Suppose There Was No Bible

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not a science person and I've really been trying to figure this out, but how is science limited to testing and correction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically the process of science is this: we look at the world and see things in it. Then we come up with an explanation of how those things might work. Then we try to prove the explanation wrong. The harder we try to prove it wrong without succeeding, the more sure we are of the explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, how can we use lightyears as a measurement when we cant verify said distance?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of a speed of light is a very useful explanation for the things we see, both here on earth and in the sky. Nobody has ever thought of anything else than can explain it all. The ideas about light work so well that almost nobody doubts them.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you prove events in the past without documentation or first hand account?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't prove, it only disproves. What science can do is make predictions - if those predictions end up being true, that's a very strong indicator that the idea behind the predictions is valid. And sometimes people can only come up with a single explanation for what they see, and it's accepted for that reason.

Imagine you unearthed three human skeletons. One skeleton has many arrows inside his rib cage. The other skeletons have bows and arrows near them. You can never know for sure what happened here. But it seems very likely that the owner of the first skeleton was killed with arrows.

That's the kind of observational evidence science uses for speculations. Only science needs much more evidence than that.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we prove the laws of physics are constant? I mean if the universe is 4 billion years old and we've only known many of these supposed universal absolutes for under 1000 years, thats an extremely small sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can't prove anything of the kind. But for many reasons outside the scope of this discussion, it appears that our laws have been constant for a long, long time. It can help to imagine a set of scientific ideas is a jigsaw puzzle. Scientists found many "puzzle pieces," and found a way to fit them together perfectly. Because of the perfect fit, we believe the puzzle has been solved. But it's possible there are other configurations that would fit just as well. So far nobody has thought of any. And some pieces are still missing - all we have are "holes" in the puzzle, in the exact shape of puzzle pieces. We think the shape of the hole is the shape of the missing puzzle piece, but until we find that piece of the puzzle we can't be sure. Most of the time, we eventually find a piece that fills in the "hole." But as we connect more and more pieces, new holes start to develop and we try to fill them in, too. That's the process of science.

[ QUOTE ]
There are many things accepted as scientific law or certainties that cant be proven, yet are accepted as truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientific law is basically just a simple idea that makes a lot of sense and has been tested over and over and over again. Through all the tests, the law always predicts what will happen.

But laws aren't "certainties" - nothing is certain in science, and many laws have been revised.

Theories are probably more certain - theories are the "puzzles" that I mentioned before. But theories are always being added to, because none of the puzzles are complete. Most scientists believe that all the little puzzles are actually just parts of one great big puzzle, and that everything fits together eventually.

[MidGe]

madnak,

You are a saviour of education. Are you in education? If not, you should be, considering what comes out of the mill. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I really meant to ask what modern people would think if they all woke up with total amnesia of any religion and all holy books had disappeared. In other words if the only evidence for God was what they saw around them, would they believe in a deistic God, a more personal god, a god with specific traits, or no god at all. Put yet another way, with no Bible, would Not Ready be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Modern" people do not accept any new religions*, they only tolerate the old ones. With all the knowledge about physics the odds would be slim for someone to come with a brand new book similar to the bible and not get laughed at.

*except weirdo stuff for braindead rich people like Scientology

[FortunaMaximus]

Doubting Thomases and a *wacky Messiah. GIGO. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Convince me mind is a physical phenomenon and my theism is shaken.
</font>

I agree. This in a nutshell is one of the key foundations of theism. It is just so, so hard to conceive that our thoughts are the product of a bunch of synapses and neurons firing. But what else could the mind be? Even lions and zebras have thoughts.

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend, "How the Mind Works", by Stephen Pinker. I think you in particular would really find it a fascinating read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thing that I consider is if the mind were non-physical, why do physical things (like drugs) influence it? Why does alcohol make you behave differently? What are hallucinations? All these things point to the mind being a physical thing.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that I consider is if the mind were non-physical, why do physical things (like drugs) influence it? Why does alcohol make you behave differently? What are hallucinations? All these things point to the mind being a physical thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind and the brain clearly interact - I wouldnt deny that. What I deny is saying they are identical (or that the mind is completely determined by the brain).

[FortunaMaximus]

So is it an emergent process of the development of the brain? The medium grows and splits the halves?

Does one need the other? I tend to think, not always.