This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.
But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand at that.I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions.
As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening.
Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?
Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne.
Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.
My parable for the day.
They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.
All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.
Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination.
But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
I the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.
If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.
Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science?
I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?
I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.
I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.
I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.
I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation.
The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system.
Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other:
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath?God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.