RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
July 1, 2014 at 4:35 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm by Cyberman.)
It doesn't matter what individual scientists say or think. What matters, all that matters, is the work they produce. That's where peer review comes in, to eliminate personal bias as far as possible. If one person's experiments and data cannot be reproduced independently, let alone three of them, then the conclusions are questionable and may even lead to the original observation to be scrapped altogether; certainly refined.
If any god is defined as operating outside of reality that's fine, go on believing in them til the cows come home to roost. That way madness lies, but fill yer boots. Such an entity cannot be proven either way; it is unfalsifiable. The very second one of these gods is deemed to have any effect, however inconsequential, on the world, then that effect falls squarely under the purview of science by definition.
If any god is defined as operating outside of reality that's fine, go on believing in them til the cows come home to roost. That way madness lies, but fill yer boots. Such an entity cannot be proven either way; it is unfalsifiable. The very second one of these gods is deemed to have any effect, however inconsequential, on the world, then that effect falls squarely under the purview of science by definition.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
