Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60
Like Tree16Likes
  • 1 Post By Beer w/Straw
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 3 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By dedo
  • 1 Post By ox

Thread: The God Lab

  1. #1 The God Lab 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,380
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist? This does not include pointing at the universe and saying "there's your proof". I mean if there aren't any experiments then how can anyone study theistic religion scientifically?


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034


    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    I liked how the Christians proved there god was better by building a fire & having the pagans do the same. Then a member of each stands in it and whoever stays in it longer has the superior god. Thus christians got there most deranged lunatic to stand in fire and win with "divine help"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    “... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
    Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Oh boy. Another thread started to mock religion. Just what we needed. We haven't had one of these for a week or so.
    Weterman likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Hard to experiment on "beliefs" for they do not have anything to substantiate them other than those who "believe".
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Oh boy. Another thread started to mock religion. Just what we needed. We haven't had one of these for a week or so.
    No intentions of mocking religion. I'm only asking one question, is there an experiment(s) one can conduct that would help prove a god exists? Not sure how that mocks religion? In fact it only deals with theistic religion. Did god leave a fingerprint, a vapor trail, some positively identifying MO? It's more like a forensic investigation into the almighty. Surely as the subforum suggests, if religion is to be scientifically studied then let's get on with it.
    Lynx_Fox, Busy Bee and RobinM like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist?
    The simplest modes of testing that I can think of are the following.


    1. Present the entity in question.
    2. Test the attributes others have assigned to it, or self-claimed.

    For example, one can substitute the entity in question for a hippogriff.

    • Eagle-like head; check
    • Quadruped; check
    • Anatomically functional feathered wings; check
    • Capable of flight; check
    • Etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Oh boy. Another thread started to mock religion. Just what we needed. We haven't had one of these for a week or so.
    No intentions of mocking religion. I'm only asking one question, is there an experiment(s) one can conduct that would help prove a god exists? Not sure how that mocks religion? In fact it only deals with theistic religion. Did god leave a fingerprint, a vapor trail, some positively identifying MO? It's more like a forensic investigation into the almighty. Surely as the subforum suggests, if religion is to be scientifically studied then let's get on with it.
    No there isn't. Any result of a scientific experiment could be explained as a miracle. Isn't this obvious?

    We can study religion scientifically as a subset of history, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, and so forth. That's about it.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    No there isn't. Any result of a scientific experiment could be explained as a miracle. Isn't this obvious?
    That is obvious but that's not what I'm asking. A miracle would be used to explain something unexplainable or impossible. Not looking for miracles but any experiment or trial that might have a divine signature attached to it.

    We can study religion scientifically as a subset of history, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, and so forth. That's about it.
    I agree but if scientists can design experiments to at least give us pause to think, such as the universe being a computer simulation, then let's do the same for a god.

    There are many theists/scientists in the world and I hoped that their scientific repertoire includes knowing of or the designing of some type of test that might validate the true potential of a god's existence. I pointed out in the OP that simply attaching a god did it label to anything isn't acceptable.

    Anyway you kind of ruined the whole thing as this thread was an experiment aimed at the theist, designed to show the theist that such a test cannot be achieved. And since I can't think of any experiment, at the same time I'm prepared to eat crow if they can give the community something to really chew on, make one think. I apologize for not making this known to the reader but I don't think I could do it any other way. Selfish perhaps on my part, so if this is an exercise in futility and it belongs in the Trash then I won't argue.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist? This does not include pointing at the universe and saying "there's your proof". I mean if there aren't any experiments then how can anyone study theistic religion scientifically?
    The short answer because you are studying the belief system...how it came to be, what its practitioners think, its impact on societies and individual psychology such as music and arts changed chance of depression etc--these require no test of the veracity of supernatural. This was in large part why this sub-forum exist, and to a large degree should be studied a lot more given its obvious impact.

