Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[RD2191]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point

What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?

[spurraider21]

What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?

they wouldn't be able to

[xmas1997]

but there is evidence and proof that World War 2 occurred. its not faith at that point

Sure there is evidence out there. You and I wouldn't believe it if there weren't.

But that is the point. We believe it, despite the fact that we, "ourselves", have no physical proof that it happened, other than we saying it does, we believe it because someone or something told us it was true and that it happened.

We"accept" that person/thing for being an authority on the subject, and thus on "faith" alone we believe that persons'/things' testimony, that it is indeed the truth, that it happened.

Because otherwise we must show tangible evidence in our hands, for it to be solid proof that we "know it to be true".

[spurraider21]

Sure there is evidence out there. You and I wouldn't believe it if there weren't.

But that is the point. We believe it, despite the fact that we, "ourselves", have no physical proof that it happened, other than we saying it does, we believe it because someone or something told us it was true and that it happened.

We"accept" that person/thing for being an authority on the subject, and thus on "faith" alone we believe that persons'/things' testimony, that it is indeed the truth, that it happened.

Because otherwise we must show tangible evidence in our hands, for it to be solid proof that we "know it to be true".

my claim is that belief is not the same as faith. faith is a specific type of belief which does not rely upon evidence or proof

[xmas1997]

my claim is that belief is not the same as faith. faith is a specific type of belief which does not rely upon evidence or proof

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.

[spurraider21]

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then t you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.

if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

[xmas1997]

if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

You might not say so, but you provide no proof that it is, you are just "saying" it is.

However if you "believe" that it is, rather than just "think" it is, then you are having "faith" because you have provided no proof other than your word.

I have to have "faith" that you know what you are talking about, that you have the evidence handy in order to prove it, and that I can replicate it myself to prove it further, that is what so far you have not given any tangible proof or evidence of.

I have to accept your word for it, just as you have to accept someone else' word for it. That takes trust, and once you believe, then it is faith.


Belief, is trust that something "most probably exists" and you can get the tangible evidence that it exists when you are required to prove it to be true.

Belief can lead to faith, once that tangible evidence is no longer in your possession, and all you have left to fall back on is your memory of it.

Faith, is trust that something exists, but without tangible proof that it does, and doesn't require that you get the truth in your possession in order to know that it is true..

[xmas1997]

if you are going to argue that almost all knowledge is faith then you are distorting what faith really means... is it "faith" to say that a hydrogen atom only has 1 proton? i wouldn't say so

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.

[pgardn]

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.

This is actually some of the most reasonable stuff I have seen you write. Probably why you are one of the few I don't choose to ignore.

I would add that once one learns science, it appeals to common sense. I do not exactly know how to describe why I find it so reasonable. But I do know that I don't necessarily want a hydrogen atom to have 1 proton. I understand the basic reasons why the scientific model says an H atom has one proton. And it makes sense to me. But I have no personal stake in it.

I believe some posters believe the religious folks WANT there to be a God, NEED there to be a God. But the other posters don't NEED for evolution to be true. IF another idea fits the evidence better, they would change their view. This is a really big difference.

There is a perceived personal necessity built into some beliefs. This leads to faulty reasoning imo.

Think about Heaven and . I think it's pretty obvious many people like the most popular idea of what heaven is supposed to be. But not , they don't like it. So they believe in one, and not the other, out of personal necessity. This does not go over well with people who believe reasoning should definitely NOT involve personal necessity. And does not go over well with some who WANT for bad people.

It is what it is, in the parlance of our times. For people who reason without needing a destination for where the reasoning might lead them, necessity or wanting something to be because it might make them comfortable is not honest reasoning.

[DMC]

I addressed it in my response to your next quote. I would have concatenated the quotes, but I thought it was important to clarify.



I certainly do have a different definition. I only accept things to be true if they are. The rest, I "believe to be truth", meaning that I consider them to be the working assumptions. That difference would obviously lead to dramatically different extensions. I will go ahead and believe you as a result and withdraw what I said.

