No shit, its not proven, nothing is. Thanks for making my point!
A hypothesis is made, experiments are taken and a theory is produced… What does that leave you with? An attempt at an explanation based on evidence we interpret as being pertinent. Scientific theories are produced by testing against a fucking hypothesis by trying to disprove it. If it can’t be disproven, that creates a reason to acknowledge it might be of significance, sure. That is ALL it does. It does not PROVE anything except help us find a way to understand what we can sense.
I’ll put it in simpler terms since you are thick. What created the singularity, what created that? If it always existed, what created time? What created the object that created that. Did it all exist infinitely? What created the infinite? Science will just keep attempting to find the precursor to a precursor to a precursor… I’m not bashing science or the scientific method, I love it and I am not a religious person, either (sorry to sink your ship). To attempt to understand something is to know its limits as well, and science, like everything else, has its own limits. I tend to agree with most scientific theories, there is still no way to absolutely prove the method or means of the creation of the universe, definitely.
Philosophy, Religion, Science et al. haven’t proven shit, all you are doing is putting your bets on one of them to figure it out. Can you prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural omnipotent being? Can you prove or disprove the big bang? NO.
Only difference is you put your bet on science.
If you cannot process this, you either have a lack of imagination or are not a free thinker/conditioned. Open your mind! That is what science is all about right? If one can seriously fathom and consider living in a simulation as a legitimate scientific hypothesis then one can definitely think “We don’t know shit, and its okay”
**
Little Nemo** I know.
My only addition to that is that it may get us closer, or it may just keep us getting closer without end, but it has not been absolutely definitive. Maybe some things are out of our reach and can’t be understood, yet. At this juncture, nothing has been proven or dis proven.
What created x ? you are assuming a lot just in that language. Science doesn’t make that assumption, *before *the singularity may not be a coherent concept.
Religion tends to think it has a solution to that by inserting a supernatural being. The problem with that is it ends up being allowed the property of always being in existence. If you grant that property to such a complicated being with zero evidence, what stops you granting it to the far simpler and more empirically accessible universe or its precursors. Why the added assumption? why the added complication?
What complete bullshit. Setting an impossible standard for using the term “Prove” (or more inanely PROVE) and lumping philosophy and religion together with the scientific method certainly allows you to ignore evidence, though, so you have that going for you.
Why yes, taking little Jimmy to church every Sunday and teaching him to do unto others as he would want done unto him is *totally *comparable to beating your kid with a bat or withholding food for days on end. Yup, totally!
Neither do most religions, or most religious people. Yes, there are people who use religion as an excuse to do truly vile, inhuman things. Just as there are agnostic people who will do those same vile, inhuman things.
My religious instruction was of the most lukewarm C of E type. My parents didin’t seem religious and I never actually asked them what they believed as it never came up.
The school I went to did the whole morning assembly, worship and prayers etc but I remember very little other than mouthing the words or coming up with obscene variations. No fire and brimstone, no preaching. I suspect that wishy-washy dunking was enough to put a lot of similar kids off religion as it had nothing of any interest to offer. In that respect you might say it was useful.
Mind you, from the age of 7 I was in charge of the record player that was playing as we all filed in. I had access to the record library as well and whilst the religion never touched me the music was a joy. I’d much rather have had 20 more minutes of Elgar, Wagner, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky or Mozart. The only thing that annoyed me more than the droning assembly was that I had to cut short the music when everyone was in. That was disrespectful.
This. And also, all fucking right wing lies to the contrary, this was NEVER a “christian nation based on biblical law” as the dominionistic authoritarian far right keeps insisting.
They do NOT want religious freedom (another lie they tell), they want a license to religiously persecute everyone else.
Difference being that one can plausibly draw a straight line from religious dogma to a vile act by an otherwise decent person. Can the same be done for agnosticism or atheism?
You know what you call someone who is indoctrinated in Catholicism?
A lapsed Catholic.
I was indoctrinated in the Pentecostal Church. For many years after, I would tell people that Pentecostals existed to make Southern Baptists and seem reasonable.
The Golden Rule doesn’t arise from a selfish interest in avoiding retaliation. This should be obvious since, if that were the case, one could come up with numerous human counterexamples as well. Instead, it’s an observation of symmetry: anything worth calling a moral code has to apply to everyone equally. It’s the same idea whether dictated by God or by atheistic argument. It’s also a handy rule of thumb if there’s any uncertainty in whether something is moral or not.
May I ask your opinion on why it may not be a coherent concept? I’m am legitimately intrigued by this subject.
Certain disciplines in science make the assumption that certain qualities of existence are infinite, so if that is to be so, why would it not be assumed there was something as a precursor to singularity? Why is it assumed that only after singularity were principles of infinite to be applied to certain aspects of our interpretation of existence? How can qualities of the infinite come from something so finite? Isn’t infinite by definition no start and no end? Our sense and interpretation of the known universe may have limits like most things, but my point in replying to the OP was that nobody truly has the answers to these questions and they will only beget more questions. Nothing of the sort is actually definitively proven or not, it is bound by our own limitations of perception and by extension, technology to understand such things. Why is it that in terms of of science, philosophy and religion, none can definitively explain existence. Sure one comes close, but outside of theory, how do we really know and will we ever really know?
Hope this makes sense. Apologies for the extensive attempt at socratic method here.
Science is in effect about trying to overcome “impossible” standards or what may have been viewed as impossible at some point, but it has its limitations like everything. It makes great strides in our advancement, surely, although it has not offered anything concretely superior in terms of proof except subjective material loosely attributed to other subjective material and theory. It is not an impossible standard.
No, lumping philosophy, religion and science does not all one to ignore evidence. I group them together as they have been the primary disciplines used in an attempt to discern or justify existence as we know it, in that, they are related.
Geez guy, could ya leave something for me to chew on?
anomalous1 you should read that as the responses to you above are, largely, the same as mine would have been.
Burden shift much? No one is obligated to ‘disprove’ the existence of a supernatural omnipotent being.
“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
But hows about;
The Omnipotence Paradox
The Problem(s) of Evil
The Euthyphro Dilemma
The Problem of Gratuitous Suffering
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness
Those should keep you busy for years.
YES! Asked and answered, Cosmic Background Radiation. (Also, Big Bang.)
Yes I do. Because, so far, no question for which we have a tentative answer has, ever, been sufficiently answered with “(G)god(s)”.