    The more thorny part for theist is science can also study the veracity of the claims that divinity expressed itself in reality. If there was a real effect, than there's something that can (and should be) examined using empirical evidence and reasoning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Abstract
    The primary theme of this address is cautionary: Statistical independence is far too often assumed casually, without serious concern for how common is dependence and how difficult it can be to achieve independence (or related structures). After initial discussion of statistics and religion, the address turns to miracles, especially Hume's critique and Babbage's reply. Stress is given the often tacit or unexamined assumption of independence among witnesses of a putative miracle. Other contexts of multiple testimony are treated, and the address ends with contemporary casual assumptions of independence: nuclear reactor safety, repeated measurements, and so forth. Other topics include prayer, circularity of argument, and the tension between skepticism about testimony and the pragmatic need to accept most of it provisionally.
    Unfortunately the article sits behind a paywall, but I think the gist of the abstract might apply here; An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist?
    The biggest hurdle you have to get past is finding a reason to conduct such an experiment. Before I undertook such a challenge, I would need at least some evidence that the entity you are testing for even exists. As it is, I don't think there is a significant reason to even attempt such an experiment.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist?
    The biggest hurdle you have to get past is finding a reason to conduct such an experiment. Before I undertook such a challenge, I would need at least some evidence that the entity you are testing for even exists. As it is, I don't think there is a significant reason to even attempt such an experiment.
    I don't think the theist/scientist would share your sentiment. God exists for them. Doesn't matter what you or I think. They can point at the universe and say there's the proof. However this is not good enough for science. No, we need more than that. Something simpler, through use of scientific methodology, to reasonably ascertain the existence of a god. Observation has led to many unsupported conclusions about deities, it is time to start testing them. Can they pass scientific scrutiny, not just from the skeptical, but that of their own peers. Most of all is it 100% scientific? Let them use measurement, experimentation, formulation and testing. Perhaps in order to accomplish this, they will need god to be just a supposition, a departure from the current real tenet. Can this be done? If so then what a spectacular coup for the believers in this world. If the theist/scientist admits it can't be done, what then?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,116
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Not sure if there are experiments to prove the existence of god(s), but the Pope seems to have proved the Devil.
    BBC News - Pope's peace doves attacked by crow and seagull
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior TridentBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Not sure if there are experiments to prove the existence of god(s), but the Pope seems to have proved the Devil.
    BBC News - Pope's peace doves attacked by crow and seagull
    Yes, providing the "bad omen"... "Gods" way of commenting on local geo-politics:
    http://rt.com/news/pope-doves-omen-ukraine-222/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/wo...-protests.html
    If it happened 500 years ago, but in these times the whole thing could be a manipulation of some sort. That's what sad about these times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior TridentBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    207
    Its a really interesting question. The first thing you have to take into account is that the definitions of God are incredibly diverse, as shown by religions all over the world. So what exactly are you trying to prove? Allah is real? Or Jesus?

    One interesting thing to look at is just a simplified concept of faith, stated like P="If I believe something hard enough it will come true". Then take that, and relate it to the scientific concept of falsifiability. Now say I want a million dollars to appear here on my desk, and I believe really hard that its going to appear. Not here yet, I must not be believing hard enough. Now at what point can is the statement P falsified, or disproved? It can't be. Because to falsify it, is to believe its not true. Thus my belief that the statement P is not true could be seen as making it not true, through the power of faith. The million dollars didn't appear because I didn't believe it hard enough - and then lost faith. So the statement P really can't be admitted to the realm of scientific discourse, because its not falsifiable. That leaves it, and its truth value in its own realm, along with certain self referential paradoxes. Curry's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So one reason its useful to think about faith is it shows you limits to the system of scientific inquiry. There are things in it, that are also manifested in math, which make the system incomplete in some ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I don't think the theist/scientist would share your sentiment. God exists for them.
    Science is not to be conducted at the whims of the ignorant. To children, Santa is real. That doesn't mean the notion is worth exploring.

    Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in the mythology of gods. I enjoy classical mythology, but I do not believe the myths. What the gods stand for is real, the gods themselves are just stories. If we want to dedicate the time, energy, and money of scientists, let's explore why we believe in God, not whether such a being is real.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    In the undeveloped mind of a child, Santa is real. In the developed mind of an adult, God is real. The outstanding question is, did God exist at some point in history? The Universe is supposed to play out all possible histories. God then became a requirement.
    If you could construct a time machine and go back 2 millennia to the jewish holy land, what would be your chances of finding a character that even remotely resembled Jesus? The jews themselves knew nothing of him, so there would be no point asking them.
    Go much deeper back in time, would you find dinosaurs roaming the earth, despite the existence of fossils today?
    The past is mostly a figment of our imagination, just as God is.
    According to the monotheist, all God's people are right here on earth. Nowhere else in this or any other galaxy. What then is the point of outer space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Our current, apparent, inability to construct an experiment to determine the existence of God could easily be a reflection of our present comparative ignorance of the nature of the universe, time and space, reality, etc. Therefore that inability does not in itself say anything at all about the existence or non-existence of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Our current, apparent, inability to construct an experiment to determine the existence of God could easily be a reflection of our present comparative ignorance of the nature of the universe, time and space, reality, etc.
    Is it? How do we design an experiment for something which is constantly changing in nature? God used to be a physical object like the Sun. Until we came to understand that physical object. The Gods used to live in a physical place such as the cloud-shrouded peak of Mt. Olympus. Again, until we came to better understand that place.

    God is not a constant.

    To me, it appears to be less of testing for something which demonstrates our lack of understanding of reality, but rather testing for something which constantly changes the nature of its own reality. It's like trying to hit a target moving at the speed of thought.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    That is rather the point I am making. The nature of god, if it exists, does not change, only our estimate of what it may be does. We are currently neither smart enough or knowledgable enough to be able to set up a suitable experiment .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    That is rather the point I am making. The nature of god, if it exists, does not change, only our estimate of what it may be does. We are currently neither smart enough or knowledgable enough to be able to set up a suitable experiment .
    I would say that we are not smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to define the thing we want to test.
    pineapples likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    360
    Not being funny but why not simply ask God himself if he'd be up for a few scientific tests to validate his existence? I think that would be a good starting point. Not sure how you validate for omnipotents though!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    God used to be a physical object like the Sun. Until we came to understand that physical object. The Gods used to live in a physical place such as the cloud-shrouded peak of Mt. Olympus. Again, until we came to better understand that place.
    God is not a constant.
    God undergoes reinterpretation in every new age of Humankind. Only a matter of time before:
    religions will no longer want to claim the design of the biosphere as the achievement of their deities, just as today they no longer bother to claim thunder. (David Deutsch)
    The invention of the lightning rod diminished the perceived power of God, just as the light bulb was bad news for the Devil.
    In the case of the Christian God, any experiment would be particularly difficult, as God is not one entity but three or even four with the catholic assumption of the Virgin Mary. You would have to prove that a man can be born without carnal intercourse. You would have to identify which is more correct - the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost.
    The only experiment ever to find its way into folklore was made by Abraham when God intervened to prevent a sacrifice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Yes, once a guy (don't remember who) that measured someone's weight, while they were on their deathbed. After the person died, he weighed him again. He weighed less. The difference of weight is believed to be the guy's soul.

    He did this a few times to a few people, and people that were more violent in their life had a heavier "soul" and vice versa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Yes, once a guy (don't remember who) that measured someone's weight, while they were on their deathbed. After the person died, he weighed him again. He weighed less. The difference of weight is believed to be the guy's soul.

    He did this a few times to a few people, and people that were more violent in their life had a heavier "soul" and vice versa.
    Citation needed.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Yes, once a guy (don't remember who) that measured someone's weight, while they were on their deathbed. After the person died, he weighed him again. He weighed less. The difference of weight is believed to be the guy's soul.

    He did this a few times to a few people, and people that were more violent in their life had a heavier "soul" and vice versa.
    Citation needed.
    Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    My suggestion; don't base your medical opinion on a bogus study from 100 years ago.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    My suggestion; don't base your medical opinion on a bogus study from 100 years ago.
    is it bogus because you disagree with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    360
    I think Duncan MacDougall’s experiment is a demonstration in “Confirmation bias.”

    Without evidence (other than his own personal faith), Duncan presumed the human soul existed before his experiments even began.

