Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Chriliman]

Yep. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to put your ideas to the test.



If you can't figure out how that definition leads to the truth about reality, then you appear to have an extremely closed mind.

If the goal of the scientific method is to figure out the truth about reality, then I'm all for it!

Edited to fix error in post.

 

[Loudmouth]

85% of the world has some kind of faith, half are Christians i believe. Must be something to it.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/mysticism/world_religions_populations.html

 

[Loudmouth]

God answers prayers before you offer them up.

Based on what evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

If you can't figure out how that definition leads to the truth about reality, then you appear to have an extremely closed mind.

If the goal of the scientific method is to figure out the truth about reality, then I'm all for it![/QUOTE]

Very hard to take you seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the goal of the scientific method is to figure out the truth about reality, then I'm all for it!

Edited to fix error in post.

Still waiting for you to present a logical method that is not the scientific method.

 

[Chriliman]

Still waiting for you to present a logical method that is not the scientific method.

So thinking for oneself is the scientific method?

 

[bhsmte]

So thinking for oneself is the scientific method?

The ball is still in your court.

 

[Extraneous]

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/mysticism/world_religions_populations.html

Thats pretty close to what i said. I may have been wrong about half being Christian but there are about 2 billion worldwide, over a third according to your chart. So my assertion still stands.

 

[Chriliman]

The ball is still in your court.

I've clearly defined my method of figuring out the truth about reality and that is that I think for myself and am open to logical arguments that point to the truth.

If this is what the scientific method is all about, then I fully support the scientific method as well, however, I think the scientific method is more complicated than my own personal method.

 

[Loudmouth]

So thinking for oneself is the scientific method?

No, and I never said that it was. What you wrote here is much closer to the scientific method:

"Being open to all possibilities and facing the fear of the personal implications of the possibilities i.e. the implications of being wrong. Everybody fears being wrong about their deeply held beliefs and this is why it's very healthy to ask honest questions when our comfortable perception of reality is being shaken."

In science, we call that the null hypothesis, the conditions or observations that would falsify the hypothesis. This is the opposite of religious belief, where any observation or outcome is considered positive evidence for the existence of God.

For example, someone prays for their mother to survive an acute illness. Their mother lives and they proclaim that God saved their mother. Their mother dies and they proclaim that it was God's will, and that their prayer was still answered. Do you see the problem?

When there is absolutely nothing that will dissuade you that you are wrong, you don't have an open mind. Once you set up a testable hypothesis and null hypothesis, then you are doing science.

Just "thinking for yourself" is not logical, and about the worst way to find the truth. All you are doing is determining what you want to be true.

 

[bhsmte]

I've clearly defined my method of figuring out the truth about reality and that is that I think for myself and am open to logical arguments that point to the truth.

If this is what the scientific method is all about, then I fully support the scientific method as well, however, I think the scientific method is more complicated than my own personal method.

I have yet to see a logical method argument from you to find the truth.

It needs to be tad more detailed, than just thinking.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats pretty close to what i said. I may have been wrong about half being Christian but there are about 2 billion worldwide, over a third according to your chart. So my assertion still stands.

Which means two thirds of the world think Christians are wrong.

 

[Extraneous]

Which means two thirds of the world think Christians are wrong.

And 85% think you are wrong

 

[Loudmouth]

And 85% think you are wrong

Is there some quantitative threshold reached between 67% and 85% that I am unaware of?

 

[Extraneous]

Is there some quantitative threshold reached between 67% and 85% that I am unaware of?

There are only 16% who dont believe in some kind of creator. that leaves 84% who believe in some kind of creator.

 

[Extraneous]

Furthermore, a third of the world are Christian.

 

[Chris B]

85% of the world has some kind of faith, half are Christians i believe. Must be something to it.

Whatever faith you have, it's in the minority against all the others.
And the demographic distribution, down to quite fine detail, suggests that the pattern is explained very well by human history and culture. Wars and migrations, or the lack of them.
No amount of individual changes or conversions (in every direction) has made an impact on this, yet.

If one of the religious faiths was true in a sense different from the others I'd expect that to show more.
Some factor that wasn't covered by human history alone.

 

[bhsmte]

There are only 16% who dont believe in some kind of creator. that leaves 84% who believe in some kind of creator.

That 16% keeps growing. Education may have somthing to do with that, as there is correlation between higher levels of education and less belief in a god.

 

[Extraneous]

Whatever faith you have, it's in the minority against all the others.
And the demographic distribution, down to quite fine detail, suggests that the pattern is explained very well by human history and culture. Wars and migrations, or the lack of them.
No amount of individual changes or conversions (in every direction) has made an impact on this, yet.

If one of the religious faiths was true in a sense different from the others I'd expect that to show more.
Some factor that wasn't covered by human history alone.

1/3 isn't a minority, especially considering the fact that the rest are not of the same faith. Atheists only comprise 16%. The numbers are against you.

 

[Chriliman]

In science, we call that the null hypothesis, the conditions or observations that would falsify the hypothesis.

Right, which means the null hypothesis itself could be wrong and logic proves that it is wrong because the truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable. IOW, You can't prove the truth about reality wrong and this is because it is the truth, no matter how much you try to prove it wrong, you can't.

This is also exactly why the goal of scientific method is not to figure out the truth about reality, but rather the goal is that every truth claim about reality should be falsifiable, which is an illogical way to go about figuring out the truth about reality. This is why the scientific method is not the best and only way to figure out the truth about reality.