Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,199,933 members, 7,973,213 topics. Date: Saturday, 12 October 2024 at 11:15 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. (15002 Views)
SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT '' THANKING GOD HEALS '' / A Graduate Student Disproves Gay Marriage Scientifically. / Graces Derived From Assisting At Holy Mass (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by flamingREED(m): 4:54am On Apr 19, 2018 |
Martinez19: You can only be correct if your spacetime is material enough to occasion such phenomena. BTW, who believes spacetime should not also believe gravitation; for he sees space as a fabric that larger masses depress to tilt smaller masses to themselves. But the question is: Why do these lesser masses never roll on to the surface of the heavier ones? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 5:53am On Apr 19, 2018 |
Gggg102:A figment of the imagination created in his mind. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by superhumanist(m): 3:17pm On Apr 19, 2018 |
budaatum: It's like butterflyleo has run away from the thread 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Niflheim(m): 7:20pm On Apr 19, 2018 |
The uncaused cause "gibberish"(it is not even an argument) is at least 800 years old!!! It came about at a time when humans did not even use toilet roll and thought that if you put your pant in the kitchen for 21 days, it will turn into a rat!!! For a man in the 21st Century to be holding on to this [/b]d.ung[b] so desperately, and claiming that it is an evidence of his imaginary friend, is proof that there is a direct correlation between religion and Zombiefication!!! 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by pressplay411(m): 2:09pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19: The truth is you have no proof of all these scientific explanations, hypotheses and ideologies you just shared but you "chose" to believe. Or have you been to Space? Do you know the alignment of our planet in the milky way? No sir, you chose to believe. Yet you won't believe the most basic concept, that Every creation was created by a creator. How difficult is that? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Martinez19(m): 2:11pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
pressplay411:if you know what science is all about, you would not have typed what you typed. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by pressplay411(m): 3:30pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19: And what's science all about? 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Martinez19(m): 4:21pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
pressplay411:Science is about truth and objective reality. Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 4:37pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19: The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers. An ideological approach to science is subjective because it starts with the desired findings at hand prior to the experiment. Long story short, the process of testing is generally objective while the thought processes in interpreting the results are usually very subjective. So this cannot be said to be a good position for "truth" as you infer. There are still so much out there that are true and yet have no scientific evidence backing them up yet science cannot deny their existence. cc vaxx am i right? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Martinez19(m): 4:52pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Consider the two sets. A: all things that are true. B: all things that are scientific facts. B is a subset of A. B is increasing in capacity (or evolving) and the limit of such capacity is A. Therefore we can conclude that all scientific facts are objective reality but not all objective reality are yet scientific facts. Nature has wired to our subjective experience to be in tone with objective reality as long as it doesn't compromise our survival. Understood. 1 Like
|
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 4:55pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19: You need to read my comment again for clarity. Its obvious you did not understand it. Mostly science now is seeking to support a preconceived hypothesis or argument, and is simply pursuing "empirical" evidence to support that position. That is subjectivity and not objectivity. Understood? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 5:29pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:vaxx, is he right? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by pressplay411(m): 6:03pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19: So what happens to phenomena that science hasn't been able to prove? Does that make them unreal? Or is that incapacity and inadequacy of science? I mean what's your explanation for Deja vu, Sleep paralysis, Hailey's comet, astrology, miracles etc. The fact that science doesn't give explanations for them doesn't make them unreal, but Science is yet to understand them. EM waves weren't discovered/explained until about 150 years ago by Heinrich Hertz. Does that mean they were unreal before then? Now we harness it in our technology from phones to drones because we now know and understand better. Hence for starters, God is beyond science. And His choice of indiscoverability doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but rather, science is inadequate to prove His existence. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:08pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Martinez19:No, not understood. Elaborate please. How is subjective experience wired to be in tone with objective reality? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 6:09pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
[quote author=Martinez19 post=67052634] Science is about truth and objective reality.Science is our attempt to “capture” the truth in a form that can be shared and tested and discussed and propagated from one person to another. We write it down, we talk about it, we use it to build more science, etc. and this become objective. which means All that involves the use of relative things that cannot be made non-relative or absolute. So science cannot “contain” the truth in his openness, it can only make an attempt to represent some aspect of it.. Anything that isn't true and has no evidence or proof backing it up can't be considered science.this is false, science does not deals with proof, I can tell you that right this second, I sat beside a pretty damsel at elengunshi beach talking to one of the oloshos, If anyone come to elegunshi now, they would see the two of us, and go away knowing that we were really at the beach. The proof that we were in the beach was the fact that they saw us! There’s all sorts of things that we bandy around as facts — for instance, that England won the football world cup in 1966 or real Madrid won yesterday match. hope you watch it? if i ask you to prove it, you may show me video or photos supporting your claim. and it will have to be a kind of obstinate fo anyone to disagree that real Madrid won yesterday match, nobody doubt that Nigeria was in a big mess under general sanni abacha at least i remember though i was younger then. But in the scientific realm? Doubt abounds. None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people having sex with your own eyes! though it counts “Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about. And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world. I cannot prove to you that electrons exist. No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, prove that things will always fall down when you drop them, prove that energy is conserved, prove that dark matter exists, prove that quantum physics is real. you know why Because that it is not what science is about. Proof can only exist when there is no doubt, and there is always doubt. You could be a brain in a vat, living in a crazy simulation. You could be hallucinating everything. as ellon musk put it. so science only gather evidence, but evidence will never be 100% perfect,there’s always the chance that everything you scientifically verified might needs further explanation or even turns out to be false — but the evidence allows us to make current-best-evidence-guesses |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:12pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
