Thought Experiment

[Blues Man]

What?
Are You claiming that a modern American dictionary is full of spelling errors and wrong definitions?

Those are all agreed upon things.

Both spellings and definitions can change. If they do does that mean that the earlier spellings and definitions were not "true"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tell that to the leftist Democrats in America Please.

 

[Hollie]

Finally! Someone gets it! Thank you, Sue.

The entire premise of the experiment is to show that we simply can't prove the origin of the universe.

People of faith (generally speaking) believe God created it, with varying beliefs of when that happened.

People who place their faith in science (generally speaking, again, though there's a significant overlap between the two groups. How much? Beats me) believe the origin of the universe was a natural phenomenon. They have theories that attempt to explain the existence of things we observe today, which change as new information is discovered, but they can only ever be theories.

Because we can't test them. We can't create our own universes in the lab. We can't go back in time to observe. If somebody invents time travel, great! But...where would he stand outside the primordial singularity? The universe wasn't there. No place for an observer to be, no framework to carry information to the observer. Not to mention the possibility of altering the timeline; a researcher's presence might influence the natural laws being established at the time. He might go back to his own time to find he'd never been born, or Earth was hostile to life, or had never even been formed at all.

The people who believe the science-based origin of the universe have to take it on faith. They read an article by scientists who publish their best guesses on why we see the things we see and how they may have come about. The readers probably don't understand the theory behind the guesses, but they trust the people who made the guesses, so they believe their ideas. They have faith in the science.

“History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.”​

​

― Bill Watterson, Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat​

Bill was right. It also applies to science. Theories and ideas fall into and out of favor.

On the other side, believers in a Creator know God built us this beautiful universe. They have faith in that idea. (Full disclosure: I'm one of them.) Some believe a literal interpretation of Genesis, doing the math and coming up with a few thousand years elapsed between creation and today. Some believe Genesis is allegory, not to be taken literally. Others still have a more amorphous idea of God, seeing an intelligence behind the design of the universe, but not necessarily a God who takes a personal interest in His creation. But we can't prove God exists, or He built the place. "The Biblical concept of faith is that it amounts to complete confidence in something for which there is no empirical or rational proof available." Faith precludes proof. Many people don't understand this.

People in this thread have come at it from both sides. Most have been hostile to the suggestion that what they know might not be right, and haven't been willing to consider it.

But y'all can relax. We simply can't undeniably know where this all came from. You don't have to believe me. But it's pretty much inarguable.

I'm content believing I can ask God when I meet him. I'd like to ask Him to let me into His video library and watch Creation for myself.

It'll be unimaginably beautiful.

There is an obvious inconsistency with the OP and post above. As stated in the OP: "... Now...how could you disprove this?''

The above post claims: "The entire premise of the experiment is to show that we simply can't prove the origin of the universe.''

You changed the entire premise of the ''thought experiment'' from one of ''disproof'' to one of ''you can't prove it''.

I should point out that I actually can disprove the premise of the OP. Disprove my disproof.

I'm being facetious about requiring you to disprove disproofs, but it really highlights the flaw of the OP. The asserter of positive claims are required to support such claims. No one is required to disprove a claim someone else feels no obligation to support.


I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a conclusion. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know there is a god" -- then of what need is there for faith?

Lastly, you make the statement: "Because we can't test them. We can't create our own universes in the lab.'' That simply isn't true. We can and we are testing them. The most ambitious experiment to date is the large Haldron collider which is testing some elements that could help solve the mysteries of the origin of the universe.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a conclusion. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know there is a god" -- then of what need is there for faith?

Great points. Faith necessarily fills a void until sufficient evidence (knowledge) is gathered and testing is done confirming logical alternatives. We cannot believe nothing so create supernatural fillers. Noises in the attic? Must be ghosts!

 

[JohnDB]

Those are all agreed upon things.

