Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Did you not read, read and ignore or fail to comprehend: "Humans with congenital dwarfism differ in morphology to archaic human precursors."What do you mean "for the existence (with an [b]e
) of these beings altogether". Am I to assume you're once again confusing motivation with causation? [/B]
Anyone/anything could have been born with a missing bone/an extra bone, what makes the shape of a head so important in evolution?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Anyone/anything could have been born with a missing bone/an extra bone, what makes the shape of a head so important in evolution?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
The only reason that science does not say god exists is because noone ever bothers to try and find out. Too hung up in science. God i everywhere, we just cannot see him. And like other universes, he is way beyond our knowledge if we don't even try.
I agree that there is scientists with a certain limitation, and fear to try to see beyond what we call science. There were many things in science that were not made by Einstein, but he took credit for it, because other scientists were too afraid to publish it ; like Max Planck was afraid to publish what he knew about the particle-wave duality because it was too strange, and Einstein toke credit, and explained the photoelectric effect. There is a scientist, I think it was Boltzmann who committed suicide, because he published a theory about the equipartition of the energy, and it was considered wrong. But after he died, scientists discovered he was right... ooops to late. The law of equipartition of energy is valid until today, and it is very important to understand quantum mechanics.
Anyway, I don´t see how to prove God scientifically, what means that I must use scientific method, which is empiricist. Of course that, if it is possible to prove God by the use of the scientific method, one day someone will prove, as they did with relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.
A good way to think of God is by philosophy only, since God is metaphysical, like for example, in epistemology (the branch of philosophy that studies what is knowledge, and truth... ). Now lets define truths as being justified beliefs, I mean.. first we believe in something, then we justify it using a "way of justification", like empiricism, or intuitionism. Now if you change your "way of justification", God could be a provable thing, for example, empiricism is believing that our theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; intuitionism is believing that our intuition could be used as a way to justify a belief of ours. By empiricism it seems that God is not provable, but by intuitionism it will depend on our intuition, so it could be provable. You must understand that there is no right "way of justification", science uses the empiricism, but they do not prove it to be true, they just assume it to be true(we have to start from somewhere, its not possible to deduce everything). If you assume intuitionism to be true, god could be an achievable goal.
except you forget to mention that everything in the physical world we live in exists for all to see, all they have to do is look............where as intuition exists in one's own mind and every single person's mind is different...........therefore there is no standard for comparison. Any crazy whacked out idea somebody comes up with can be declared, truth or fact.
I understand what you mean but that is just an opinion, there is no nothing that made my point logically invalid. Empiricism itself is assumed to be true, because our intuition tells us, and since it cannot be proved. I think that there could be some type of intuicionism, for example; not necessarily every weird thing we think is true, but maybe intuition could be a valid way to obtain information, and there could be information that is only obtained by this intuition( like the validity of the empiricism). Another way to explain is ; form where we obtain our information about the universe ? Five senses, right. So, intuition could be one more sense, and a valid way to obtain information. There is some physicists, that think intuition could be like that. Our intuition could be what Roger Penrose call non-computable algorithyms.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I understand what you mean but that is just an opinion, there is no nothing that made my point logically invalid. Empiricism itself is assumed to be true, because our intuition tells us, and since it cannot be proved. I think that there could be some type of intuicionism, for example; not necessarily every weird thing we think is true, but maybe intuition could be a valid way to obtain information, and there could be information that is only obtained by this intuition( like the validity of the empiricism). Another way to explain is ; form where we obtain our information about the universe ? Five senses, right. So, intuition could be one more sense, and a valid way to obtain information. There is some physicists, that think intuition could be like that. Our intuition could be what Roger Penrose call non-computable algorithyms.
I really agree....this is very true....Read many experiments about this...even tried some.