4 ms·

Scientific inquiry requires objective proof OF EXISTANCE. We know that humans can be deceived, both by themselves and others. You might be asking for scientifi

Scientific inquiry requires objective proof OF EXISTANCE. We know that humans can be deceived, both by themselves and others. You might be asking for scientific proof of non-existance, but that cannot be provided for pretty much anything. For instance, you cannot (yet) prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting at the same distance from the sun as Pluto. By claiming we need to disprove God, you are missing the point. You're being asked to PROVE God. Much of religion is desirable (godlike friendly entities, everlasting life, real justice). However we have no evidence any of it is true. I wish some of it was. Wrath of god, less desirable.

prmph 4y ago
I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science (even at a time where there was no modern scientific knowledge to speak of). Now, if there are other things in it that seem to go beyond our experience, there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. Also, about the null hypothesis thing: Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?
- gridspy 4y ago
  > I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. I believe the only accurate and objective measure of truth is the scientific process. In the absence of running the tests myself, I would examine the process taken and make a trust-based assessment about the practitioners. Not ideal, I agree. It seems likely that your statement is true, I can't think of any such belief right now. > The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science ... there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. The internet is full of both truth and lies. Just because there is some truth, does not mean there are NOT also some lies / mistakes. The same is true of all works. Just because some part of Genesis (or Tolkien's the Hobbit) matches reality (for instance, eating delicious apples)... does not mean the whole thing is accurate truth. > Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall? This is some deep ethics. Initially I would look to prove that you could effect your environment somehow. God clearly cannot, based on experiments relating to Prayer. One means would be a Turing test? Generally these are very deep discussions relating to sentience, the effects of that. I'd say that discussing that here would be a distraction from the proof thing.
  - prmph 4y ago
    But we do have evidence that the things in the Bible are true. However, to appreciate the kind evidence offered requires a change in mindset. If you are looking for mathematical proof, you are not going to find it. But there are many things about which we can gain knowledge with a heuristic approach, not a hard algorithmic one. If you approach things with an open mind and consider the witness of people who witnessed the events, the agreement with known scientific facts, the satisfying answers given to the deep questions of life, and the sound advice given regarding practical aspects of life which works, then the logical conclusion is that the Bible contains accurate information that comes from a higher source, God. But these things have been politicized. It is anathema for most scientists (and people who follow the science and think they know so much) to admit the limits of the simplistic scientific method that they follow.

prmph 4y ago

I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science (even at a time where there was no modern scientific knowledge to speak of). Now, if there are other things in it that seem to go beyond our experience, there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. Also, about the null hypothesis thing: Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?

gridspy 4y ago
> I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. I believe the only accurate and objective measure of truth is the scientific process. In the absence of running the tests myself, I would examine the process taken and make a trust-based assessment about the practitioners. Not ideal, I agree. It seems likely that your statement is true, I can't think of any such belief right now. > The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science ... there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. The internet is full of both truth and lies. Just because there is some truth, does not mean there are NOT also some lies / mistakes. The same is true of all works. Just because some part of Genesis (or Tolkien's the Hobbit) matches reality (for instance, eating delicious apples)... does not mean the whole thing is accurate truth. > Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall? This is some deep ethics. Initially I would look to prove that you could effect your environment somehow. God clearly cannot, based on experiments relating to Prayer. One means would be a Turing test? Generally these are very deep discussions relating to sentience, the effects of that. I'd say that discussing that here would be a distraction from the proof thing.
- prmph 4y ago
  But we do have evidence that the things in the Bible are true. However, to appreciate the kind evidence offered requires a change in mindset. If you are looking for mathematical proof, you are not going to find it. But there are many things about which we can gain knowledge with a heuristic approach, not a hard algorithmic one. If you approach things with an open mind and consider the witness of people who witnessed the events, the agreement with known scientific facts, the satisfying answers given to the deep questions of life, and the sound advice given regarding practical aspects of life which works, then the logical conclusion is that the Bible contains accurate information that comes from a higher source, God. But these things have been politicized. It is anathema for most scientists (and people who follow the science and think they know so much) to admit the limits of the simplistic scientific method that they follow.