All science is materialistic

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, Carl Sagan said the same thing, saying that if the stars in the night sky suddenly rearranged in geometric patterns would be strong evidence for god.

For me, at the very least, strong evidence for God would have to be cumulative. If this is all the fascinating stuff I end up seeing, then it could still be once again aliens playing tricks on us. Hell, probably human tricksters could do just that. Why, in this scenario, is someone playing visual tricks on us with the sky less likely than some actual supernatural being doing actual supernatural stuff with the stars?

Or, it is not likely that evidence for the existence of god will just appear one day because if he did exist there would already be evidence in the past, just like there won't be one day evidence that Earth is flat. There are many fundamental things in nature showing us that god doesn't exist like the impossibility of omnipotence (god can't make a rock he can't lift or make a prison he can't escape).

[Anomalocaris]

Putting aside the fear factor, someone who's strongly physicalist might still say it must be aliens using super advanced technology to manipulate us, because to them that will always be more plausible than truly supernatural (non-physical) beings. I think for many, the core of their worldview assumes things like physicalism and they use that to judge whether some hypothesis/theory/view is falsifiable or not (but not physicalism).

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

This will be my last post for this thread; I really have nothing more to say on this subject.  Besides, the House GOP thread is way too much fun!!

I see no reason why, in principe, conservation law is essential to any of those things.  The only thing that is required for reality to be comprehensible in a scientific way is for behavior of the reality to be predicable and describable.   While the evident applicability of conservation laws in our reality as we experience it helps to make our particular reality predictable and describable, it seems quite possible to envision a different reality that remains predictable and describable without obeying the conservation laws as we know them.

Also,  if we can not describe or predict reality, or even if reality is principle undescribable and unpredictable, that absolutely does lead to anything which constitutes religion.   After all, religion is also description and prediction.    If reality is principle undescribable and unpredictable in a scientific manner, then there is in principle no basis for religion either.

If science is true, religion is false because science says so.   If science is false, then religion can not be true, because such a nature of reality that would make science false also fundamentally makes religion false.

Religion is not an alternative to science in the sense that science works up to some limit, if beyond that is religion.  The non-overlapping magisterium bullshit is bullshit.   in principle, religion does exactly the same thing as science,  describe and predict the reality in which we find ourselves in order to lay out the governing framework for our decision making,  except religion does it baselessly, assertively, overreachingly and fraudulently, while science does it evidentiarily, testably, conservatively and honestly.

[polymath257]

Putting aside the fear factor, someone who's strongly physicalist might still say it must be aliens using super advanced technology to manipulate us, because to them that will always be more plausible than truly supernatural (non-physical) beings. I think for many, the core of their worldview assumes things like physicalism and they use that to judge whether some hypothesis/theory/view is falsifiable or not (but not physicalism).

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

This will be my last post for this thread; I really have nothing more to say on this subject.  Besides, the House GOP thread is way too much fun!!

There is very little difference between a detectable pattern (which is what is required for science to be possible) and a conservation law (conservation of the pattern, if nothing else).

Pure randomness would not allow science, but it would also not allow much else.

the main difference between science and religion is one of attitude: the determination to subject ideas to testing and throwing out those that don't pass the tests. The key difference is between skepticism and faith. And faith is the attitude that destroys understanding.

[polymath257]

I can only speak for myself; at the heart of my reality are the conservation laws; when those go, by my own reasonable lights & judgment, I am done with physicialism, scientism and atheism.  Anything beyond that, in my opinion, would constitue religion.

This will be my last post for this thread; I really have nothing more to say on this subject.  Besides, the House GOP thread is way too much fun!!

Fair enough, though would've liked to know when do you determine when conservation laws are no longer the case. I probably need to read back a bit to see what else you were saying.

One of the other difficulties is that under quantum theory many of the conservation laws are NOT absolute. The uncertainty principles allow for some limited 'flexibility'. For example, energy conservation can be violated for short periods of time. Momentum conservation can be violated if position is narrowed down sufficiently. And, in fact, one of the properties of 'virtual' particles is precisely that they are 'off-shell' and hence violate some of the conservation laws.

[HappySkeptic]

One of the other difficulties is that under quantum theory many of the conservation laws are NOT absolute. The uncertainty principles allow for some limited 'flexibility'. For example, energy conservation can be violated for short periods of time. Momentum conservation can be violated if position is narrowed down sufficiently. And, in fact, one of the properties of 'virtual' particles is precisely that they are 'off-shell' and hence violate some of the conservation laws.

True, at the quantum level.

Conservation "laws" come about because of underlying properties of the universe.  Like the laws of thermodynamics, they are emergent properties, not a-priori ones.

Noether's Theorem

The symmetry of flat space relative to translation leads to momentum conservation.  The symmetry relative to rotation leads to conservation of angular momentum.  Forces which can be modeled as the derivative of a scalar potential lead to conservation of energy.

[polymath257]

One of the other difficulties is that under quantum theory many of the conservation laws are NOT absolute. The uncertainty principles allow for some limited 'flexibility'. For example, energy conservation can be violated for short periods of time. Momentum conservation can be violated if position is narrowed down sufficiently. And, in fact, one of the properties of 'virtual' particles is precisely that they are 'off-shell' and hence violate some of the conservation laws.

True, at the quantum level.

Conservation "laws" come about because of underlying properties of the universe.  Like the laws of thermodynamics, they are emergent properties, not a-priori ones.

Noether's Theorem

The symmetry of flat space relative to translation leads to momentum conservation.  The symmetry relative to rotation leads to conservation of angular momentum.  Forces which can be modeled as the derivative of a scalar potential lead to conservation of energy.

More specifically, symmetry under time translation leads to energy conservation.

This is why energy conservation is tricky in general relativity: there is no guarantee of time translation invariance in curved spacetime.

[brewer]

All science is materialistic
matter is primary, idea and god are secondary
science must dominate
do you agree

bold mine, not medical or social.