The classical definition for belief, and how it's used in theology, is that the believer has faith that something is true. You distance yourself from that by saying you believe only what causal chain science has proven.

I don't accept that there's any real difference between what you accept as fact and what you believe to be fact. Either or both can be wrong. I can allow that there might be dead bodies buried under my home, but I don't believe there is. If someone dug them up and showed them to me, I would believe there was. If I found out later they were brought in from elsewhere and I was duped, I'd have been wrong. I believe there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can actually know it for certain (there will always be room for alternatives) unless it's regarding our own personal feelings.

I am not sure the way you "believe" a god exists is the same as how theists believe a god exists. You allow that a god might not exist, but might have at one point. That to me isn't theism at all.

That's absolutely not true. Have you read any classical or early-modern philosophy? They are full of scientific theories with what they assert to be evidence. Just because you dismiss them doesn't mean that they weren't scientific.

They are not scientific at all, as they did not predict outcomes from experiments and they were not falsifiable. Please show me one scientific theory relating to god. Please also show how a god claim can be falsified.

As for the chain, it doesn't leave god out it. It hasn't ruled on god or supplanted his role in creating the universe. Therefore, I'm allowed to believe in him freely while still accepting the chain. There's no conflict.

Have you ever heard of PSR (Principle for Significant Reason)? Are you using this here for everything except god? You are allowed to do that of course, it's just inconsistent and non sequitur (and employs special pleading). But you are allowed to do it.

Known being in the colloquial sense. The important part was "necessarily". I mean that there's nothing about the Big Bang that means it had to have been the first event. It's not just a code word for the beginning. It was an actual event we can determine estimate with math. That gives it the power of not being speculative, but also denies it the power to logical equivalency.

Again, it doesn't matter what the first event was, time began with the 1st event. There's no different requirement for the big bang than for the sudden appearance of an atom sized whatever. It just moves the problem back one more step.

If you can reasonably argue there wasn't a first event, I'd love to see it. I'm of the assumption that the casual chain will get there eventually.

There is no edge to a circle, no beginning and no end. Like Hawking says, you can walk around the planet without falling off. Your walk will have a beginning and an end but the Earth's surface just goes on and on, back onto itself. That removes the need for a first cause and doesn't employ a magical being to do so. That doesn't make it correct, but I'd consider it before considering a god.

It does matter if time is a negative. Negatives are bad for science, hence why the Kelvin scale was invented. Arguing that time is just the gaps between events is like arguing space is just the gaps between objects. You'll go Achilles paradox trying to justify it.

Gods aren't that great for science either. You violate every scientific principle when you invoke god as the missing piece.

Anyway, the "time without time" isn't all that strong. It would be if we were trying to measure something. But just as time is relative for individuals depending on their speed or what forces get exerted upon them, it is also relative to the universe. Time as we experience it can't exist without our universe, but that doesn't mean that time as a concept can't make sense anywhere else. It should be possible for scientists to one day create their own universes, and they will know of a time before it existed. But that universe would never experience it, since it would have its own time and space.

It doesn't mean a host of other things either, but you have the onus of proof if you wish to make that assertion.

What you're describing is called science fiction. God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression? If science can one day create a universe, will scientists one day be gods? Why not just consider an advanced, futuristic scientist created the universe?

[DMC]

I am not saying that knowledge is faith.

I am saying that what it takes is the vehicle, faith, in order for you to believe the knowledge to be true when you do not have the evidence to prove that it is.

Not really. There's also the weight of the outcome. There's no weight to whether or not a stop light in France is working, so if someone says it's not, we don't need faith to believe it. We just need apathy. Where god and eternal life are concerned (face it, without eternal life the god concept is pointless), there is weight so we need more evidence in order to cross over that line, not all of us possess the credulity that others do.

