Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

You can't?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You got me there, game set and match.

Nobody wants to be friends with me, so you'd better find a friend of God to help.

--- Ron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In Quantum Mechanics and other fields, some things are based upon speculation. This means there is no hard facts and things are only seen as evidentally true while occurances of things being observed fall into the correct parameters.

Admittedly most of the Atom as science knows it is myth, superstition and speculation however what is learnt with every year that passes are new ways to catalogue evidence from measurements and tests to eventually rule out the falcities.

Since is not so much about suggesting the Evidence as disputing claims until there is only one logical claim remaining that stands as self evident.

Admittedly in science however not everything can be weened down to one solution and this is why you end up with disputed grounds where people have their own theories they pose, which in turn would give their own results if tested.

Although Science does contain a system of Consensus, this really is about one of the main objectives that most notible scientists would participate in, the Freedom of Information. (The UFO groups didn't make this movement up)
Most scientists want to know of other peoples opinions in areas so they can weigh their own evidence against that collected by others, it allows them to test their own theories or beliefs. The Consensus can change over time if what was once classed as true is seen to be false through testing.

The suggestion for evidence is mearly to ask to make something irreputable, otherwise what ever is being discussed or theorised in can be refuted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question makes no sense.

Science is attempting to find that answer. Stay tuned.

 

You don't understand that there is nothing to see that is the part of a bigger hole.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks.

That is what by I mean by "in the final analysis",
the closer you look, the more you try, the wierder it gets, and the more opinions we see of it, with science or with gods.

--- Ron.

 

You see, this is it, you don't really know what it is or where from, so you give it a name anyway.

Gravity makes it happen, or God makes it happen; I don't see such a big difference in that.

--- Ron.

 

Because gravity comes under the auspices of "science" and is therefore studyable without introducing concepts like an "ineffable god" who has motives we can't understand (according to theists).
God is a catch-all term for things not understood and not subject to investigation (according to the church). Science is process of discovery and the expectation that one day we will know.

 

However insecure the church is about change, I am sure that there are many to tell you that their god does not exclude discovery and expectation.

--- Ron.

 

Of course it does. The bible (or whatever) tells you all that is needed to be known - hence the problems with Galileo and his ilk. Expectation OF discovery and knowledge is not the same as expectation from religion.
The more science discovers the less the need for "god" to explain how things work (and why they work).

 

Then, we should simply give everything that ever happens in the universe the label of god. Clearly then, there would be no misunderstandings, right? Our knowledge base would increase dramatically, wouldn't it? Can you imagine what our conversations would sound like?

 

How do you measure this need?

--- Ron.

 

and thus you have the answer to old free will versus fate debate

Fate being the final destination where all roads meet. Free will of course being the road you choose to get there.

 

I was concerned with the quality of the label, not the quantity.

Have as many as you like, it all the same to me.

--- Ron.

 

A question of biology

imagine the bits of me, I cannot exist without them nor they without me, who is in charge thus?

 

As with all analogies - you have to demonstrate that it is valid.

Merely throwing unsupported analogies around does not prove or answer anything.

In this case, for your analogy to hold any validity, you have to provide evidence / support that we are a part of the universe rather than merely existing within.

Otherwise there is an equally valid, and actually more rational biological analogy...
Imagine, if you will, a small harmless parasite within your body.
You could live without it - just as the universe could live without us.
But the parasite could not live without you - nor us without the Universe.

 

so in your analogy we are akin to a parasite and God is our host.

Except we are not a parasite to God, we are part of him and he is all of us.


Meanwhile: If I have my kidney removed, I remain alive, I am not dead without it. The universe is HUGE, it can survive without us.

 

Then the label 'God' is meaningless if everything's the same, it has no quality, only quantity.

 

Silly bird, you have another kidney. Remove them both and you'll die.

 

What do you mean by the quality of the label, Ron?