Both spellings and definitions can change. If they do does that mean that the earlier spellings and definitions were not "true"

I'm not talking about the future or past times here or how living languages shift over time ....this is NOT a trick question.

I'm not one for games.

So back to the original question you are claiming that the spellings and definitions are "all agreed upon".
By whom?
Who agrees that these spellings and definitions are the truth?
Obviously (as you are trying to wiggle about with your answers about living languages changing over time) the writers and publishers have to update things from time to time to keep them modern and truthful.

So who decides that?
How do they come to the conclusions that things have changed?

(I'm not saying that they don't....once upon a time the word "charity" was used exactly the same as the word "love" is used today)

But who changed it in the dictionaries and made it the new standard?

 

[Blues Man]

I'm not talking about the future or past times here or how living languages shift over time ....this is NOT a trick question.

I'm not one for games.

So back to the original question you are claiming that the spellings and definitions are "all agreed upon".
By whom?
Who agrees that these spellings and definitions are the truth?
Obviously (as you are trying to wiggle about with your answers about living languages changing over time) the writers and publishers have to update things from time to time to keep them modern and truthful.

So who decides that?
How do they come to the conclusions that things have changed?

(I'm not saying that they don't....once upon a time the word "charity" was used exactly the same as the word "love" is used today)

But who changed it in the dictionaries and made it the new standard?

A History of Dictionaries - how they are compiled

A History of Dictionaries - a study of the theories and practices of lexicographers - a review of a short study of dictionary compiling

mantex.co.uk

Linguistics has been an area of study for thousands of years

 

[JohnDB]

A History of Dictionaries - how they are compiled

A History of Dictionaries - a study of the theories and practices of lexicographers - a review of a short study of dictionary compiling

mantex.co.uk

Linguistics has been an area of study for thousands of years

So are you just going to bypass my questions?

 

[JohnDB]

And if takes this much trouble to get a simple answer out of you with a simple question about the accuracy and who decides that accuracy we are going to spend ten pages on BS before we get anywhere.

 

[Blues Man]

So are you just going to bypass my questions?

You're looking for more heat than light.

For any language to work the meanings of words have to be agreed upon. Those meanings can and do change over time.

It's the best we can do so I'm not going to quibble over obscure or discarded definitions or spelling because nothing worthwhile will come of it.

If you really want to have to define all your terms before any conversation then you won't have many interesting discourses.

 

[JohnDB]

You're looking for more heat than light.

For any language to work the meanings of words have to be agreed upon. Those meanings can and do change over time.

It's the best we can do so I'm not going to quibble over obscure or discarded definitions or spelling because nothing worthwhile will come of it.

If you really want to have to define all your terms before any conversation then you won't have many interesting discourses.

All I am asking for is a simple, most basic answer....

I'm not going to spend 20 pages trying to nail jello to the wall....

I'm not playing some kind of semantic game or any other sort of game.

Just a simple "Yes, I believe that dictionaries are accurate because of a group of leaned scholars" would have saved us 3 pages of nonsense.

 

[Blues Man]

All I am asking for is a simple, most basic answer....

I'm not going to spend 20 pages trying to nail jello to the wall....

I'm not playing some kind of semantic game or any other sort of game.

Just a simple "Yes, I believe that dictionaries are accurate because of a group of leaned scholars" would have saved us 3 pages of nonsense.

I believe I said that you just didn't like the way i said it.

 

[Missourian]

So the thought experiment is just a hypothetical question with no answer.

Not exactly.

The answer is 'no'.

You could not prove the universe was created 10 minutes ago... because there is no experiment you could perform that would supply that proof.

You are inside the Matrix.

I could take it even further.

Prove that ... (Insert any random event outside of your own personal experience here)... actually occurred.

I'll choose the Crusades...as we are in the Religion Forum.

Prove that the Crusades occurred...

 

[JohnDB]

I believe I said that you just didn't like the way i said it.

I'm truly trying very hard to keep you from looking like a difficult idiot but you aren't exactly helpful in this regard.

