[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Tonio

No, I was saying that the catalyst is a natural force. The concept is known as causal determinism.

No you said these are questions of science not philosophy.

Originally Posted by Tonio

But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy.

Causal determinism is a philosophical theory not a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by Tonio

I'm taking about the claim that purpose and reason were consciously created by a supernatural entity. Again, there is no evidence for that claim. You would have a point if you are referring to purpose or reason as the same as a natural cause.

But you’ve admitted you don’t know yet you argue against it. You seem to want things both ways. The evidence in this claim is history. There is plenty of archeological proof as well as written accounts. I don’t need scientific proof to know that the Fall of Rome happened or that the Xia Dynasty existed, but we have history to tell us so. We have thousands of years and billions of people as believers in this God as historical proof.

Originally Posted by Tonio

When I acknowledge the possibility of gods, I emphasize that the gods may have any sort of natures, and that some people's beliefs about the gods may be wrong. Some people believe in a single god and others believe in many. What evidence would show that one group is wrong and the other one right?

Why can’t God be part of the very nature He created? Here is the problem with wanting to prove God through science… What if God doesn’t want to be? But right or wrong (as I pointed out with Hawking and global warming, etc…) it comes down to having faith…

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen… Hebrews 11:1.

Originally Posted by Tonio

No, science's answers can be tested in some cases and analyzed in others to see if they continue to match data from observations. Scientists don't simply accept their colleagues' conclusions without question.

What I meant by “you’re relying on science to answer everything” is that you seem to want a scientific explanation for God in order to believe. I think simple observations of our surroundings answers that.

Originally Posted by Tonio

That implies that science simply replaces one set of knowledge with another. It's more accurate to say that science adds to its storehouse of knowledge with new discoveries. While there have sometimes been wrong turns, the overall collection of knowledge continues to grow.

No, it replaces one answer with another. When Hawking admitted he was wrong that bit of “knowledge” became dead. It added to nothing. But don’t interpret what I’m saying as we shouldn’t seek out this knowledge. Absolutely not! I believe God gave us brains with the capacity to do this sort of thinking. I believe He encourages it. I believe He wants to ask questions. Not in the context of doubt, but in the same context that scientists seek out answers. They seek it out with the belief of the possibility not with doubt. They don’t research to prove something doesn’t exist, they seek to prove it does.

Originally Posted by Tonio

That wasn't a case where Pluto was never a planet and we simply didn't discover this until recently. It was a case where the discovery of small planets beyond Pluto caused a firestorm of controversy among astronomers as to how they should define a planet. (That's why the first one discovered was named Eris, for the goddess of discord.) So Pluto, Eris, Ceres and others were put into the new classification of "dwarf planet." The issue was about humans revising their own classifications for observable objects, based on new tools for making observations. I sometimes joke that Pluto was demoted.

Has anyone thought about the Plutonians in this demotion? What about their rights? What about their feelings

You mean sort of like eggs are bad for us, no they are good for us, no they are bad for us, no now they are good for us again. Can we expect astronomers to come back on a later date and tell us they were wrong that Pluto is indeed a planet? So now, us lay-people do what? Believe whatever they tell us.

Originally Posted by Tonio

Scientific hypotheses are not "truth" and they are not branded as such by science. They are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Obviously some hypotheses cannot be conclusively proven because we don't have the ability to make certain observations. But that caveat is inherent in the concept of the scientific hypothesis.

Which gets to my central point… these things will never be proven except through theory; unless deep space travel becomes a reality. You simply believe it or not. Just as with God these things come with faith.