Oliver,

I have investigated the history or various religions, how and why cultures are different, the role of indoctrination of the young, the probable influence of genetic make up on religiosity, the fears and hopes of humanity, the problems evolutionary theory poses for religions, the pain in the world, the enormous number and incompatibility of religions and I recognize the trepidation accompanying the knowledge of eventual annihilation of self. There is a possibility that I am wrong, despite the overwhelming case against the existence of a god. If this is so, then I will accept it.

May I make a suggestion? Let’s make out I am religious and I propose there is a god. Using your null hypothesis talents, prove me wrong.

Now remember, this is a public forum and not a place for incoherent scientific rant. Using the English language, explain yourself in simple terms that others not of a scientific background will understand.

David

David,

TESTING THE SUPERNATURAL

When Galileo improved the telescope, the device was examined by Vatican astronomers. At that time, Earth was held the domain of the natural and anything beyond [space to us] "supernatural".

The Vatican astronomers would not look through the telescope at the Jupiter and its moons, as an extraterrestrial system, because there is only one terra, us. They, the Theists, would not look, because any evidence going against the Church was an illusion of the Devil. So, why look? A bit like an Atheist whom disbelieves, yet won’t test that disbelief.

Similarly the Church held that the planets didn’t have orbits as we know. Else, the crystal spheres would break.

Space travel has redefined what is "the theistic the realm" of the supernatural. The supernatural of the Churches once held by millions of people.

Anyone Scientist, regarding the above examples, just sitting and waiting for the Theists to prove their point would have us living in the Dark Ages. What goes for the goose goes for the gander: Atheists need to be held to the same standard.

-- With the brick-toe example, you have not demonstrated why there cannot be mediating variables or what is "stupid" about these variables, if these do exist. Most conceptual models in academia recognise these lttle gremlins.

Oliver,

I forgot to let you know that the previous post containing some of the reasons why I dismiss the concept of a god are also those of Dawkins and a big proportion of Atheists.

Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed.

The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment.

Oliver, it is no good making accusation that I am sitting back, doing nothing by implication, waiting for the theist to produce the evidence. I have looked at the alleged evidence and found it wanting as it is with fairies.

Now back to me (Make out) proposing there is a god. How are you combating my beliefs better than the other David is?

David

"Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed."

--- Yes it was supernatural. The people of Galileo’s period saw is it as supernatural, presumably because og Genesis. Jesus and few others ascended they didn’t dematerialise. The Christian Church’s issue was if the space was nature and not supernatural, it disproved its teachings. That test that the supernational exists failed for them.

" The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment."

--- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushes in mind when you the comment but common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe included and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.

** About my hypothetical case to David the Believer. Packing to move back to Australia on Wednesday - occupied. If I don’t make it back to you: Press on Sells [in red] name in the Articles section and you will see plenty of argument where I address Science, History, Theology, Comparative Religions and Theocracy. Catch is, much focus on Christianity. Through all these threads other OLO too the nature of God [not just Jesus] and the attitude of a creator is poorly stated: e.g., did God create a universe and forget or say an advanced civilization create us in a particle accelerator.

** What might be different between us I would research and present cases from myself, unlike you, wait to be convinced by others.

** If you see the evidence is for the fairies that is a "test" disproved. By implication supporting the real you.

** Hope I do have opportunity for another post

Oliver,

Galileo was not testing the supernatural no matter how many people believed his findings were heretical. He was making conclusions from observation of nature. To bring a time when science was repressed by the church into the argument as though that can be repeated, is spurious. Science has been released from religious superstition for some time. Maybe you haven’t noticed

“--- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushes in mind when you the comment but common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe included and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.”

Well your guess is wrong. I am not discounting a sudden earthquake, a meteorite strike nearby or other unlikely possibilities, but they are improbabilities. I was merely stating that the known forces are gravity, inertia, wind speed, accuracy of aim etc and including not being in the middle of a road where a truck could alter the experiment or where someone would push me. You are being pedantic, not scientific.

I certainly hope you do have time for another post, as I would appreciate if you would answer the questions I have proposed.

>>>(1) May I make a suggestion? Let’s make out I am religious and I propose there is a god. Using your null hypothesis talents, prove me wrong.<<<

>>>(2) Now back to me (Make out) proposing there is a god. How are you combating my beliefs better than the other David is?<<<

The first question is in the present and about the present and not about Galileo, which was really a red-herring; and a poor one at that.

The second question needs you to explain how you are doing a better job than I am.

As a final comment, I have been annoyed at your referral, on a couple of occasions that Richard Dawkins is willing to enter the murky field of null hypothesis with his staunchest opposition. It may interest you to learn that RD will not even debate them.

Address the two questions. Leave the rest.

David

“Galileo etc are not examples of testing the supernatural; they are testament to the testing of nature as means and methods developed.”

Yes it was supernatural. :

Copernicus:

“The Copernican system displaced the earth from its central position, reduced it to the status of a planet, and wrecked the consoling Aristotelian--and medieval Christian--belief in the contrast between the transcendental, immutable, and eternal heavens, the home of the blest, on the one hand, and the sublunary sphere of the earth, the scene of birth, change, decay, and death on the other. “ -- The Renaissance: Its Nature and Origins. Contributors: George Clarke Sellery (1950).

Galilleo and the Church:

-- The people of Galileo’s period saw is it as supernatural, presumably because of Genesis. Jesus and few others ascended they didn’t dematerialise. The Christian Church’s issue was if the space was nature and not supernatural, it disproved its teachings. That test that the supernational exists failed for them.

The brick to toe experiment had the words; “using all of known physics”. Any interference in the experiment would have been factored in. i.e. Being pushed at the critical moment.

-- My guess is that you didn’t have being pushed in mind, when you the commented, rather common trajectory. Were all the forces of known physics to operate on the subject person, toe and the brick, all these objects would have their fundamental atomic constituents utterly destroyed.

-- About my hypothetical case regarding David the Believer.

Packing to move back to Australia on Wednesday - occupied.

If I don’t make it back to you: Press on Sells’ [in red] name in the Articles section and you will see plenty of argument, where I address Science, History, Theology, Comparative Religions and Theocracy.

What might be different between us I would research and present cases from myself, unlike you, waiting to be convinced by others.

-- Hope I do have opportunity for another post.

{Aside: Galileo improved the "optical" telecope. Became blind when under house arrest.}

--SPACE~~