If we test the predictions of our hypothesis and the results of our observations do not correlate with those predictions, we discard the hypothesis. If the results correlate with the predictions the hypothesis is supported.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If we test the predictions of our hypothesis and the results of our observations do not correlate with those predictions, we discard the hypothesis. If the results correlate with the predictions the hypothesis is supported.Science has no use for 'correlations' or the 'it' being invoked there.
Of course (no arguments about that) .. but both the (objective) hypothesis, and the recorded observations, are both demonstrably performed by the same type of (human) mind. There isn't any evidence of the independent existence of an 'it existing' being tested there. Its always a model being tested, therefore any correlations subsequently inferred, are between the hypothesis/prediction model and the observational/results model .. and therefore using such correlations to subsequently infer the existence of 'the thing itself', is a flawed argument, because it is not underwitten by results derived from the initial intersubjective modelling purpose of the test/hypothesis.If we test the predictions of our hypothesis and the results of our observations do not correlate with those predictions, we discard the hypothesis. If the results correlate with the predictions the hypothesis is supported.
Now there's a baited hook bein' dangled over the edge?!OK - but do you agree with it?
Nevertheless, the common inference is that the results of our observations reflect an influence popularly called 'reality'. I think it generally helps to communicate ideas if I use a familiar conceptual framework. YMMV.Of course (no arguments about that) .. but both the (objective) hypothesis, and the recorded observations, are both demonstrably performed by the same type of (human) mind. There isn't any evidence of the independent existence of an 'it existing' being tested there. Its always a model being tested, therefore any correlations subsequently inferred, are between the hypothesis/prediction model and the observational/results model .. and therefore using such correlations to subsequently infer the existence of 'the thing itself', is a flawed argument, because it is not underwitten by results derived from the initial intersubjective modelling purpose of the test/hypothesis.
After how many tries, tweaks, reprograms, redefines, votes, reviews, discards, and time-sensitive shortcuts?If we test the predictions of our hypothesis and the results of our observations do not correlate with those predictions, we discard the hypothesis. If the results correlate with the predictions the hypothesis is supported.
It's the other way around. People who
look at everything and think they are
seeing "god" have their eyeballs looking
back at their own lil brains
If I find myself fascinated by something, I
make every effort to understand it, rather
than ignoring what is said, or interposing some
idea of my own so as to block any information
that comes to me. It's a matter of intellectual
integrity something I hold in highest value.
There's no limits .. ain't it just wonderful?After how many tries, tweaks, reprograms, redefines, votes, reviews, discards, and time-sensitive shortcuts?
Ok .. (grumble .. grumble) .. marginally accepted .. (grumble, grumble) ..Nevertheless, the common inference is that the results of our observations reflect an influence popularly called 'reality'. I think it generally helps to communicate ideas if I use a familiar conceptual framework. YMMV.
I'm not belittling your faith in Jesus.I responded based on what the OP said (below).
Why do you bother trying to argue me down by belittling my belief in Jesus? Why do you care so much what I have to say?
I have just as much a valid point to contribute to this post as you do, whether you agree or not.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
That is your belief. It is not mine. I do not hold the Bible to be an accurate historical account. Telling me that the Bible proves Jesus existed only works once the Bible's accuracy as a historical text has been shown. And while I agree that some of the things mentioned in the Bible are true, that does not mean that the Bible's claims about Jesus are similarly correct.what?
He not only existed, he does exist.
Just because your spiritual eyes haven't been opened yet doesn't make what I say untrue.
Read the Gospel by itself, everything Jesus did and said in his ministry on earth and tell me what is so upsetting. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.
Once again you try to derail the thread because you can't actually address the discussion.I wouldn't expect anyone who has never been saved to understand what I'm talking about.
For those who got saved though, and have experienced all those benefits of salvation, then gave them up, I do expect them to understand what I'm talking about.
They usually like to talk about how they were saved at one time, then gave it up when science came into the picture.
But then they suddenly get lockjaw when someone asks them a simple question as to why they gave up so many benefits and don't want to talk about it.
I lived in the USA for several years andSo considering your above statement, I'm taking it that you are in no way fascinated by Christian theology, seeing as you appear to not be trying to understand it, (or by what people say about it) but instead mocking it and accusing people who believe it to be delusional.
If someone responds to an offer of love with an offer of hate - would that be a reasonable response in your opinion?
Interesting, so you believe you weren't doing that in response to my posts? I'd like to see how I did that in any of my posts here, especially in response to any argument that atheism is the ideal position to take when considering the universe and everything contained in it.
What you saidI'm not belittling your faith in Jesus.
I'm pointing out that religious faith does not count as scientific evidence. And the OP was specifically asking for scientific evidence for God.
That is your belief. It is not mine. I do not hold the Bible to be an accurate historical account. Telling me that the Bible proves Jesus existed only works once the Bible's accuracy as a historical text has been shown. And while I agree that some of the things mentioned in the Bible are true, that does not mean that the Bible's claims about Jesus are similarly correct.