    If a human body looses mass after death over a short period of time, there can be a combination of biological factors at play. Duncan was at least aware of this. However, he simply concluded that any loss of mass that he couldn’t personally account for, had to be the mass of the soul.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    My suggestion; don't base your medical opinion on a bogus study from 100 years ago.
    is it bogus because you disagree with it?
    It's bogus because it is supported by nothing. He might as well have said that weight lost after death is caused by invisible flying pigs escaping the rectum. There is no evidence for a soul, so concluding that losing such a thing results in an observable physical effect is quackery.

    It is not bogus because I disagree with it, I disagree with it because it is bogus. Your thinking is LITERALLY backwards.

    EDIT: I bet a corpse continues to lose weight for quite some time. In fact, I bet a corpse continues to lose weight until it eventually breaks down into its constituent elements. In what way does this suggest a "soul"?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Yes, once a guy (don't remember who) that measured someone's weight, while they were on their deathbed. After the person died, he weighed him again. He weighed less. The difference of weight is believed to be the guy's soul.

    He did this a few times to a few people, and people that were more violent in their life had a heavier "soul" and vice versa.
    MacDougall also measured fifteen dogs in similar circumstances and reported the results as "uniformly negative," with no perceived change in mass. He took these results as confirmation that the soul had weight, and that dogs did not have souls.


    Even Disney disagrees with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    My suggestion; don't base your medical opinion on a bogus study from 100 years ago.
    is it bogus because you disagree with it?
    It's bogus because it is supported by nothing. He might as well have said that weight lost after death is caused by invisible flying pigs escaping the rectum. There is no evidence for a soul, so concluding that losing such a thing results in an observable physical effect is quackery.

    It is not bogus because I disagree with it, I disagree with it because it is bogus. Your thinking is LITERALLY backwards.

    EDIT: I bet a corpse continues to lose weight for quite some time. In fact, I bet a corpse continues to lose weight until it eventually breaks down into its constituent elements. In what way does this suggest a "soul"?
    he didnt measure it a week after it died. and you cant explain the weight loss. it could have been pee, but the pee would have stayed on the scale.


    if you want to be a scientist about it, i have some evidence that god is real. you have no evidence that he isnt real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Oh no, this one is on you. My counter claim is that it is invisible flying pigs leaving the rectum to find a new home. If you can't prove otherwise, I'm clearly right.

    Since I can't take you seriously enough to put more effort into a post, maybe you should just read this; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

    What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    and you cant explain the weight loss.
    False.

    if you want to be a scientist about it, i have some evidence that god is real.
    Really?

    you have no evidence that he isnt real.
    This from someone who's just written "if you want to be a scientist about it".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    you have no evidence that he isnt real.
    No one does. No one ever will. You cannot have evidence which proves a negative, only evidence which suggests a more plausible possibility. I have a mountain of the latter.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    you have no evidence that he isnt real.
    No one does. No one ever will. You cannot have evidence which proves a negative, only evidence which suggests a more plausible possibility. I have a mountain of the latter.
    tell me the evidence that god is not real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Oh no, this one is on you. My counter claim is that it is invisible flying pigs leaving the rectum to find a new home. If you can't prove otherwise, I'm clearly right.

    Since I can't take you seriously enough to put more effort into a post, maybe you should just read this; snopes.com: Weight of the Soul
    What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.

    im not saying i am undoubtfully right, but im saying that i have evidence and you dont.


    and the quote you gave doesnt make sense. it says he lied, that doesnt prove him wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    and you cant explain the weight loss.
    False.

    if you want to be a scientist about it, i have some evidence that god is real.
    Really?

    you have no evidence that he isnt real.
    This from someone who's just written "if you want to be a scientist about it".

    then explain the weight loss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    then explain the weight loss.
    Shoddy experimental setup. As has been mentioned in numerous reports of his "experiment".
    his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases
    So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments.
    (Same link).



    ETA: I didn't notice your "evidence that god is real" anywhere.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    then explain the weight loss.
    To be honest, he doesn't even have to go that far. All he has to do is demonstrate the obvious flaws in the methodology (which I handily quoted in my last post) to remove credibility from the study. you seem to be under the opinion that it is the job of other scientists to A) refute whatever crap you're willing to believe or B) accept it as the new reality.

