@nonselcei every created thing be it universe needs a creator/ driver/ maintainer. Metaphysical beings/ powers override the laws of phyiscal world. What ever lives in metaphysical realm we can’t explain/ prove with scientific methods.
@MrDawn Unseen is a different realm, different dimension. 1000 years back science could not prove radiations, I bet there were people claiming its crazy to claim anything like so existed.
Science is a moving target, changes hypothesis every few years. Who knows meta physics could be explained few decades/ centuries from now.
@MrDawn 10, 15,… 50 generations back too? You get the idea, you’re just being unreasonable now.
If there is new information, wouldn’t there be an update on hypothesis?
I am sure no one claimed there was radiation. I would be surprised if anyone claimed there was any such thing.
Do you think teleportation is possible? I experienced that. I am hoping to figure out how its done…
My ancestors can be traced back via DNA to ~900 BCE. That’s a few more than 50 generations.
1 Like
By what means was this determined?
Did you not read what I wrote? I said it was determined via DNA.
Precisely because science modifies its hypotheses and theories every so often is the very reason we have made such enormous progress the last couple of hundred years. Whenever new and exciting results arrive - be it the formulation of electromagnetism, quantisation of energy to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe, acceptance of the speed of light as the same for all observers, special+general relativity, the idea that electrons in an atom occupy discrete energy levels, the formulation of the physics of microscopic particles as waves, the acceptance of wave/particle duality, etc. - we gain new information. It would be rather silly to not update physics and its theories with all this new information, don’t you think? And the same for all other disciplines. Wouldn’t it be silly to not update e.g. medical science with new information about illnesses, new medicines, etc.?
You see, your criticism of science as a moving and self-updating target is self-defeating, and you’d be a fool and an idiot not to acknowledge it.
On the other hand, there was some doofus around the year 600 CE that declared that his body of “knowledge” was immutable and perfect, no matter what kind of new information would arrive and no matter how society would change. In an increasingly changing world, the followers of that discipline is stuck with a pre-medieaval notion of how Nature works, what is possible and what is not, and insists of carrying on a pre-medieval notion of how society should work. Isn’t that rather silly?
1 Like
Hi, while this argument is true, it does not imply that this metaphysical reality is conscious, intelligent, or has any divine properties.
I fully believe in God, but I think that many of the arguments used to defend His existence are wrong.
Not exactly how science works. New evidence could serve to refine an existing paradigm.
Take, for example, the case of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. This paradigm allowed us to explain the positions of planets, made good predictions, and new observations led to improvements in this model.
But it was completely wrong. We needed a paradigm shift. And the problem is that the creation of new paradigms is not so simple.
In general, a new paradigm implies intuition. And this is not just an opinion—from Heisenberg to Einstein, from Newton to Poincaré, all of them referred to intuition as the guide that led to their most precious inventions.
It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.
Poincaré
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
Einstein
Here we see a pattern: first, intuition shows the path, and then logic follows. The problem is that not all intuitions can be understood by reason, and God is one of them. Our society has rejected intuition as a valid source of knowledge, even though it has been the source of all our advancements.
I don’t think that science can advance solely by relying on these factors, first because this mechanism doesn’t prevent massive fraud, as we are seeing in pharmaceutical research. Moreover, this mechanism has limits, one of which is the inability to create new paradigms that require intuition.
In short, our society is in denial of anything we can’t understand, assuming that reason alone is enough to grasp reality. But it is intuition, not reason alone, that has been the source of all scientific achievements. Intuition is not fully understandable, yet it has led all human groups, in all times and places, to believe in some form of divine reality.
Since you just redponded (again) to several expansive rational objections to your many bare unevidenced assertions, with vapid handwaving, the irony of your projection doesn’t need much underling here.
You’re not here for debate, but to preach your superstitious wares.
I note you’ve avoided my original question again, unsurprisingly…
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible?
All of yours have been very poorly reasoned, littered with logical fallacies…
1 Like
If my memory is correct, I think we reached a very sound syllogism that, for some reason, you refused to accept—or at least you refused to admit its logical consequences.
In fact, I still don’t understand why you show such strong resistance to the idea that reality has a subjective component that is universal.
You experience it at every second, yet for some reason, you assume that this subjective component exists only within you.
@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU , your use of the word “intuition” in that post is problematic.
Ya’ see, intuition is a feeling, not knowledge, and there are other ways a line of investigation can be pointed to. For example, some data may show up that contradicts current theory - or a fossil shows up that doesn’t fit the current narrative.
What drives science is investigation - and investigation can be experiments or looking at data, etc. Intuition doesn’t always play a role here.
1 Like
@Sheldon you don’t anywhere with circular closed minded logical arguments, its argument for the sake of argument alone.
@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU in Islam we have a whole concept of Unseen which includes the Creator, Angels, Jinn (you can call it daemon but exactly not the same idea), Paradise, Hellfire, life in grave and lot more. We don’t go into the territory of explaining the essence of God unlike Christianity. God’s existence is manifested in things we have around us. We are the proof the creator exist.
I’ve often found that when folks say this, it’s because they’ve been bested in an exchange.
1 Like
@CyberLN I wish there was an exchange rather than mere judgemental statements 
Or you could assert, “We are the proof Abzu exists.”
Or, “We are the proof Odin exists.”
Or, “We are the proof Ngewo exists.”
Or, “We are the proof Imra exists.”
Or, “We are the proof Tzacol exists.”
Or, “We are the proof space bunnies exist.”
Or, “We are the proof (fill in the blank with anything) exists.”
Without testable, verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence, then merely saying or holding up a book that says any particular god/s exist is speculation at best.
Organizing one’s life around mere speculation seems, well, rather silly to me. I think it smells of desperation, avoidance, and willful ignorance.
3 Likes
Interesting, you mean like the one of yours I quoted?
1 Like