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.
Such a test is not valid because you will judge the method by the outcome. If someone still claims that they didn't detect God you will say that they did it wrong.
I have found that religious explanations don't actually explain anything about the reality around us.
A drive or desire to find truth and clarity may indeed underlay religious thought, but that doesn't mean that religious thought actually yields truth or clarity.
As mentioned before, you discount negative results and stay with your conclusion anyway.
Many have faith in the scientific method because it has proven to be useful in determining true things, this means they anticipate future truths being revealed through the scientific method despite the fact that they have no direct evidence of those true things now. This is what faith in science means.
If you want to insist that I'm wrong and that faith is always unreasonable no matter what, then that's your dogma and you're welcome to it.
What we are saying is that religious faith is unreasonable.
They assume no such thing. The multiverse is simply a "what if" at this point.
This differs from religious faith which produces no verifiable predictions or observations to test its trustworthiness. This gets us back to falsifiability. If there is no outcome that could show religious faith to be untrustworthy, then how can we trust it? If we have to assume that religious faith is right now matter what, aren't we removing any idea of testing for trustworthiness?
What we are saying is that religious faith is unreasonable. Again, there are many meanings to the word "faith", and they are not interchangeable.
It is actually a possible result of the mathematical modeling of the Big Bang.
The Elegant Universe - Wikipedia
It is actually a possible result of the mathematical modeling of the Big Bang.
The Elegant Universe - Wikipedia
You don't have to assume my faith or anyone else's faith is always right in order to question it and come to your own conclusions. I hope we can agree on that at least.
You can't say "religious faith is unreasonable" without knowing all the reasons people begin believing in God.
What you're saying is analogous to saying, "There are no black swans because I've never come accross any."
No, there very well may be good reasons to believe in God, even though you claim to have never come accross any.
That's what makes the multiverse model a "what if" worth developing further. The tough part is finding a way to test it.
How can you question a unfalsifiable belief? If all possible answers support the belief, then what good are the questions?
To further the analogy, theists claim that black swans do exist. However, they can't offer any evidence that black swans do exist.
In order to cover up for the lack of evidence they invent reasons why no black swans can be seen. We are told that black swans are supernatural, so they can't be seen with the naked eye.
We are told that black swans speak to people in ways that no one can hear.
My point is that they intentionally assume the multiverse exists in order to explain phenomena that they observe in this universe. I agree, that not all scientists do this, but many physicists do.
Reasonable faith is based on good reason. Yes, I agree that some reasons may not be good and so should be disregarded when they're found to be bad reasons.
I agree, some beliefs are based on bad reasoning, but the belief was formed before it was made known that the reason was bad. No reasonable person believes something that is clearly wrong to them.
You see no difference between proof and evidence?
Yet LCDM *is* "taken on faith" starting with the "space expansion" genie.
You guys are *utterly unbelievable*! You're simply in pure denial of the "faith" aspects of "science". Admittedly multiverse theory wasn't the strongest argument, but it's yet *another* example of a perfectly "acceptable" idea in "science" that defies falsification. There is no requirement of 'falsification" in "science". That's a false atheists MEME, nothing more.
"Reasonable" faith as it applies to cosmology would be postulating a *proven* cause/effect relationship in the lab as the potential cause of some phenomenon in uncontrolled space. We might never be able to "prove" the idea entirely, but at least it's on good empirical footing.
"Regular faith" is postulating a *never been seen in the lab* cause as the assumed "cause" of something in space. It's not any different than creating a *supernatural* definition of God, particularly if the idea defies empirical testing in the lab altogether (space expansion).
You mean like when an atheist holds "faith" that they can just handwave away an idea due to some perceived lack of falsification potential?
Ow goody. A most original rant on cosmology again.
Do you understand the difference between assuming something and hypothesizing something? Because it sounds like you don't...
How can you question a unfalsifiable belief? If all possible answers support the belief, then what good are the questions?
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument based on evidence in support of religious faith. What I do know is the reasons that people give.
To further the analogy, theists claim that black swans do exist. However, they can't offer any evidence that black swans do exist.
In order to cover up for the lack of evidence they invent reasons why no black swans can be seen. We are told that black swans are supernatural, so they can't be seen with the naked eye. We are told that black swans speak to people in ways that no one can hear. We are told that black swans appear to people, but in ways that no light is interrupted. We are told that black swans make people write about black swans. No matter what, a belief in black swans is upheld by unfalsifiable beliefs in the face of no evidence.
Can you name any of these good reasons?
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?