Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.
Brilliant! I feel better about the world having watched that video. : )
Michael, after watching that video, I read the comments and yours leaves me dumbfounded. Do you think that raising the claim of divine interference in several dimensions somehow makes it any less necessary to prove that claim? Your response seems to me to be a thinly disguised, additional, absurd claim for which the claimant also bears the burden of proof.
You can't confuse us with parlor tricks. Amuse, yes, but not confuse.
Is this cause by an adjacent universe?. Is it cause by the spiritual universe that predates this one?
Okay...now I know who writes the prose for all those History Channel shows about aliens.
Ok, so I had someone argue this once.
"I have a had a personal experience of god." He explained it further but that the general gist. Then he said "I cannot prove this to anyone else because it was my experience and the only way, although I am searching for one, for me to prove to you that god exist is for you to have a personal experience."
Is his stance invald because it is not an universal proof?
Hi Zac – Rather than saying that this person had a “personal experience of god” it may be more correct to say that he experienced what he considered to be one.. However it is a completely subjective statement and is only valid to him. It is not provable or testable so it can never become objective in the sense that it can have any independent verification to justify it being considered valid to anyone else. People will attribute most “white light” experiences to an external agency. It is understandable but fails the god test because people only experience the cultural god that they know about. So you must consider if he is deluding himself or did the creator of the universe actually contact him.
@Zac In that instance, I typically drag out other false experiences, like deja vu, where something happening in the present seems exactly like some experience one has had in the past, even though the past experience never happened. But people with fantastic imaginations can trot out notions like alternative dimensions to explain such things. When you're dealing with people whose standards of proof are low, there's little you can do.
@Diane"Michael, after watching that video, I read the comments and yours leaves me dumbfounded. Do you think that raising the claim of divine interference in several dimensions somehow makes it any less necessary to prove that claim? Your response seems to me to be a thinly disguised, additional, absurd claim for which the claimant also bears the burden of proof. You can't confuse us with parlor tricks. Amuse, yes, but not confuse."I stated that there is circumstantial evidence there is a gravitational source outside of the universe. This raises the possibility of another universe or a vantage point to create the one that we are in. But such assertions are unfalsifiable. An similarly the CERN LHC may gather circumstantial evidence of higher dimensions. This will be ascertained by energy not balancing between before and after the collision of subatomic particles. This too will be circumstantial evidence for the theorist to postulate that the energy was lost to an unseen dimension. In the limit however, until higher dimensions are directly observed it too will remain unfalsifiable. But generally if predictions are made based on higher dimensions and these predictions are true then the theory is accepted. Similarly if predictions are made based on prophecy and these predictions are true, these prophecies may be accepted as coming from God.
The "Multiverse" concept, as I understand it, comes from the fact that every time we make a choice between several options, we experience only the consequences of our choice and do not directly see the consequences of the others that we didn't choose. But, other universes are created by those unchosen options, which then run parallel to this one, unless the difference created is so extreme that they go in completely wacky directions away from us.
This "multiverse" has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything spiritual or religious by any stretch of the imagination. Schrodinger's cat, people! If you leave a cat inside a closed box for a long time, there are only 2 options, it's either dead or alive. But, if you never open the box to find out, both of those possibilities will always exist. The only way to know the "truth" of the situation is to open the freaking box and look at the freaking cat. It doesn't mean there's an omnipresent, omnipotent invisible intelligence in control of any part of anything.
When we collect scientific evidence and data, perform experiments, and make discoveries, we are OPENING THE BOX. Once that evidence is found, the truth of the situation is known and there is only 1 outcome, that should be accepted as fact. Yet, for some reason, every breakthrough science makes is met with ridiculousness from religious bottom feeders. The cat could have no breath, no heartbeat, no consciousness...heck, it could be decomposing....but NO! Religious nuts say it's still alive because some book written by idiots thousands of years ago says the cat could not have been in there long enough to suffocate or starve.
Sorry, just had to throw that out there......
That is one speculation on the multiverse and the earliest, since then alot more exotic theories have arisen. For instance the collision of "branes" given rise to new universes ( this is actually and expansion on string theory). Thus outside our universe or bubble, there are many bubbles. (An effervescent eternity. Thus this is the solution to the anthropic principle and is an generally accepted as an explanation by scientific heavyweights such as Dr.Neil deGrasse Tyson.
However supersymmetry, string theory and the Higgs boson or god particle are currently on the ropes since the CERN LHC is so far coming up empty handed.
As far as Higgs boson, I personally don't think that the apocalyptic "black hole" possibility that could destroy the planet is at all valid or likely. Supersymmetry and string theory are areas I haven't studied well enough yet.
We all saw how the "Rapture" that was supposed to happen did not in fact happen, and the God-fearers had no explanation for why it didn't. Of course, they also had no real explanation for why they thought it would happen in the first place. I laughed my backside off about the people who fell for the end-of-the-world money scams, and then complained afterwards.
Overall, I have no problems with science coming up empty handed in any of its explorations. If we try something and it fails to produce evidence, fine. It just means that we can try something else. My only problem is when anyone tries to say "Well, if science can't find an explanation for <insert concept here>, then it's God. That's the cowardly explanation that religion doesn't think it needs any evidence for.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Holo Gram in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Holo Gram 13 minutes ago.
Posted by Dan on May 21, 2013 at 9:18pm
April 13, 2014 all day – Anywhere that one might find a glass of Johnnie Walker Black
Added by Dan
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.