Thus I am also saying that you have faith that what science says is true because you believe it to be, even though you have no proof that it is.

You don't need faith to accept what science says because science polices itself. I don't need to believe what a scientist says is true. People are out there every day trying to disprove the theory of evolution, and I mean scientists. You don't see theists out trying to disprove the Bible. Faith is only required when the story is not otherwise believable, and don't equate faith in the supernatural to faith in a process like science.

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

Really? You aren't typing on a computer that uses the electronics that were invented and manufactured using the basic tenets of science? Or is God writing this stuff for you?

We all do this, with just about everything we believe to be true, but have no proof of.

According to you there is proof for nothing. That makes me nervous about going to bed since it might not exist.

Only those who are actually working in the science fields have the proof, and the rest of us trust they do to the point of believing they do, but for us, it is based on faith, while for the scientists providing the evidence, it rests on their proof.

Horse . That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.

We have no proof, other than what they tell us to believe, thus we have faith it is true.

They... lol

I also believe there is God, but I have no evidence to prove God to be true, thus my belief is based on faith too.

You're trying to give your faith credibility using tu quoque fallacy.

[spurraider21]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

[pgardn]

DMC I believe you have a number of interesting takes that I would humbly elaborate on in pieces.

God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression?


I would argue it is not even an answer. Invoking the supernatural is giving up on using science as a method, when the method can be very useful. Or you could indeed mean complicated because invoking the supernatural allows individual fanciful explanations which are really not subject to any real testing, therefore lead to useless debate.

[pgardn]

Horse . That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.


I have witnessed some debates on evolution in front of large audiences where a eloquent expert in debate can take apart a science type that really does not get science. So you have to be very careful with more complex ideas. I personally feel it is always best to emphasize what science is, and is not.

Then the the debate becomes clear.

I feel science naturally appeals to humans. So anyone can read about it and feel a deeper sense of satisfaction. But when arguing it, there are twisters waiting to use debating techniques that are very disingenuous. Which is probably why some of the science types on this board continue to try to appeal for the reasonableness of science as a way of understanding the universe.

[pgardn]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

Based on your responses I personally feel you know the ways of science as a method very well.
Not that I really count as a judge. Just my opinion. No one on this board can adequately explain all that science has discovered and modeled. And of course the models can change or are still heavily debated.

[DMC]

DMC I believe you have a number of interesting takes that I would humbly elaborate on in pieces.

God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression?


I would argue it is not even an answer. Invoking the supernatural is giving up on using science as a method, when the method can be very useful. Or you could indeed mean complicated because invoking the supernatural allows individual fanciful explanations which are really not subject to any real testing, therefore lead to useless debate.

I see it as having your cake and eating it too. You get to accept what science discovers yet you still have the "because god did it" as the reason.

Consistency would be using god to plug all the holes in science.

Alien life? God
Cure for cancer? God
Time travel? God
Speed of light travel? God
Light particle/wave duality? God


In fact, some seem to think it's progressive to invoke God for things they feel we might not ever know. If you go back 100 years and do that, you'd very well use God as the answer for things we've since figured out without the need for a god. Even just speculating, you don't need to invoke a god. Have you ever taken two mirrors and set them in front of each other and seen the "tunnel" effect? In your mind you realize that it goes on seemingly forever, but it only goes on as far as the light as traveled in that amount of time. Our mind just allows that we can only resolve a portion of it though. Like driving in fog, you see the lines on the highway but you don't see into the distance. You aren't using faith to continue driving, and you aren't invoking that god is creating road as you move forward. You are ok with not seeing it until you get there because you understand the limitations of human senses.

[Chinook]

The classical definition for belief, and how it's used in theology, is that the believer has faith that something is true. You distance yourself from that by saying you believe only what causal chain science has proven.