Well it seemed that way telling me I had no right to be on this thread and share my view.not belittling your faith in Jesus.
I'm pointing out that religious faith does not count as scientific evidence. And the OP was specifically asking for scientific evidence for God.
So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.
That is your belief. It is not mine. I do not hold the Bible to be an accurate historical account. Telling me that the Bible proves Jesus existed only works once the Bible's accuracy as a historical text has been shown. And while I agree that some of the things mentioned in the Bible are true, that does not mean that the Bible's claims about Jesus are similarly correct.
The OP also did specifically ask, "Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?"Well it seemed that way telling me I had no right to be on this thread and share my view.
The OP wasn't really asking for scientific evidence, if you actually read what she said, she seemed to be pondering how to witness to people who need to "see to believe". In God, and what scientific evidence may there be to prove he exists? Maybe she assumed this community could help her with how to do that.
But she clearly answered her own question in the end (see the quote below).
I think much of what Jesus taught is pretty good. Be good people to each other, don't be jerks, that kind of thing. For the most part, I agree with the message that he taught. But simply agreeing with the message is not showing that the accounts being presented are accurate. There are good morals in the Harry Potter series, after all, and there are good morals in lots of different comic books. But the fact that these present good morals doesn't show that they are real. So why should I accept the argument that the Bible is more likely to be true if it has good morals in it?So, again you missed my point.
I said: read everything Jesus said and did in his ministry on earth (the 4 gospels) and tell me what you find disagreeable?
I never said try to force yourself to read it as anything other than a story.
I lived in the USA for several years and
talked to a number of Christians, accepted invites
to church, read the bible cover to cover. I got the
idea; it's not that hard. Remember too- satan knows
scripture!. I do know it better than Christians I've met.
I read Dante and Confessions of Sta, Augustine,
Pilgtims progress...I'm not a total noob.
Most Christians seem level headed enough.
My comment about seeing one's own brain is not
about all christians . It's more about such as a girl, we were
walking across campus in the fall. A fine red maple leaf
fell at our feet!
Look, she says, its a Sign from God, reminding us
of the Trinity!
So why does it have five parts. I ask.
Oh, it represents the Pentarch.
That's pretty goofy. Imo.
No mockery of Christianity will ever come from me.
But some individuals are pretty foolish.
Is it mockery to say so?
There was no accusation that anyone is delusional.
Not sure why you said that.
Or how the love / hate thing relates.
Atheism as an ideal position? No and triple no.
Ideals only exist as an abstraction. Atheism is not
a position.
I just don't believe in any God. It's super simple.
I do though think that filtering all one sees through
the filter of some belief or attitude isn't the way to really see or appreciate.,
When some see a snake, they wont even
be able to describe it, they just know it was terrifying,
hideously dangerous, perhaps accursed by God
in an evil fallen world.
I think i am more realistic than that.
Those who are terrified of snakes are spoiling something that might have been a highlight of the day.
Imagine my excitement when I came across a
juvenile king cobra!
Make sense?
No mockery of Christianity will ever come from me.
But some individuals are pretty foolish.
Is it mockery to say so?
There was no accusation that anyone is delusional.
Not sure why you said that.
That's your viewpoint, which is a position.Atheism is not
a position.
I just don't believe in any God. It's super simple.
GOD.I do though think that filtering all one sees through
the filter of some belief or attitude isn't the way to really see or appreciate.,
That's not how the scripture is to be read.When some see a snake, they wont even
be able to describe it, they just know it was terrifying,
hideously dangerous, perhaps accursed by God
in an evil fallen world.
I think i am more realistic than that.
Sure, we can admire these creatures - but to deny the dangers of approaching one and not consider the deadly poison in their bite is not realistic.Those who are terrified of snakes are spoiling something that might have been a highlight of the day.
Imagine my excitement when I came across a
juvenile king cobra!
If you take her entire OP into context, considering she answered her own question - I was purely agreeing to that fact. We can't witness to those that need physical evidence for Gods existence, if they don't already have some inner understanding that something is behind it all, reading scripture alone will not pierce their hearts.The OP also did specifically ask, "Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?"
Sharing your religious faith is not answering that question. Religious faith is not scientific evidence for God.
So why should I accept the argument that the Bible is more likely to be true if it has good morals in it?
Quoting scrip at me, esp passages everyoneSo if you've read the bible "cover-to-cover" as you say, then you should remember these passages:
1 Corinthians 1:27
Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
And:
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
20So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,f Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
As far as your story of the "girl" you mentioned was a fool, perhaps it was simply her exercising humility.
Matthew 18:3-4
3 Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. 4 So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
That's your viewpoint, which is a position.
GOD.
That's not how the scripture is to be read.
Sure, we can admire these creatures - but to deny the dangers of approaching one and not consider the deadly poison in their bite is not realistic.
That was exactly my point in responding to the OP on this thread.Quoting scrip at me, esp passages everyone
uses, is a waste of time. I will never accept them anyway.
Are you satisfied though that I have a good idea
what christianity is about
No?You had some other concerns. What were they?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?