How to prove God exists.

[Kenneth K. Carter]

Yeah! I gree to you

 

[Radrook]

Do you use a silver cord when you astral project?

What is that supposed to be-some sort of safety-rope similar to what mountain climbers use?
You know-in case one projects too far and needs to pull oneself back?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is that supposed to be-some sort of safety-rope similar to what mountain climbers use?
You know-in case one projects too far and needs to pull oneself back?

Correctamundo!

Astral projection is fooling around with the darkside.

It is reported that people who do that sort of stuff have gone crazy, claiming that a demon cut the cord and they are lost in the astral plane.

 

[Radrook]

Correctamundo!

Astral projection is fooling around with the darkside.

It is reported that people who do that sort of stuff have gone crazy, claiming that a demon cut the cord and they are lost in the astral plane.

Well, at one point in my life I was considering becoming a Rosicrucian and they spoke about astral projecting.

I chose to become a Christian instead. So maybe it is but by the grace of God that I am not presently stranded some forlorn God forsaken astral plane you mention for lack of using that safety chord you describe. Maybe dodged a bullet-eh? Rosicrucianism - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe dodged a bullet-eh?

Praise the LORD!

As John Bradford put it:

There but for the grace of God go I.

FWIW, I considered becoming a Hare Krishna!

 

[Radrook]

Praise the LORD!

As John Bradford put it:

There but for the grace of God go I.

FWIW, I considered becoming a Hare Krishna!

Years ago I came across two Hari Krishnas with tambourines and long robes. One asked me if I was from India. When I said that I am not he grabbed me by the arm and began insisting that I say Hari Krishna. Took a great deal of effort to distance myself from that fellow. Why would he insist on my saying that?

BTW
Praise the Lord as well for your choice!

 

[Radrook]

My life is proof enough for me to know God exists.

Amen!

Psalm 139:14 ►
New International Version
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

 

[Kylie]

How to prove God exists.

And what in that post shows that I have an emotional need for it? I am simply pointing out that if something can't be falsified, then it is not scientific. It not an emotional need, in just the same way that I don't have an emotional need for 1+1 to be equal to 2.

But since you claim that something doesn't have to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, can you show me something that is unfalsifable that IS presented as scientific fact?

 

[Kylie]

Gah! Absolutely, positively, false!

Edge.org



Emphasis mine.

Sounds to me that it is saying that we shouldn't stop investigating something just because it is unfalsifable AT THE MOMENT.

I mean, the idea of nuclear fusion was once unfalsifiable, wasn't it? And yet, that is now a scientific fact.

In any case, the passage is saying it is silly to refuse to CONTEMPLATE them. It is not saying that it is silly to refuse to present them as scientific fact - and no one is claiming we should do so.

 

[Michael]

Sounds to me that it is saying that we shouldn't stop investigating something just because it is unfalsifable AT THE MOMENT.

No, actually what he *really* said was this:

Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.

The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.

What he actually said was that your emotional requirement for "falsification" is about as "non-scientific as it gets".

This quote comes from a professional theoretical physicist who *completely* (diametrically) disagrees with your claim.

Nothing in physics and science is excluded from "science" based on any falsification requirement. That's your own personal pet peeve apparently, and that "belief" which you hold is considered to be as 'non-scientific as it gets' by professional physicists.

I mean, the idea of nuclear fusion was once unfalsifiable, wasn't it? And yet, that is now a scientific fact.

Actually it wasn't ever "unfalsifyable" even if it lacked any empirical (laboratory) support. It was a physical process that could be simulated in the lab even if we couldn't do so 100 years ago.

*Other* concepts however like "space expansion", M-theory, and exotic matter of the gaps claims cannot and never will be completely falsifiable ideas. One cannot prove a negative. It might be possible to falsify one or two mathematical models, but it will never be possible to falsify any generic "entity of the gap" argument, even if it comes from the realm of "science".

In any case, the passage is saying it is silly to refuse to CONTEMPLATE them.

But that's exactly what you're trying to do when you try to claim the idea of "God" isn't "scientific" based upon your own emotional needs.

Exotic matter ideas are considered "scientific" even though it would never be possible to falsify every potential energy state that might exist in nature.

No concept in physics is excluded from being "scientific' based upon any need for falsification. Your *emotional requirement* for falsification as it relates to the topic of God is ultimately irrational, and as "non-scientific as it gets".

 

[Michael]

And what in that post shows that I have an emotional need for it? I am simply pointing out that if something can't be falsified, then it is not scientific. It not an emotional need, in just the same way that I don't have an emotional need for 1+1 to be equal to 2.

If that were actually the case, your statement would not be in direct opposition to the statements made by Sean Carrol from Caltech.

But since you claim that something doesn't have to be falsifiable in order to be scientific, can you show me something that is unfalsifable that IS presented as scientific fact?

"Space expansion" is currently taught as "scientific fact", even though it is utterly and completely impossible to show that "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon in any lab on Earth, in this solar system, in this galaxy, or even inside the local galaxy cluster.

 

[Kylie]

"Space expansion" is currently taught as "scientific fact", even though it is utterly and completely impossible to show that "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon in any lab on Earth, in this solar system, in this galaxy, or even inside the local galaxy cluster.

Maybe because the gravity of such groups is enough to overwhelm the effect? You really think you know better than the scientists who have been studying this all their lives, don't you?

 

[zippy2006]

On the other hand, let's look at a theory that is not falsifiable and does not make any predictions - there are elves that live in my washing machine that steal socks. It is not falsifiable. If you look inside the washing machine and see no elves, I can say, "Oh, but they're invisible." Of you reach inside and can't feel them, I can explain it by saying they are intangible. Whatever you say to show the elves are not there, I can come up with some explanation to show they are the explains why your reasoning is wrong. and I can't use it to make predictions either. The elves steal socks completely at random. And sometimes they take other items of clothes instead of socks. I can never say if a particular sock will be stolen or not. Of course, this idea is silly.

1. Does this have anything to do with proving God's existence?
2. I suppose it goes without saying that science relies on certain basic and unfalsifiable axioms such as the principle of non-contradiction?

Edit: Started a new thread on theology and falsifiability here.

 

[AV1611VET]

You still won't present evidence for the existence of God.

I will.

It's AD 2017.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will.

It's AD 2017.

How is that evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

How is that evidence?

It's not even the most probable correct dating for the birth of Christ (if you believe in such things).

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that evidence?

You read right past it.

It's AD 2017.

Kinda like two atheists walking past a church and wondering if there's any evidence of God, while a car drives by with a bumper sticker that says MY BOSS IS A JEWISH CARPENTER, while the occupants are listening to THE FIRST NOEL on the radio and discussing how they got saved: one by watching a Christian TV program, and the other by reading a Chick tract that someone left in their door.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not even the most probable correct dating for the birth of Christ (if you believe in such things).

You're right.

Christ wasn't born in AD 2017.

But see how those two letters made you think of Him?

 

[Speedwell]

You're right.

Christ wasn't born in AD 2017.

But see how those two letters made you think of Him?

But the point is, none of that is evidence for the existence of Christ, it's evidence for widespread belief in the existence of Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the point is, none of that is evidence for the existence of Christ, it's evidence for widespread belief in the existence of Christ.

That's like saying seeing an apple fall from a tree is not evidence for gravity, it is evidence for the belief in gravity.