I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[Ophiolite]

Hmmm ... interesting.

From AI Overview:

No, there are no elements named after Charles Darwin on the periodic table. While many species, genera, and other biological entities have been named after him, no elements have been named in his honor. Instead, elements are often named after scientists who made significant contributions to their discovery or understanding, such as Einsteinium (Albert Einstein), Rutherfordium (Ernest Rutherford), and Nobelium (Alfred Nobel).

Yet Charles Darwin is considered "The Father of Evolution".

As well as:

1. being buried in a prominent cemetery
2. having his portrait on a unit of currency
3. having a capitol city named after him

Interesting indeed.

Evidently he didn't "make any significant contributions to his discovery"?

Are you being deliberaly obtuse, or has your reading comprehension issue resurfaced? If you make a significant contribution to the discovery of an element you get the element named after you. Here's breaking news for you: Darwin was not a physicist! Instead he got many biologically related "items" named after him. Now, difficult as it will be for you, please try to tone down the silliness. It's upsetting the children.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, difficult as it will be for you, please try to tone down the silliness. It's upsetting the children.

... I have to admit, Ophiolite, that was a good one!

 

[Discussion]

From an agnostic pov, what god?

What's his/her name?

The one that exists I was thinking.

 

[Discussion]

But your "patriotism" in academia was noticed by your parliament, wasn't it?

And a principle of academics* wasn't too popular all of a sudden, was it?

* Law of Supply and Demand

Sorry what on earth are you saying here? That people in my country have protested against univerity bills being too high? Sure they have, people in your country have protested against anti-abortion laws (which I pressume you support).

The law of Supply and Demand is a principle of economics not a principle of academics anyway but no it is not particularly popular it's just a law that relativly accuratly describes how markets work, people could protest against the law of energy conservation if they wanted unlimited energy but it doesn't make physics untrue. Please stop making arguements from popularity (that don't even work) and actually reason.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry what on earth are you saying here? That people in my country have protested against univerity bills being too high? Sure they have, people in your country have protested against anti-abortion laws (which I pressume you support).

The law of Supply and Demand is a principle of economics not a principle of academics anyway but no it is not particularly popular it's just a law that relativly accuratly describes how markets work, people could protest against the law of energy conservation if they wanted unlimited energy but it doesn't make physics untrue. Please stop making arguements from popularity (that don't even work) and actually reason.

You're pretty new so here's the rundown on AV's 'logic': anything related to his twisted personal view of academia, i.e. anything that runs counter to his own personal and very strange interpretation of the Bible = BAD.

I also put 'logic' in quotes because he has no logic whatsoever for what he says. Just wait until he brings up thalidomide, the Challenger disaster, the L'Aquila earthquake, the Titanic disaster and the Hindedenburg disaster as his 'proofs' about 'academia' and 'scientists' being at fault for anything and everything.

 

[Discussion]

You're pretty new so here's the rundown on AV's 'logic': anything related to his twisted personal view of academia, i.e. anything that runs counter to his own personal and very strange interpretation of the Bible = BAD.

I also put 'logic' in quotes because he has no logic whatsoever for what he says. Just wait until he brings up thalidomide, the Challenger disaster, the L'Aquila earthquake, the Titanic disaster and the Hindedenburg disaster as his 'proofs' about 'academia' and 'scientists' being at fault for anything and everything.

Little biased for my liking but yeah, I probably agree with you. Kinda going off the topic here but as you seem a reasonable person could you explain your deism to me, I'm most interested.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Little biased for my liking but yeah, I probably agree with you. Kinda going off the topic here but as you seem a reasonable person could you explain your deism to me, I'm most interested.

To say AV is a 'little biased', is like the saying the South Pole is a 'little cold' - a massive understatement.

I just don't accept the general claims many literalists and general religion makes about God in relation to the world and the universe. That's kind of it, really.

 

[Discussion]

To say AV is a 'little biased', is like the saying the South Pole is a 'little cold' - a massive understatement.

Ah who isn't everyone wants to be right.

I just don't accept the general claims many literalists and general religion makes about God in relation to the world and the universe. That's kind of it, really.

Intriguing, I do find this position more tenable than Christianity. What convinces you to believe a God exists at all may I ask? Presumably you believe they created the universe (apologies for the presumption) but why did they do so?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah who isn't everyone wants to be right.

With AV, it's less that he wants to be right, it's more that he cannot contradict his literal interpretation of the Bible no matter what. If he brings up his 'Boolean standards' you'll see it.

Intriguing, I do find this position more tenable than Christianity. What convinces you to believe a God exists at all may I ask? Presumably you believe they created the universe (apologies for the presumption) but why did they do so?

I just kind of do, really. Kind of hard to say more than that.

 

[Discussion]

With AV, it's less that he wants to be right, it's more that he cannot contradict his literal interpretation of the Bible no matter what. If he brings up his 'Boolean standards' you'll see it.

Well fair enough, thank you for the warning.

I just kind of do, really. Kind of hard to say more than that.

Fair enough, have a nice day even though its a bit cloudy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's no reason for me to even suppose the involvement of intelligence in these interactions, or even consider it as a possibility. I can only start to rule it in when there are reasons to. So, what have you got?



"We don't know" is fine as an answer. But, "we don't know, and there's no evidence to support any such hypothesis" is even better, as it happens to be a more accurate (and honest) description.

Not exactly. I'm going with the Pascalian notion of that there enough for those who do and a deficiency for those who don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a standard (and weak) form of argument common among Islamic apologists. We hear Christians do it too. It's not a good argument (as should be clear). It works like this:

1. Assert order can only come from intelligence.
2. Demonstrate there is order.
3. Show scale of order (laws of physics, etc.) is so vast that intelligence must be god-like
4. Bingo! God must be true.

It is much like the design argument the creationists like to make with "design" instead of "order".

It was the thinking of the ancient world, Hans. Obviously, scientific reductionists and those adhering to scientism think that Occam solved the problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also put 'logic' in quotes because he has no logic whatsoever for what he says. Just wait until he brings up thalidomide, the Challenger disaster, the L'Aquila earthquake, the Titanic disaster and the Hindedenburg disaster as his 'proofs' about 'academia' and 'scientists' being at fault for anything and everything.

Don't forget the Florida "life saving" footbridge collapse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well fair enough, thank you for the warning.

My Boolean Standards: *

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

* I'd hate to disappoint Warden.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't forget the Florida "life saving" footbridge collapse.

Eh, you don't bring that one up as much as the others.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eh, you don't bring that one up as much as the others.

Point taken.

 

[AV1611VET]

The law of Supply and Demand is a principle of economics not a principle of academics anyway ...

Just so you know, from AI Overview:

The law of supply and demand is a fundamental principle in economics that describes how prices are determined in a market.

Economics is a social science ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just so you know, from AI Overview:

The law of supply and demand is a fundamental principle in economics that describes how prices are determined in a market.

Economics is a social science ...

And here @Discussion, we see how broadly and twistedly AV applies the word 'science'.

 

[AV1611VET]

And here @Discussion, we see how broadly and twistedly AV applies the word 'science'.

Speaking of applying science, what do you think when academians expect us to come up with physical evidence of an act of creatio ex nihilo?

Or, put another way, want physical evidence of a miracle?

 

[Ophiolite]

Or, put another way, want physical evidence of a miracle?

I tend to think that accepting anything without evidence leans heavily towards insanity, but more charitably is not a good survival strategy.