what do scientists think about fate and destiny

[Tayla]

When there is no proof, scientists use evidence to make theories.

In general however, there is no consensuses among scientists whether there is or isn't fate.
This is something that has to be proved before it can be made fact.

There is no scientific evidence for many things, because science can't explain everything.

Even "proof" of a theory is based on mere evidence. Certain hypotheses don't have sufficient evidence at this time (and maybe never will) to be considered as true.

I think consciousness is in this category. Just as we will never know what energy or entropy or space or time is; likewise for consciousness.

 

[Tayla]

Science also can't account for metaphysics (different dimensions outside of space and time) which is not testable.

If a spiritual realm outside the physical realm has no evidence for it, why would anyone even consider it as an option for belief?

And if there is some evidence, enough to justify belief in it, then the question is in the scope of science.

 

[Tayla]

As an eastern guru once said, "you can't poke the nonphysical with a physical stick."

The problem is that the so-called non-physical mind invents and imagines all kinds of things. There is no way to know which of these are true and which false without some evidence.

So, you can't even poke the nonphysical with a nonphysical stick.

 

[Tayla]

Early scientists pursued science, because their basis was that if God exists, there must be order in nature and thus testable.

The early scientists were the Greeks and Romans. They didn't believe in a monotheistic God.

Science did not derive out of Christian teaching and from the Bible.

 

[Tayla]

A scientist that see's evidence for God, will adjust their theory towards creation.

Scientists haven't detected any evidence for God.

 

[Tayla]

There have been interesting experiments that seem to show that processes in the brain are hard at work a half second before we are consciously aware of a 'spontaneous decision' to act.

I question that this proves what is claimed. It may just mean that the brain knows the conscious free will agent is going to decide soon. It doesn't prove that a decision was made by the brain outside of conscious free will.

 

[SelfSim]

I question that this proves what is claimed. It may just mean that the brain knows the conscious free will agent is going to decide soon. It doesn't prove that a decision was made by the brain outside of conscious free will.

That may well be because there is no test for something existing 'outside of conscious free will' or some 'free will agent', (or at least, outside of the mind conceiving them), anyway.

 

[Tayla]

That may well be because there is no test for something existing 'outside of conscious free will' or some 'free will agent', (or at least, outside of the mind conceiving them), anyway.

You've expressed the key point. A conscious agent can never know about such things as what consciousness is in its essence.

Scientists don't claim to know what energy is in its essence; rather, they merely treat it as something that exists and can be described.

 

[Jok]

The problem is that the so-called non-physical mind invents and imagines all kinds of things. There is no way to know which of these are true and which false without some evidence.

So, you can't even poke the nonphysical with a nonphysical stick.

That I am a mind, and that my mind is currently having a thought right now that Santa Claus is wearing a sombrero while skiing down a mountain covered in coffee grounds is a factual situation in reality. The only means of verifying that this is true is to use a non-physical tool called asking me a question and receiving my answer. Because this information is mine alone. My physical brain state can not give you this information that is factual, even if you have an exhaustive knowledge of physics.

 

[Strathos]

Scientists haven't detected any evidence for God.

That is not strictly true. They haven't found any definitive evidence, but there are things that suggest it. For example, the Big Bang theory, showing that the universe had a beginning, as opposed to the previously popular steady state theory, which posited that the universe was infinitely old and unchanging.

When the BBT was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, no less), many scientists at the time instinctively rejected it, because it sounded too similar to Genesis in the Bible: And God said, Let there be light.

 

[SelfSim]

You've expressed the key point. A conscious agent can never know about such things as what consciousness is in its essence.

All I know is: I need a mind.

Scientists don't claim to know what energy is in its essence; rather, they merely treat it as something that exists and can be described.

Desciption is evidence for my mind.
My mind updates my knowledge, with what 'energy' means.
Descriptions of 'energy' are objectively testable from other descriptions. The results provide us with the meaning of 'energy'.

 

[SelfSim]

That is not strictly true. They haven't found any definitive evidence, but there are things that suggest it.

I call such suggestions 'pointers' .. they carry no objective meaning.

For example, the Big Bang theory, showing that the universe had a beginning, as opposed to the previously popular steady state theory, which posited that the universe was infinitely old and unchanging.

Those were two possible meanings. The simplest meaning consistent with data, usually leads down the best path towards understanding .. (which is: BBT/LCDM/accelerating expansion).

When the BBT was first proposed (by a Catholic priest, no less), many scientists at the time instinctively rejected it, because it sounded too similar to Genesis in the Bible: And God said, Let there be light.

Lemaitre's suggestions came from an inferred recession of Hubble's measurements of the nearest 'spiral nebulae', (which turned out to be galaxies).

Others' instincts had nothing to do with the data .. therefore, they did not lead down the best path towards understanding.

 

[prosperity4all]

yes

 

[Ophiolite]

Desciption is evidence for my mind.
My mind updates my knowledge, with what 'energy' means.
Descriptions of 'energy' are objectively testable from other descriptions. The results provide us with the meaning of 'energy'.

Ironic that you are blissfully unaware, it seems, that words are a form of model. But don't stop. It's intermittently entertaining.