pressplay411:So, is it your opinion that the title of this thread, Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived, is false? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 6:12pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
pressplay411:THUMBS UP |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 6:14pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum:I agree with you on it. but the op is a good writeup wordy of brain cracking |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 6:20pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:this is what is dragging science progress, not having consensus agreement. the fact of science should be objective. i love the first point, the one i colored. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 6:21pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum: These words below I used just today on another thread. Science cannot prove God but can infer this to those who examine the evidence sincerely. And if you truly went through the OP. It specifically speaks on inference based on the points in the OP. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 6:23pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum:i answer something similar like this in your former thread where i use global warming as an example. check up |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 6:25pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
vaxx: Exactly! And because there is no general concensus, it then cannot be a pointer to truth because it falsifies itself. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:46pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:"Sincerity", is a subjective element and has nothing to do with science, is my opinion. Below is a view on science from vaxx. Could you let me know if in your opinion, it means the same as what you wrote? vaxx:Vaxx, note that this specific discussion relates to science! |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 6:52pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum: I captured this in my earlier post so let me repeat. The academic approach to science is objective because it is a search for answers with findings scrutinized by peers. In order to elaborate on this I now said Mostly science now is seeking to support a preconceived hypothesis or argument, and is simply pursuing "empirical" evidence to support that position. What vaxx said was simply echoing this comment of mine. And yes sincerity is subjective and that is what science has been doing " ideologically". |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 6:59pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
vaxx: vaxx:Which was in response to the following: budaatum:Butter, is the bit in bold not what you have suggested? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by vaxx: 7:01pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum:kudos |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 7:10pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum: Yes and that was you speaking albeit unknowingly in support of the fact that science has been tainted by individual scientific subjectivity when such should be far away from science for it to be actually truly scientific. This is why there will always be opposing sides to scientific research. One person wants to prove his own preconceived hypothesis while another wants to do same with their own so its in a sense a scientific cheat even before conclusions are derived. This then makes scientists to provide parameters that would prove their hypothesis and even when their hypothesis fails to be proven, they keep tweaking the parameters until it is met. This does not then speak of actual truth but a rather false position gotten through subjective manipulation. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by pressplay411(m): 7:11pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum: God has chosen to be indiscoverable. Proof of hHs existence is not just in the singularity of his manifestation but in everything around us, seen and unseen. It is your "choice" however to decide to acknowledge Him. OP went to a great length to speak the language of science, Proof and Evidence which he did justice too. But it all still comes down to choice. The concept of divergent logic itself proves the existence of a creator. The complexity of the creation in itself is all the proofs you could ever ask for. You have a Giant Sun suspended in the air, Stars, Moon, Oceans, etc. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 8:48pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:Butter, how can I possibly have such a detailed discussion on the same issue with vaxx for so long and then post the exact same thing here, which corresponds with what you wrote, which is why I reposted it, and then be accused by you of doing so unknowingly? I demand an apology please. You see disagreement where none exists! kovah, can you see how people build up imaginary realities in their heads? Butterflyleo:And as vaxx and I rightly pointed out, such subjectivity should be eliminated as much as possible or don't call it scientific. It should not be license to stoop to their level. Butterflyleo:When people do what you describe here sensible people call them crackpots. If they tweak parameters and build a bridge on such premises, the bridge will fall down, and if they did the same when building a rocket to go to Mars they will end up in the Atlantic ocean! |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 8:58pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
vaxx:It was very worthy of consideration, but alas, op was doing what you accused me of, arguing unnecessarily to prove a point, while refusing to consider anyone else's opinion or view on the matter, or he would have admitted he had not scientifically proven anything of the sort. But go back and check how many times he was told but refused to acknowledge the fact while continously asking that his position be refuted even though it was pointed out to him in the very first few responses that his premises were wrong! I guess we now know what some do when they claim to be scientific! |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by budaatum: 9:06pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
vaxx:Science cannot be by consent if no objective evidence is provided to justify that consent! That is why scientific experiments, at least, require peer reviews to ascertain repeatability, verifiability , falsifiability, and most important of all, objectivity. No one in their right sense can argue that a one litre jug filled with a carefully measured out half a litre of water is not half full and half empty. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by kovah(m): 9:23pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
budaatum:making sense of our realities in d scientific way and hoping it will not b subjective to our reality is not possible |
(1) (2) (3) ... (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (Reply)
Christianity Vs. Satanism / Reasons Scholars Know Jesus Christ Never Existed / Difference Between Qabli And Ba'di
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 85 |