe in a God.
Therefor there is no basis to believe in atheism.
Atheism is lack of belief in something that cannot be proven.
Do you love someone?
PROVE IT.

True. i also have blind faith that planets are not carried around by invisible angels with a predilection for conic sections. For I cannot prove that planet carrying invisible angels (or are they fairies?) with a taste for geometry do not exist in the core of planets.

Guity as charged.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Perditus]

That sounds like a definition of blind faith.

Why not blind faith? I'm certain that, over the centuries, scientists have firmly believed in their theories to the extent that they've gone all out to prove them despite the costs to themselves and others.

Isn't that blind faith?

Don't you think Galileo risked all in his scientific assertions, which flew in the face of RC dogma, based on his faith that he was right?

 

[jeager106]

The best scientific minds once thought the sound barrier could never be broken.
General Chuck Yeager proven them wrong.
Some people believed McDonalds' burger meat was made of earth worms because
the meat contained Sodium erythorbate.
"earth + bate became bait thus earth worms"
(C6H7NaO6) is a food additive used predominantly in meats, poultry, and soft drinks.