There are many types of articles and organizing theories. Science is driven by the evidence gathered in experiments and by falsifying existing theories and replacing them with new, asymptomatic ones. Other systems - religion, nationality, silly ideas or art - are based on personal experience (beliefs, motivation, insanity, etc.).
Experiential narratives interact and contradict each other with live narratives.
For example: Belief in God inspires some scientists to see science as a "method of looking at the cards of God" and being close to Him. Another example: the practice of scientific endeavors raises one’s national pride and is inspired by it. Science is often damaged to support nationalist and racist arguments.
The basic units of all articles are known by their impact on the environment. God, in this sense, is no different from electrons, quarks and black holes. The four creations are not directly observable, but the fact of their existence is derived from their effects.
True, God's influence can only be seen in the social and psychological (or psychological) realms. But this observed restraint does not make him a "fact." Predicting the existence of God explains many phenomena that are clearly unrelated and, therefore, conform to the laws governing the formulation of scientific theories.
The hypothetical location of the existence of God is clear and unique in the minds of believers. But that doesn’t make him any less realistic again. The content of our mind is as real as the “outside”. In fact, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is unclear.
But is the existence of God "real" - or is He the embodiment of our needs and imaginations?
Truth is measuring the ability of our models to describe and predict events. The existence of God (in the minds of the people) succeeds in doing both. For example, believing that God exists allows us to greatly assess the behavior of those who claim to believe in Him. Therefore, the existence of God is undoubtedly true (in this formal and strict sense).
But is God outside of human minds? Is it an objective entity, independent of what people may or may not think about it? After all, if all living things were destroyed in a terrible catastrophe, it would be as if the sun were spinning eternally.
If all living things were destroyed in a terrible catastrophe, would God still exist? If all beings, including all human beings, cease to believe that God exists - can they escape this abandonment? Does an "outside" God inspire faith in God in the minds of religious people?
The known is independent of the observer's existence (Copenhagen's explanation of quantum mechanics makes this controversial). Matters of faith depend on the existence of the believer.
We know the sun is there. We do not know that God exists. We believe that God exists - but in the scientific sense of the word we cannot and do not know it.
We can design experiments to erroneously (erroneously) the existence of electrons, quarks and black holes (and, if all these experiments fail, we can prove the existence of electrons, quarks and black holes). We can also design experiments to prove the presence of electrons, quarks and black holes.
But we can not even create an experiment that falsely shows the existence of God out of the minds of believers (therefore, if the experiment fails, prove that God is "there"). Huh). In addition, we cannot create a single experiment to prove that God exists outside the minds of believers.
What about "Logic by Design"? The universe is so complex and diverse that it certainly emphasizes the existence of the supreme intellect who is the creator and creator of the world known to some as "God". On the other hand, the greatness and diversity of the world can be fully attributed to the use of modern scientific theories such as evolution and the big ****. There is no need to introduce God in the equations.
However, it is possible that God is responsible for this. The problem is that we can not even create an experiment to mislead the theory that God created the universe (and, if the experiment fails, prove that God is really the originator of the world). ) Furthermore, we can not do a single experiment to prove that God created the world.
However, we can devise a number of experiments to mislead the scientific theories that explain the creation of the universe (and, if these experiments fail, give adequate support to these theories). We can also design experiments to prove the scientific theories that explain the creation of the universe.
This does not mean that these principles are completely true and will not change. They are not. Our current scientific theories are partly bound to change with the new knowledge gained through truth and experiments. Our current scientific theories will be replaced by new, real theories. But any and all future scientific theories are erroneous and testable.
Wisdom and faith are like oil and water. They do not mix. Wisdom does not lead to faith and faith does not lead to knowledge. Belief can create confidence or a strong impression. But faith does not bring wisdom.
However, there are both known and reliable things. The first is "there" and the second is "in our minds" and exists only there. But they are no less realistic for that...
You must be logged in to post a comment.