I don't accept that there's any real difference between what you accept as fact and what you believe to be fact. Either or both can be wrong. I can allow that there might be dead bodies buried under my home, but I don't believe there is. If someone dug them up and showed them to me, I would believe there was. If I found out later they were brought in from elsewhere and I was duped, I'd have been wrong. I believe there is absolute truth, but I don't think we can actually know it for certain (there will always be room for alternatives) unless it's regarding our own personal feelings.

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.

I am not sure the way you "believe" a god exists is the same as how theists believe a god exists. You allow that a god might not exist, but might have at one point. That to me isn't theism at all.

Allowing for things is just how reasonable people operate. I'm a theist because I believe that the existence of a god is the best explanation. I also believe evolution best explains the radiation of life on Earth. Both those beliefs are subject to change with further information. I am not asserting either as truth.

They are not scientific at all, as they did not predict outcomes from experiments and they were not falsifiable. Please show me one scientific theory relating to god. Please also show how a god claim can be falsified.

I'll look to see if I can find one that isn't crack-pot. But you seem to have something of a misunderstanding of a lot of science. A good deal of scientific information does not come from experiments. I haven't seen on experiment to support heliocentricism, for example.

Have you ever heard of PSR (Principle for Significant Reason)? Are you using this here for everything except god? You are allowed to do that of course, it's just inconsistent and non sequitur (and employs special pleading). But you are allowed to do it.

I hadn't heard of it. On its face, it seems reasonable. I can't imagine anyone believing in the causal closure of the physical not also accepting that all effects have a "knowable" cause. Otherwise, it's some voodoo stuff.

Gods aren't that great for science either. You violate every scientific principle when you invoke god as the missing piece.

Moving to this quote, since the rest of the quotes are all pretty much the same argument.

I don't agree with that. Science just doesn't deal with god. Doesn't need to. Will never come into conflict with god based on necessary principles. It can only conflict with extensions of god (both religious ones and the ones I've been asked to attribute in this thread). You have to pick: Either god is a bad answer to science or he's a non-answer.

Again, it doesn't matter what the first event was, time began with the 1st event. There's no different requirement for the big bang than for the sudden appearance of an atom sized whatever. It just moves the problem back one more step.

Technically, time began with the second event, according to you, since you need two events for time to exist. And moving before the Bang does a of a lot more than just adding another layer. It's one thing to say that there was this bang and then the universe showed up. It's quite another to say, this random ball just appeared from nowhere and chilled for some undisclosed period of time before going boom. It makes it quite a bit more obvious how little power people have in asserting the Big Bang as a satisfactory explanation for the beginning.

There is no edge to a circle, no beginning and no end. Like Hawking says, you can walk around the planet without falling off. Your walk will have a beginning and an end but the Earth's surface just goes on and on, back onto itself. That removes the need for a first cause and doesn't employ a magical being to do so. That doesn't make it correct, but I'd consider it before considering a god.

It doesn't mean a host of other things either, but you have the onus of proof if you wish to make that assertion.

"A circle has no ends." -- Second Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Anyway, don't confuse Hawking's attempt to rationalize things to himself as a satisfactory explanation or even a competing theory. He's just like me in the sense that he's looking for something that completes his world-view. In reality, the idea that the universe can be cyclical just another turtle, just another step back, as you call it. The only logical way for regression to end is at eternity. Hawking has to argue that the universe in a sense was always there, which does even less work than the idea that an eternal being started the whole thing.

What you're describing is called science fiction. God is the least plausible hypothesis for the fact that the universe exists, if for no other reason than it's the most complicated answer that could possibly exist. If you're going to mentally allow that mini-universes can exist, why can't you find a less complex way around infinite regression? If science can one day create a universe, will scientists one day be gods? Why not just consider an advanced, futuristic scientist created the universe?

There's nothing complicated about supposing a god made the universe. That's why such an idea exists and is/was so prevalent. It made sense to historic humans that some being made the world, since they themselves made things and the Earth itself is just one big thing. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. Strong atheists (ones saying there is definitely no god, not more open-minded ones like yourself) have to argue that this cause and effect chain will eventually amount to a causeless effect, whether that means a first event or the forces which established a loop in the first place. They propose the existence of a unique and special case with neither evidence nor reason on their side. They only have the rejection of the trends we've observed throughout history.

