It can't. Just because the predictions are 100% right all the time, Does not mean the mechanisms are the same.
That's something you can observe, most science is not. You can only look at the outcome, not the mechanism by which it happens.
Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
You've answered it in the second part and I disagree.
I feel its more than just a model (some bits are but a lot fits together so nicely and is very deep indeed)
What? umm no... Malaria kills over 3 million people a year. I don't think even religion can top that.
Nope, that would be malaria, which comes in well ahead of any man made death mechanism. Communism would probably come in next with old Joe racking up a pretty impressive death toll. If National Socialism had been given the same amount of time as Communism then I would bet it would have done lots better. Religion is probably next if you lump them all together. Maybe.
You possibily need to learn a little more history. BTW I am agnostic so don't feel any real need to stick up for religion, I am also athestic towards the abrahamic faiths which tend to be the ones big on killing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ GOD
I believe in myself -
That's what John Lennon said ' I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me'
After all he was the Walrus
AGH! just gone into Ferris Beuller mode
But isn't that the point of science, to study the mechanism itself?
Once the mechanism is understood, then the results agree with the prediction 100% of the time. And all observables can be related to those mechanisms.
If the above isn't true then the mechanism isn't understood fully.
Attention - faith alert.
So be it...lol
I have an exam on foundations of quantum theory, Need to look at operator algebra more eek!
I used to be an atheist. Then I have read a lot of Dolph's posts on the issue, I also read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I have decided to convert *back* to being an agnostic.
There are a huge number of alternative theories when it comes to the exact origin and nature of the universe, and I find atheist a little too restricting. And here is my reasoning :
Whilst we could treat our entire universe scientifically, that depends on the ruleset defined within our universe, universal constants, rules, laws of mavity etc etc. Anything "within" this system that follows the rules of the system is defined as "natural", and by definition, anything that exists within the system but does no follow the rules is defined as "supernatural". I myself do not believe in the supernatural, but I half wish there was, it would make the universe much more interesting ^^ (though Dawkins himself calls "supernatural" in this case "perinatural", as in the natural that has not yet been discovered.
However, when it comes to a "god" or higher level entity, there are a few options that people don't really seem to explore. Here are some randoms examples from the top of my head :
1) A rational universe developed from the big bang, which is a random singularity (pure scientific atheist type universe)
2) A rational universe developed from the big bang, set in motion and configured by a higher level entity (a certain amount of theism required).
3) A rational universe developed from the big bang, set in motion and configured by a higher level entity (a certain amount of theism required), the creator himself within a universe (its own ruleset, big bang etc etc)
Now the "creator/meddler" model requires that the creator/meddler to be in a "higher level system" that is itself a type of system. Most religions simply define the higher level entity to be either *the system itself* or part of some system that is infinite and undefinable by man. But surely, it is possible that the system be similar to ours, possibly even started by its own "big bang"?
Then we could have universes inside of universes, where an entity from one level of universe "creates" the conditions for a lower level of universe, fulfilling the role of "god", without dismissing all the science which we have today. Incidently, the entity itself could be contained within its' own system or universe, which could also be defined as a set of rules, either by accident or by another entity. God having his own god, for example.
The problem with atheism is that it explicitly defines that this type of system, even if it eventually goes back up to a "self-developing" almost darwinian system, could not exist. That our universe is finite in its definition and cannot have higher levels of entities, systems outside of systems, parallel universes potentially *with* higher level entities whereas ours does not... etc etc. I find it a little restricting. Whilst I do not believe that an entity *does* interfere with the rules (supernatural abilities/miracles), it is just as possible as if we could look into a lower "dimension" of life and effecting it somehow.
I just don't think science/philosophy can handle all the options coming from a purely atheist background, especially concerning the constants, laws and boundaries of our universe are concerned.
There are a huge number of alternative theories when it comes to the exact origin and nature of the universe, and I find atheist a little too restricting. And here is my reasoning :
Whilst we could treat our entire universe scientifically, that depends on the ruleset defined within our universe, universal constants, rules, laws of mavity etc etc. Anything "within" this system that follows the rules of the system is defined as "natural", and by definition, anything that exists within the system but does no follow the rules is defined as "supernatural". I myself do not believe in the supernatural, but I half wish there was, it would make the universe much more interesting ^^ (though Dawkins himself calls "supernatural" in this case "perinatural", as in the natural that has not yet been discovered.
However, when it comes to a "god" or higher level entity, there are a few options that people don't really seem to explore. Here are some randoms examples from the top of my head :
1) A rational universe developed from the big bang, which is a random singularity (pure scientific atheist type universe)
2) A rational universe developed from the big bang, set in motion and configured by a higher level entity (a certain amount of theism required).
3) A rational universe developed from the big bang, set in motion and configured by a higher level entity (a certain amount of theism required), the creator himself within a universe (its own ruleset, big bang etc etc)
Now the "creator/meddler" model requires that the creator/meddler to be in a "higher level system" that is itself a type of system. Most religions simply define the higher level entity to be either *the system itself* or part of some system that is infinite and undefinable by man. But surely, it is possible that the system be similar to ours, possibly even started by its own "big bang"?
Then we could have universes inside of universes, where an entity from one level of universe "creates" the conditions for a lower level of universe, fulfilling the role of "god", without dismissing all the science which we have today. Incidently, the entity itself could be contained within its' own system or universe, which could also be defined as a set of rules, either by accident or by another entity. God having his own god, for example.
The problem with atheism is that it explicitly defines that this type of system, even if it eventually goes back up to a "self-developing" almost darwinian system, could not exist. That our universe is finite in its definition and cannot have higher levels of entities, systems outside of systems, parallel universes potentially *with* higher level entities whereas ours does not... etc etc. I find it a little restricting. Whilst I do not believe that an entity *does* interfere with the rules (supernatural abilities/miracles), it is just as possible as if we could look into a lower "dimension" of life and effecting it somehow.
I just don't think science/philosophy can handle all the options coming from a purely atheist background, especially concerning the constants, laws and boundaries of our universe are concerned.
Last edited:
only from your point of view.
You imply that there is another way those results then? Show me how then.
This relies on something creating a higher power, and is a pardox, so the first is more likely as it relies on no intervention.
Fixed.