Where I understand that this is exactly the opposite of most atheists' goals...I'm not trying to treat you in a likewise fashion.

 

[daveman]

There is an obvious inconsistency with the OP and post above. As stated in the OP: "... Now...how could you disprove this?''

The above post claims: "The entire premise of the experiment is to show that we simply can't prove the origin of the universe.''

You changed the entire premise of the ''thought experiment'' from one of ''disproof'' to one of ''you can't prove it''.

I should point out that I actually can disprove the premise of the OP. Disprove my disproof.

I'm being facetious about requiring you to disprove disproofs, but it really highlights the flaw of the OP. The asserter of positive claims are required to support such claims. No one is required to disprove a claim someone else feels no obligation to support.


I don't know anyone who has ''faith'' in science. Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it can not claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a conclusion. Faith is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know there is a god" -- then of what need is there for faith?

Lastly, you make the statement: "Because we can't test them. We can't create our own universes in the lab.'' That simply isn't true. We can and we are testing them. The most ambitious experiment to date is the large Haldron collider which is testing some elements that could help solve the mysteries of the origin of the universe.

I know plenty of people who have faith in science. They're all over USMB. And they usually know nothing of the nature of faith. As you say, and as I've said, faith precludes evidence, and evidence precludes faith. But these are the kind of people who screech "PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS HA YOU CANT CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEEVERS!!" -- or "godbotherers", as one particularly strident militant atheist child here likes to say.

Meanwhile, the experiments at the LHC, while cool, can in no way prove how the universe came into being. The experiments can only provide conditions the scientists conducting them believe may replicate the conditions extant at the beginning -- but again, there is no way to test them against what actually happened. It's educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.

So, okay, I'll admit to the "disproving" question in the OP. But what if I changed it to, "Can you prove anything else happened using the evidence and observations you have?"

Could you? At heart, it's a question to the nature of reality itself, and more philosophy than anything else. "Can you trust the evidence of your perceptions?"

 

[emilynghiem]

Tell that to the leftist Democrats in America Please.

^ Thanks x 100
It may be that I am the only Democrat willing to stand up and speak out
against abusing the party and govt to impose, mandate or establish "political beliefs"
that exclude, disparage, and discriminate against people of other creeds.

I offered to make a list of all the complaints against Democrats DENYING key issues.

If liberal/Democrats keep yelling about denying benefits of vaccines, and even BLAMING DEATHS
on people due to Conservative propaganda,
what about holding DEMOCRATS to issues their Party has been denying.

By the time I spell out such a list, I will be one of the few Democrats
willing to acknowledge those issues. If other people agree, we could
use that standard to demand accountability, and urge the public
NOT to recognize any political positions as valid Constitutionally
unless they acknowledge correcting these biases.

If people want to have their own biases, that should stay private.
You are welcome to practice and express your own beliefs without being harassed or penalized.

But the minute you involve anything with the legal or legislative system,
and creating public policy or influencing public institutions,
then those policies cannot impose biases in beliefs that disparage or discriminate against other people.

We need to spell these issues and areas out.
And separate what are personal political beliefs
from what can be established as public policy which should be neutral and uniform,
and not get into these political biases between groups of different faith based beliefs.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I know plenty of people who have faith in science. They're all over USMB. And they usually know nothing of the nature of faith. As you say, and as I've said, faith precludes evidence, and evidence precludes faith. But these are the kind of people who screech "PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS HA YOU CANT CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEEVERS!!" -- or "godbotherers", as one particularly strident militant atheist child here likes to say.

Meanwhile, the experiments at the LHC, while cool, can in no way prove how the universe came into being. The experiments can only provide conditions the scientists conducting them believe may replicate the conditions extant at the beginning -- but again, there is no way to test them against what actually happened. It's educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.

So, okay, I'll admit to the "disproving" question in the OP. But what if I changed it to, "Can you prove anything else happened using the evidence and observations you have?"