And the term, "mini-universes" is inaccurate. Universes create their own space, and so they theoretically leave our space almost instantly and expand to be much larger. Anyway, from the perspective of that new universe, the scientist are god. From our perspective, they aren't, since they are not our prime movers.

[BacktoBasics]

Think about Heaven and . I think it's pretty obvious many people like the most popular idea of what heaven is supposed to be. But not , they don't like it. So they believe in one, and not the other, out of personal necessity. This does not go over well with people who believe reasoning should definitely NOT involve personal necessity. And does not go over well with some who WANT for bad people.

Which really leads down a path that further exposes modern day religion as something built out of emotion rather than evidence or knowledge. In its most basic form early Jesus was an apocalypticist, think early Harold Camping. End times harvest was just around the corner and those that did not sacrifice in the name of god were destined for sacrifice. It was all about savior, nothing personal, no individual gains or rewards. Simple salvation.

Whereas modern day faith is much more about success, happiness and good things will happen to you if you have faith. Savior and sacrifice have been replaced. Now if you follow christ and believe in god you will be rewarded with a good job, great family and happiness.

Nearly a complete about face from early interpretation. Because that's what people need most now. Not to be saved but to have their hopes and dreams fulfilled...all because of God. That inconsistency alone exposes Modern day religion for what it truly is.

[RD2191]

If it makes you guys feel any better, the UN will attack false religion and do away with it.

[DMC]

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.

You and I agree on this. This is why I say you are not theist. You just think it's a decent argument, and that doesn't mean you believe it. It would be like saying you are Christian, because it makes more sense that Christ died for our sins, but you don't necessarily see it as fact. You're toying around with belief.

Allowing for things is just how reasonable people operate. I'm a theist because I believe that the existence of a god is the best explanation. I also believe evolution best explains the radiation of life on Earth. Both those beliefs are subject to change with further information. I am not asserting either as truth.

theist


the·ism [thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Would you say 2 best describes you? Do you believe the prime mover exists today?

I'll look to see if I can find one that isn't crack-pot. But you seem to have something of a misunderstanding of a lot of science. A good deal of scientific information does not come from experiments. I haven't seen on experiment to support heliocentricism, for example.

However heliocentricism is falsifiable, is it not?

I hadn't heard of it. On its face, it seems reasonable. I can't imagine anyone believing in the causal closure of the physical not also accepting that all effects have a "knowable" cause. Otherwise, it's some voodoo stuff.

Which is why gods are not used as answers in science. What caused the god? (note: you cannot conveniently escape the causal chain by jumping from the physical to the metaphysical).

Moving to this quote, since the rest of the quotes are all pretty much the same argument.

I don't agree with that. Science just doesn't deal with god. Doesn't need to. Will never come into conflict with god based on necessary principles. It can only conflict with extensions of god (both religious ones and the ones I've been asked to attribute in this thread). You have to pick: Either god is a bad answer to science or he's a non-answer.

I don't see any reason to differentiate between a bad answer and a non-answer and I think that's a red herring to be quite honest.

Science doesn't deal with god because god is never the answer to a scientific question. The initial cause is a scientific question because it tries to solve the "how" in the causal chain. It doesn't solve the "why", and that's where theism comes into play. Science will never conclude that a god was the prime mover. It however might conclude that there was a prime mover.

Technically, time began with the second event, according to you, since you need two events for time to exist. And moving before the Bang does a of a lot more than just adding another layer. It's one thing to say that there was this bang and then the universe showed up. It's quite another to say, this random ball just appeared from nowhere and chilled for some undisclosed period of time before going boom. It makes it quite a bit more obvious how little power people have in asserting the Big Bang as a satisfactory explanation for the beginning.

