Ask Your Question today
When all the data points straight at a creator why do scientists then start coming up with alternate theories that can't even be tested?
True that, but also consider the following:
When all the data points straight at a scientific theory why do believers then start coming up with alternate ideas(of god(s)/creator(s)) that can't even be tested?
I have to say, i'm also very intrigued as to what OP will throw out there.
There is no data that directly points towards a creator. The difference between religious people looking for this 'evidence' specifically and scientists is that scientists (should) aim to look for explanations beyond bias, taking all of the variables into account, whereas believers look for hints for a creator only, ignoring all evidence that does not agree with their ideas.
But surely this random layperson knows better than centuries of study in the scientific community, right? Surely this anonymous stranger on the internet is the only one that can see past the confirmation bias so ever-present in scientific theory.
I don't. I however know people who do know better.
The fact that I am not a scientist does not change anything about the fact that religious believers tend to display a conformation bias way stronger than secular scientists'.
You misread my sarcasm. I was referring to the original story author. Though I absolutely disagree your last statement - it isn't that scientists are less prone to confirmation bias, it's that the scientific method requires external peer-review. So the unavoidable confirmation bias is minimized by third-party analysis. That doesn't mean that an individual scientist is inherently less biased than any other individual.
For reference of confirmation bias is scientific history: cold fusion, N-rays, homeopathy, etc.
I first thought you were the poll creator, sorry...this is what tiredness does to me, ugh.
I guess my wording was pretty much wrong then...the reason that the scientific community's results are generally less biased (or should be ideally) is because of its efforts to test hypothesises and analyse results by a wide range of people.
I wouldn't call things like homoeopathy science though..their 'research' is pseudo-scientific at best.
i don't think you know what you're talking about and I'm Christian. Stop giving us a bad name.
We'll be opened minded, if you have any logic to say God exists other than "there is no proof to say he doesn't".
A creator of the entire universe IS impossible, nothing can bend space and time, and what created that god? On those principles you do not have the answer, the biblical god falls short, again.
Well, space and time are bending all the time...just take a look at relativity.
But I do agree with your point on the fact that a creator can't be an explanation either. I guess things like the multiverse theories make it pretty clear that stuff has existed independently from our universe and its creation.
Also, why sould we look for stuff that came 'before' the universe? 'Before' is a term referring to time and is hence of no good use when you are trying to talk about a state of being where it is assumed time did not exist yet.
Additionally, our logic is based on how we perceive the world to be working, so why should we be able to apply causation before logic came to be? We might have to use a different approach to logically explaining this...which I find especially confusing since we would usually say logic to be universally applicable to any situation.
Since all of this just points to uncertainty, I find worship pretty useless. We could as well worship a potato because maybe a potato in a parallel universe caused our big bang, who knows.
The biblical god is infallible. You seem to think that BG (biblical god) needs to follow the rules of man. Don't forget that science has made quite a few plunders themselves. All in all. Both religion and science was created by man therefore both are flawed. Just to prevent any kind of "your a Christian" comments. I am polytheistic.
do u remember when u wer a kid and u used to pretend to attack other kids and ud go "i shot u" and the other kid would say "bt my guns special and killed you 1st" and you ask y that guns bettr and they just say "because it is". your the annoying kid that goes cos it is
Dear imaginary befrienders or Christians know this, your brain evolved to survive in the African Savannah, to hunt impala and have lots of sex, to survive and not to understand the universe. we are now trying to do so, so if the math and physics point in one direction you should completely disregard any thing else. Im sorry that science cannot lick your ass and tell you your special like your religions do. maybe you should become less insecure and lead your life.
I keep asking myself the same question. The answer to all our questions is in the Bible. Why are they continuing to search?
Very true. People just choose to what they want to believe and if that means making up stuff to get away from the point that there is s higher power out there then that is exactly what they'll do.
1. Omnipotetnce is contrversial.
2.There is a LOT of evidence to support science.
3.I'm assuming that you don't believe in evolution. Well, I can prove it in one word, and one number: Chromosome 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU&list=PL0C606FE36BEDAC75&feature=plcp
enjoy
What in the actual HELL are you talking about? I do believe it is the other way around. Scientists do not make up facts, they create them. Religion on the other hand relies solely on mere words that cannot even be tested or proven. Scientists regularly test various theories to prove that they are right.
