Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

One of your atheist buddies (Sean Carrol) are indeed keen to get rid of falsifiability in order to get rid of the fine tuning problem, and give the multiverse a free pass. Needless to say, the reception of that notion was not well received.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-m ... cs-1.16535

This assumes that he is, which i have no reason to believe


Which is why it is illogical to even think it has been created.
Even *if* an omnipotent diety exists, who created the world, why not make it simple; why create plate tectonics if you can just place the continents where you want them and be done with it, for example

Izz me
Streams from my brain at 5:56 am
Yes it is a mystery

As far as complicated
Though I strive to KISS
Keep it simple & serene
My brain can complicate things.

The world
Ain't it beautiful
This morning
For
Me doctor laugh
You Izz Me
( which could get me thinking in circles for awhile.)

From Peter
Cast your cares on to The Lord
or drink some chamomile tea
Lately I like Kava
My grandmother would invite you to have a glass tea.

Shalom
( a word with so many meanings)
me a name I call myself in song
Where is my ukulele?

It's that simple? So your hypothesis is pseudoscience if you happen to lack the machine to test it?

It's mykulele now.

Pretty much.
You dont have to have the machine yourself, testing can be outsourced, but until tests have been done, you will not get beyond a hypothesis

hypothetical:
if there is a God, and if he would want to retain a state of obedience in an individual, a group, a population, the believers at least, an element of incomprehension must be part of those who are governed; otherwise they would like to become God too
so it couldn't be simple
= free interpretation of Genesis 2: 9 “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”

PS: cool posts drlaugh! don't know want you meant with Romans 7 and 8 in a previous post

Awe from creating complex systems does not breed obedience; if it did, noone would ursurp, for example, the roman empire, but they used their military prowess.
At best, awe of ability breeds respect.

If one desired full obedience, one should either show clear and obvious benevolence or malevolence.
From the bible, specifically the old testament, it is clear that yahweh chose malevolence, which eliminates all the need for creating complex systems to generate awe of ability; a high-profile smiting or plague is more effective (and not below yahwehs morals, the bibe states several acts of each)

That's not the issue. The issue is whether an hypothesis is scientifically valid or pseudoscience based on it's property of falsifiability.

If they don't comprehend it, how do they know what they are believing in?

Have fun with the ukulele
I have plenty and access to more at work.
Romans 7 with human stuff
Romans 8 with Holy Spirit

If the machines necessary for testability of SL require particle accelerators the size of a galaxy, then you are only making an idiot of yourself.

But whom am I to judge? For only AspE is capable of doing mathematical physics - no one else can.

True. About obedience: I guess indeed it doesn't come from marvelling at complex systems. My thought experiment is this: obedience comes from God creating certain conditions, certain settings: a want for meaning, in a world that resists all efforts to find any meaning, a situation that could drive you in the hands of God.



Don't think so. What about a mix of both. First give someone a sense of meaning, than confront him with a world without meaning, than create new dreams and hopes again, than counter play these ones again against a renewed actuality of deprivation. An alteration of benevolence and malevolence, continuously, repeating itself, until someone loses control and turns himself to God.

An element of incomprehension: this does not create obedience. This is only the finishing touch, preventing people from falling into disobedience again. To prevent mankind freeing themselves from their problems, from their "human condition", to prevent that they would become gods themselves.
My little though experiment would be that this is the symbolic meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: this tree is not there to test man, to test his obedience, obedience should have come from the presence of God himself, the tree is about preventing becoming gods themselves.



I guess you mean: why doesn't God just show up, visibly? And so create obedience directly, immediately. Would definitely be more easy.
But what about this: people easily grant their loyalty to a leader, but then just as easily abandon it, and substitute it by something or someone else, shunning the person to whom loyalty was first granted. Look at Genesis (do not take it literally but has strong symbolical meaning). To obtain loyalty and obedience could require considerably more time and finesse than would result from direct confrontation.

So where's the cut-off? How outrageous does the experiment have to be before you declare the hypothesis to be pseudoscience? Do resources and money determine what is pseudoscience?

When you cannot test something it is no longer science! What part of that notion can you not grasp?

No, but I believe that the universe possesses several of the qualities that the religious claim make their deities worthy of worship.