1st event or second event, or 100th event. The beginning of time is it's beginning. To go back from that using time is nonsensical.

It only adds another step in the regression. You don't know what caused the Big Bang, so you put another event before it that you also don't know the cause of. Eventually you apply God and call it done. You could have done that without the need for the extra regression. In fact, the god could have simply created the universe as it is today, but our experimentation tells us it's changing. Couldn't the god be causing the change?

Anyway, don't confuse Hawking's attempt to rationalize things to himself as a satisfactory explanation or even a competing theory. He's just like me in the sense that he's looking for something that completes his world-view. In reality, the idea that the universe can be cyclical just another turtle, just another step back, as you call it. The only logical way for regression to end is at eternity. Hawking has to argue that the universe in a sense was always there, which does even less work than the idea that an eternal being started the whole thing.

Odd because 3000 years ago the notion was that an eternal being started the whole thing. You're saying that Hawking does less work than just accepting god as an answer?

There's nothing complicated about supposing a god made the universe. That's why such an idea exists and is/was so prevalent. It made sense to historic humans that some being made the world, since they themselves made things and the Earth itself is just one big thing. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that all things had to be made. That assumption is still a strong one, one that is still undisputed. Strong atheists (ones saying there is definitely no god, not more open-minded ones like yourself) have to argue that this cause and effect chain will eventually amount to a causeless effect, whether that means a first event or the forces which established a loop in the first place. They propose the existence of a unique and special case with neither evidence nor reason on their side. They only have the rejection of the trends we've observed throughout history.

It's easy mentally but not in science. It's easier to think aliens abducted a missing child than to do the legwork to find clues and catch the abductor. I disagree with the "undisputed" claim. You allow god didn't need to be made.

As a stand alone theory, the god concept falls flat on its face simply because regardless of future discoveries, it remains unfalsifiable. Even if it was discovered that the universe expands and contracts in a cyclical nature, god would still be right there making it expand and contract. Would it answer the question? Sure, it would answer any question in fact if it was allowed to be used.

How is the claim of god falsifiable now or ever? Yes it needs to be in order to be legitimate.

And the term, "mini-universes" is inaccurate. Universes create their own space, and so they theoretically leave our space almost instantly and expand to be much larger. Anyway, from the perspective of that new universe, the scientist are god. From our perspective, they aren't, since they are not our prime movers.

The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

Do you have a different definition for universe? It seems you're arguing from a position of amazing familiarity, or science fiction.

[johnsmith]

Then tell me what you think it is, if it is not trust that something is true?

Because if you trust something is true, even though you do not have proof in your possession that it is true, then you are having "faith" that it is true.

It is beside the point the whereabouts the evidence is if you don't have it, the simple facts are that unless you have them personally, then you are accepting someones or somethings word for it, and that is "second hand knowledge" not "first hand knowledge", because you do not "directly" experience the evidence.

You sure do throw in a lot of totally unnecessary quotation marks.

The other day you actually put the word 'get' in them.


I don't think you really "understand" "how" "and" "when" to use "them".

[pgardn]

This gets way philosophical and along with the vocabulary meaning different things to different people, less understandable.

If everyone was forced to accept that human beings are special compared to other forms of life, how would they describe how we are special? Make a list. I think this question exposes more about where people I don't know are coming from. I use it often.

And broad answers like, we make cars, require the answerer to get more basic.

[johnsmith]

What if in 2000 years all the evidence has been destroyed and all that remains is a book with no pictures in it but just words? Then what, how will someone be able to prove that it happened?

Isn't that pretty much what hieroglyphics were? We figured that out.

[pgardn]

I often use: we have the ability to empathize.
Mainly because at early ages we don't.
So it is helpful for me to use development within a human lifetime for some things on the list.

But then there are broader things we have done as a species, that can also be put on the list that are fundamental.

[pgardn]

Oh snap, symbolic language right above, rob and JS