So, I voted that you are not normal, only because the facts are all around you, and you continue to flick them away like insects.
Scientists don't know, god doesn't know either. So everyone stop acting like you know, because you don't know anything besides what you've read or been told. Any fact could just be false, you know.
No. You get scientists and you get scientists who happen to be Christians, BUT you just sound like yet another one of those fundie nutjobs. Try again and be a bit more openminded!
Also, what data points to there being a "Creator" other than the Bible and Christian texts, huh?
what did they make up? because as far as im concerned im the creator and the scientist that made it up or im just a clown with a banana up my ass but until i get some further evidence im neither you know what im sayin
I am with the general idea on this. I will listen to anything you have to say about there being evidence of a creator. I have studied quite a bit into religion (specifically I was raised and confirmed, and baptized as a Lutheran) and I have found no definitive proof. Honestly I would love to hear of proof of a creator!
I will be open minded and objective if you give your evidence.
I'd be interested to know about this 'evidence' of a creator too.
Very interested, since no one to date has ever even supplied the tiniest bit of evidence.
What is this all magical evidence you have found?
Is that the sky is falling? No no, that's just rain.
Is there any other evidence or are you a fool too?
Evidence found. Its called the hisenburghe (sp?) particle or god particle. It is being studied at the CERN facility in Switzerland.
They have now got rid of that name.
The only reason why it was once referred to as that was because it was so called the "Goddamn Particle" (please look that up) because it was SO elusive.
Now that it is found it is called the Higgs Boson particle. But there is still some research needed to confirm this 'Boson' is definitely the elusive Higgs Boson (all points to yes)
This is one of the biggest discoveries in SCIENCE, as it now confirms where all matter came from (ie the planet we live on) from the Big Bang. It is set for the Noble prize.
Thanks for learning about this recent (days only) scientific discovery :)
It has NOTHING to do with 'God' and originally the scientist who first named it said he was embarrassed that it use to (not any more) have the 'God' FICTION name attached to it.
Higgs Boson
One of the most scientifically important discoveries ever.
The existance of an omnipotent God is not provable. Any test you can imagine that would disprove the existance of God can be defeated by simply saying, "God is omnipotent, therefore God willed your test to be inaccurate."
Science only deals with things that can be tested and proven. Therefore, God and science do not mix. I'm not saying that there's no place in the world for faith and religion. Those things are powerful and do a lot of good for a lot of people. But they are not science and should not be looked at through a scientific lens.
plus they call it super natural, the word explains it, science only studies our reality, if god is above it (super in latin means beyond) science can't explain it, thats not its purouse.
Ow but it is science. Its called psychology, and evolution. We evolved god to protect us from this uncertain world. We are insecure and easily take in the idea of a powerful being who will want protect and love us. People want a god and they want it badly, it mere human nature our slowly becoming intelligent. most Christians who do what they believe is good only do so in the hopes that it will increase their chances of going to heaven, its for survival, what we are deeply encoded to live for. Religion is what a primitive being creates to make life easier and live forever.
There is data that points towards a creator... my my, could this be physics?
Quantum physics do allow for a creator. We could even be a computer simulation, which would mean a creator.
Everything "allows" for a creator because a creator is not disprovable. Gravity "allows" for the theory that a gigantic invisible turtle is pushing us all down onto the Earth, but that doesn't mean gravity is proof that it's true.
1st objection) God is very much disprovable if something cannot be seen with the eye or a microscope, cannot be heard, smelt, or touched, cannot be detected through means of science or math, it does not exist, except for in the human imagination. God is not a tree or the wind! i would say invisible is a synonym for non-existence. ( (and atoms are NOT INVISIBLE!)
First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist, so your proselytizing is unnecessary. Second, you can misinterpret the scientific method however you'd like, but the only way to scientifically disprove something is to provide significant empirical proof of its nonexistence. Lack of proof alone does not disprove. That's a logical fallacy. There is zero evidence of the Loch Ness monster, but that doesn't mean it's disproven - just means it's illogical to believe in it. We can use Occam's Razor in the meantime.