Could you? At heart, it's a question to the nature of reality itself, and more philosophy than anything else. "Can you trust the evidence of your perceptions?"

Yes, sorry, but your fantastic obsessions with proof and disproof continue to relate to exactly nothing within the scientific process (aka "science"). But I sincerely hope you keep shooting blanks with those two popguns. Else, you know, you're apt to..

Oh, and so sorry to learn that the term "godbotherers" upsets you so. Do all gun exhibitionists have such incredibly thin skin? Any similarly frightful language you'd like stripped from the lexicon?

 

[daveman]

Yes, sorry, but your fantastic obsessions with proof and disproof continue to relate to exactly nothing within the scientific process (aka "science"). But I sincerely hope you keep shooting blanks with those two popguns. Else, you know, you're apt to..

Oh, and so sorry to learn that the term "godbotherers" upsets you so. Do all gun exhibitionists have such incredibly thin skin? Any similarly frightful language you'd like stripped from the lexicon?

You're ascribing to me views I've never said I held. I don't want anyone silenced, and I don't want any words forbidden.

However, you do seem to be made uncomfortable by a small painting of fictitious guns not even pointed at you.
But, hey, I get it. You're not capable of thought experiments, so you lash out in anger.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry you're still too upset to respond coherently to simple questions and feel you need to hide behind those childish popguns.

Btw, get it straight. Atheists simply lack belief. Like jurists, we demand compelling evidence from those asserting the existence of supernatural beings and causes, not "proof" or "disproof." Say it. One hundred times. Again.

 

[Wuwei]

I know plenty of people who have faith in science. They're all over USMB. And they usually know nothing of the nature of faith.

Faith is more a religious term in this context. Rather than using "faith" people should use "trust" in science.

Meanwhile, the experiments at the LHC, while cool, can in no way prove how the universe came into being.

Yes, but furthermore science can't "prove" anything or know what anything "is". What basic science does is describe behavior. Metaphysics asks the questions involving reality in science. For example what particles and light "are" is a conundrum. But science knows their behavior to parts per billion accuracy. Those that don't understand that ask the gotcha question, is light a particle or wave? The answer is that it behaves like a wave in flight, but behaves like a particle when interacting with matter.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

^ That's what I'm saying daveman
LET each person keep their natural beliefs.
Like having a Native Language.
Why not just translate between systems and learn what other people/lamguages use to describe the same principles, relations or equivalent/parallel concepts.

Idaho faith: Keeping open heart, mind to other religions, cultures enriches your life

Statesman religion columnist Said Ahmed-Zaid reflects on just a little of the interfaith work and learning he has done in Boise.

news.yahoo.com

Fort Fun Indiana

Someone just posted an article/op ed about appreciating different religions.

Maybe we are getting closer to getting over ourselves and not fearing that different approaches have to be adverse or in conflict with each other.

In these pandemic times, if we can finally accept that people have different beliefs and ways, and quit trying to FORCE everyone to comply by imposing by dominance, we could lay off the political pressure and focus on how to coordinate between people and groups regardless of differences in policies and approach.

I hope that something better comes from all this chaos, conflict and confusion.

Just pure acceptance is a start.
Recognizing we cannot expect anyone to change their belief system, much less force them to by attacking, bullying or insults. Much less by coercing and oppressing people through govt.

When these ways come to an end, maybe we can try listening to each other and finding ways that work and build solutions that way. Not imposing by collective force by groups trying to dominate each other. But really respecting individual ways and quit expecting or trying to force everyone to believe the same way.

When has that ever worked???

.

But really respecting individual ways and quit expecting or trying to force everyone to believe the same way.

When has that ever worked???

.
persuasion is a better way of putting it, what others are trying to do ... your religion, christianity precludes ever arriving at the state of purity where everything is resolved, being attainable as the reward - the goal of the prescribed religion of antiquity, you might keep that in mind.