- Ada ( @ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 56•2 months ago
I’ll quote Tim Minchin here
"If you wanna watch telly, you should watch Scooby Doo That show was so cool Because every time there was a church with a ghoul Or a ghost in a school They looked beneath the mask and what was inside? The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the waterslide Because throughout history Every mystery Ever solved has turned out to be Not magic"
- lars ( @lars@lemmy.sdf.org ) 2•2 months ago
Like one of my faves of his
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine.
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 43•2 months ago
Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.
Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.
That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 3•2 months ago
Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause? (being divil’s advocate a bit here for the craic)
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 22•2 months ago
No
Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 1•2 months ago
Take ‘natural’ to mean ‘being fully explicable by states in the observable world’.
‘Supernatural’ means everything not natural by that definition.
You have results (like Aspect’s experiment) that prove that the world is not naturalist: the world is not fully explainable by observable states causing other states.
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 16•2 months ago
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.
In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 1•2 months ago
If I say something this person burst into flames for supernatural reasons, I mean without a measurable cause in the observable universe.
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 9•2 months ago
That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you’ve made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 1•2 months ago
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural.
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 10•2 months ago
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.
You’re claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.
And as for
Yeah all the Bell stuff
“All the Bell stuff” doesn’t have anything to do with “Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?”
And no, it didn’t. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 1•2 months ago
Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.
Right. We are in agreement. And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results. There is something going on in Aspect’s experiment
Determinism: things are fully explained by natural phenomena, i.e. by observable elements of the physical universe
Indeterminism: observable elements of the physical universe are insufficient to explain experimental results; there is something else, like randomness
AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere. Surely you’re not saying that zero physicists argue indeterminism? Obviously many/most physicists believe in indeterminism.
- A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics (2013) by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger found that 64% of physicists believe that “Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature” and 48% believe “The randomness is irreducible”. For the question “What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?”, the most popular answer by some way was the Copenhagn interpretation (which as you know is anti-deterministic)
Lev Vaidman: “Historically, appearance of the quantum theory led to a prevailing view that Nature is indeterministic… Quantum theory and determinism usually do not go together.” (Vaidman, L. (2014). Quantum theory and determinism. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 1(1-2), 5–38. doi:10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4)
You made a ludicrous claim
Yes. And these ludicrous claims are standard in physics for decades now. Specifically, the ludicrous claim that most physicists believe is that there are things going on without natural causes (Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”). That’s an extremely standard ludicrous claim about our ludicrous universe.
and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit
That’s false.
yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
Please calm down.
- teawrecks ( @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ) 2•2 months ago
Whatever we observe empirically is “natural” by definition. Causality is an assumption, not a law of nature.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 1•2 months ago
Good comment
- ananas ( @ananas@sopuli.xyz ) 6•2 months ago
If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature’s state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.
In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:
- locality
- realism
- independence of measurement
Pick two.
But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 2•2 months ago
Yeah all the Bell stuff
- maliciousonion ( @maliciousonion@lemmy.ml ) English42•2 months ago
Germ Theory
Diseases used to be associated with paranormal powers or the wrath of gods in most cultures. The discovery of microorganisms and advancement of medicine may be our civilization’s greatest achievement.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 24•2 months ago
Evolutionary biology was the main one
- MagicShel ( @MagicShel@programming.dev ) 20•2 months ago
Religion is deliberately non-falsifiable. No matter what scientific proof you can come up with, at the end of the day they just say God is fucking with us burying skeletons of creatures that never existed and such.
The fact that it needs to be constructed that way is frankly all the proof I need to toss religion in the garbage, but everyone isn’t so cavalier about the disposition of their “immortal soul.”
Honestly immortality and the very nature of God are both abhorrent to me. If religion were true, the best I could hope for is to be cast into a lake of fire and be destroyed, so I kinda win either way. Worst case is all religion is wrong but so is atheism and I have to spend eternity with an entity who is less of a malicious cunt than the Abrahamic god.
- m0darn ( @m0darn@lemmy.ca ) 14•2 months ago
Religion is deliberately non-falsifiable.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the non-falsifiablity of religion has evolved as a result of a sort of natural selection. Essentially all the falsifiable religious beliefs have been falsified, and thus have trouble propagating.
- MagicShel ( @MagicShel@programming.dev ) 3•2 months ago
Hah! Fair enough.
- Spendrill ( @Spendrill@lemm.ee ) 17•2 months ago
Letter from Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (22nd May 1860)
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
- Todd Bonzalez ( @todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee ) 9•2 months ago
Religion exists for a number of reasons, but the primary purpose it serves an individual is as a foundation for their overall worldview.
“Faith” as many call it, serves to answer questions we don’t have answers to.
Where did we come from? Why are we here? What happens after we die?
Religion gives us comforting answers to these questions, and as these questions are ultimately unanswerable, can do so in perpetuity.
Religion has also tried to answer questions that we didn’t yet have answers for.
What are the sun, moon, and stars? Why are there tides? Why does it rain?
God was long accepted as the source of these things, and prayer was thought to be the best way have any influence.
But today we have answered basically all the major questions. We have a working model of the entire solar system, down to the weather on other planets. We figured out how to turn rocks into computers. All that’s left is the unanswerable.
As for where we come from, we’ve filled in a lot of gaps. Evolution is now the accepted answer for where Humans came from, now the question is where life itself came from, and if there’s life outside of Earth (and how much).
Philosophy has given us plenty of options for what our purpose is. There are plenty of ways to wrap your mind around your own identity without turning to the supernatural.
And our study of anatomy and neurology suggests that our conscious self ceases to exist after death, the only thing standing in the way of that belief is the very human tendency to be in denial of our own mortality.
- Naich ( @Naich@lemmings.world ) 8•2 months ago
You need to define God first.
- Destide ( @sirico@feddit.uk ) English8•2 months ago
Translative spoken word by the time a second hand account of the word of god becomes the word of the person speaking. Weird god never came back once we had verbatim recording techniques to address these inaccuracies.
- shastaxc ( @shasta@lemm.ee ) 3•2 months ago
But he works in mysterious ways
- 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖 ( @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ) English7•2 months ago
Nothing u cant prove a negative.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 8•2 months ago
People should stop saying this.
- 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖 ( @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ) English4•2 months ago
Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of scientific literacy. This is how we get flat earthers and anti vaxxers.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 4•2 months ago
I have an M.Sc
- 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖 ( @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ) English5•2 months ago
Well thats fucking concerning. Perhaps get the basics down before u start practising anything.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 4•2 months ago
State your position calmly. What are you trying to say?
Using insults doesn’t make you right.
- 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖 ( @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ) English2•2 months ago
Its a common, clear, and logic extension of the scientific process that you cannot prove a negative. I dont gets whats so complicated about this. Please since you are such an expert in the ways of calmly stating positions give me 1 single example of proving a negative with science.
- frightful_hobgoblin ( @frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ) 3•2 months ago
A woman menstruating proves the negative on her being pregnant.
- jet ( @jet@hackertalks.com ) English5•2 months ago
Printing presses, industrialized education, and the industrial revolution.
Giving people en mass the time study and educate themselves.
- PsychedSy ( @PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 4•2 months ago
There aren’t any. Some things will disprove specific religious ideas, but that’s about it.
- Melatonin ( @Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 2•2 months ago
Psalms 19:1-2
“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.”