I don’t believe for one second that any of the 86% believe in the biblegod, because they’ve never even read his handbook. They simply make up their own god to pray to.
I don’t believe a single politician in the US believes in a god either. If they do believe, everything they do in office and at home is the furthest things from being devout.
I also believe a large percentage of the 86% are so beyond stupid they think that their god saw them check the box and will finally earn happiness at death. :rolleyes:
No. Perhaps YOU could explain why it’s “scientifically impossible” that we did.
In other words, I am not claiming that it happened – I am offering a scenario that would explain the observations and not violate known physical laws of our universe.
What do you think “scientifically impossible” means?
No. The scientific method is intended to test hypotheses against observations. Allowing any “what if” hypotheses does no damage whatever to the scientific method, and does not dilute its validity in the slightest.
So what? What does “not interesting” possibly have to do with the scientific method?
Yes: it’s scientifically possible we’re living in a sim. You are correct.
The correct response is to point out that while it may be true, it’s not a testable hypothesis. The mere fact that a hypothesis is not testable does not transform it into “scientifically impossible.”
The particular phenomenon described here are not “scientifically impossible.” What do you think that phrase means?
There was another thread on this, not long ago. Basically, science doesn’t address, either way, things that aren’t testable. It is not “scientifically possible” that we’re in a sim, because there is no experiment that can be performed that would falsify the conjecture. It is “extra-scientific.”
The same goes for making up possibilities from left field. Maybe aliens. Maybe miracles. Maybe a total coincidence. Science doesn’t address these things, because they cannot be tested.
In the other thread, Chief Pedant claimed that science had disproven God. No, that’s not correct. But Robert163 is correct in saying that a talking donkey (or any other miracle) is “not scientifically possible” because no one has proposed a testable model for the idea.
You’ve offered a non-testable model, but that isn’t a scientific one.
“Scientific Impossibility” partakes somewhat of no. 2, limitations of language and definitions. The scientific method has rules that are of human origin, made-up, arbitrary, and conventional. Repeatability, independent review, falsifiability, and (most controversial) naturalism (e.g., rejection of supernatural explanations.)
You can say that these are unfair, or too limiting, but without these rules, you’d have an “anything goes” sort of world-view, and the ratio of real results to speculations would start to decline.
Think of science as the ultimate citizen of Missouri. “Show me.”
I’m not going to read through all 188 posts, but I think that those who say they believe, really do. I say this because the road from belief to non-belief was along one for me. It took a lot of thinking and went though several steps* and at least two years for me to become an atheist. It’s very easy to believe (heh) that 86% of people either truly believe, lack the will to really think about so much, or just have other crap to worry about.
*This denomination isn’t it. Christianity can’t be right. There can’t be just one God. Bah, the whole concept is garbage.
If the donkey in question wandered in from the desert, said his lines, and wandered off, then I might agree. However the talking donkey was owned by Balaam. Your alien friends would have had to hack the donkey long before the events of the story. So, the donkey in the Bible clearly did not talk, talked, and then stopped talking again. That’s impossible.
Other miracles are better examples. The Joshua story can be easily explained by your alien friends focusing floodlights on the field of battle, which would explain why no one else noticed the earth stopping. I do trust you agree that the event as told is scientifically impossible, right?
I have lived in such societies, and while people did make fun of religion no one made fun of religious people - that would be obnoxious. Though I understand that many religious people can’t stand anyone disagreeing with their basic beliefs.
At a different job, many long years ago, I had the “atheist” conversation with a co-worker. He asked if I was “really” an atheist. Rather than answer directly, I thought I’d try a different approach. I explained that, in some ways, I envy religious people. They seem to take a lot of comfort in their beliefs and in their community. Not sharing either one, I don’t have the same opportunity & sometimes I am envious.
His reply was, “Well, just believe, then.” Like it was as simple as flipping a light switch.
I know this was just a reflexive answer on his part. But, I’ve always felt that it is symptomatic of the whole affair. It has flavors of being artificial, self-serving, and condescending. It suggests (in a new way) that religious belief has more to do with social expediency than with the super natural or with careful consideration of the message being taught.
In thinking about it just now… I happened to wonder if this isn’t more or less the difference between “orthodox” and “reformed” churches. Some people are there because they take the whole mythology super seriously. Other people are there mostly for the social support or because of social pressure. Just a guess.
I think we need to understand what we mean when we say, “Scientifically impossible.”
What I mean is: “No hypothesis could account for the observed events without violating the natural physical laws of the universe.”
What do you mean?
Because my inference is that you mean something like: “Any hypothesis that could explain the observed events either violates the natural laws of the universe or is so unlikely that accepting it would require significantly more evidence than currently exists.”
For example, next year, the aliens return to Earth, ready to welcome us into the Federation of Sentient Creatures. They also apologize for their prior encounter, in which a rogue team though it would be funny to surgically implant bio-devices in some guy’s donkey, record the results, and broadcast them on The Galaxy’s Funniest Home Videos (Primitive Cultures Edition). They show us the recording.
Now that is obviously highly unlikely, so much so that in ordinary conversation “impossible,” is not an unreasonable judgment. But “scientifically impossible?” No – it violates no laws of the universe.
I hope I’m not being overly pedantic here, but, strictly speaking, in your example, wouldn’t the bio-devices be the source of the speech? The donkey, as such, wasn’t talking at all.
Is it scientifically possible to implant speakers into an animal? Sure.
Is it scientifically possible for an unmodified donkey to speak using language as a human might? I’m going to go out on a limb and call shenanigans on that one.
I agree with the part in bold. It suggests that for many people, belief has less to do with arriving to some idea about creation through mental work and more to do with claiming that you believe to act the part of a Christian.
In my teenaged years, if someone had asked me if I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, who died for my sins, my reflexive response would have been yeah. A voice in my head would have quietly said “eh, no you don’t” but I would’ve quickly shut that voice down with an inner choir of “yeah I do! Have to believe to call myself saved.”
I think it’s very patronizing to assume that someone else doesn’t know their own mind, whether it’s someone who claims to believe in God or a woman who claims she doesn’t want to go out with you.
And I think it is very naive to think that societal and family influence wouldn’t cause at least a portion of people polled to give what they thought would be a “right” answer-remember the link you with the face provided back in post #157? If you haven’t read it, please do so, because it is rather enlightening.
A magic trick - or thereabouts. Entirely possible and within the realm of the natural world.
However, the implication is that the reporting was factually incorrect, even though well intended. This goes against the requirement that all facts in the Bible are inerrant. We are not allowed to to ask this question. We are meant only to accept that the donkey spoke. End of discussion.
Unfortunately, this would be the only possibility allowed for consideration by those of the orthodox orientation. We must accept it as written or reject it. Any attempt at a compromise (explanation 1) would diminish this specific event and cast a shadow on other miraculous events.
When did the rule that all facts in the Bible are inerrant enter into this particular discussion?
I am well aware that some Christian sects contend that the King James version of the Bible is inerrant, but this discussion is not limited to the views from those sects, is it? Did I miss a post in which we focused solely on that possibility?
They simply make up their own god to pray to.