    The biggest surprise to me is that anyone is even replying to you. I assumed you would have ended up on everyone's ignore list after calling homosexuals "wrong" and "mentally ill".
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225

    Major bummer!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The biggest surprise to me is that anyone is even replying to you. I assumed you would have ended up on everyone's ignore list after calling homosexuals "wrong" and "mentally ill".
    I have to admit that he came close to being in mine, but not for those reasons. I'm still deciding whether he was worth studying for displaying all the uninformed but opinionated things he was said so far that may have been a result of religious/cultural bias versus having to submit myself to all the eyerolling and sighing as a result of having read what had and will be said in the future. Any recommendations? I mean, the fallacious arguments he has presented thus far hasn't been anything that most of us have not encountered before.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    To quote a not-so-bright friend of mine after he saw a man in Russia shove two women to the ground for kissing in public, "How gay is that guy?"

    Who's more sexually deviant: the two women being intimate or the guy watching them?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    then explain the weight loss.
    Shoddy experimental setup. As has been mentioned in numerous reports of his "experiment".
    his results were far from consistent, varying widely across his half-dozen test cases
    So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments.
    (Same link).



    ETA: I didn't notice your "evidence that god is real" anywhere.
    where did you explain the weight loss? Yes, it was inconsistent, but that doesn't explain the weight loss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    then explain the weight loss.
    To be honest, he doesn't even have to go that far. All he has to do is demonstrate the obvious flaws in the methodology (which I handily quoted in my last post) to remove credibility from the study. you seem to be under the opinion that it is the job of other scientists to A) refute whatever crap you're willing to believe or B) accept it as the new reality.

    The biggest surprise to me is that anyone is even replying to you. I assumed you would have ended up on everyone's ignore list after calling homosexuals "wrong" and "mentally ill".
    You didn't point out any flaws. All you said was the guy's tests were inconsistent. That does not make it false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    Major bummer!
    lesbian is ok though :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    where did you explain the weight loss? Yes, it was inconsistent, but that doesn't explain the weight loss.
    I see you have severe comprehension problems.
    The weight loss wasn't confirmed (shown by the fact that it wasn't consistent).
    Ergo the "weight loss" was experimental error.

    You didn't point out any flaws. All you said was the guy's tests were inconsistent. That does not make it false.
    It makes the "results" invalid.
    pavlos and Flick Montana like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    then explain the weight loss.
    To be honest, he doesn't even have to go that far. All he has to do is demonstrate the obvious flaws in the methodology (which I handily quoted in my last post) to remove credibility from the study. you seem to be under the opinion that it is the job of other scientists to A) refute whatever crap you're willing to believe or B) accept it as the new reality.

    The biggest surprise to me is that anyone is even replying to you. I assumed you would have ended up on everyone's ignore list after calling homosexuals "wrong" and "mentally ill".
    You didn't point out any flaws. All you said was the guy's tests were inconsistent. That does not make it false.
    His methods used to harvest the specimens were suspect, his sample sizes too small, his ability to measure changes too imprecise...

    What more do you want? That would be MORE than enough to get any of my research shot down immediately.

    My goal was not to say his work was false (you're hell bent on proving a negative, aren't you?), but to show that his methods were so flawed as to render his conclusion invalid.
    pavlos likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    lesbian is ok though :P
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    but im saying that i have evidence
    No you don't.

    and the quote you gave doesnt make sense. it says he lied, that doesnt prove him wrong.
    Are you deranged?
    (Don't answer that, we already know).
    pavlos and Flick Montana like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist? This does not include pointing at the universe and saying "there's your proof". I mean if there aren't any experiments then how can anyone study theistic religion scientifically?
    Unfortunately, NO!

    If you could ever get a working definition of what a God would be and what properties such a creature would possess maybe you could find something to test for against a null hypothesis.
    Since such a definition does not exist the result is that a world with a God looks exactly the same as a world without a God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I would think you would need to design your experiment in a fashion that is consistent with theology.

    A reasonable assumption is that you can only test for the presence of God to the extent that He wishes to be tested. Thus, you would need to follow His theology.

    The only theology that I am familiar with is Christian theology.

    For example, there seem to be some passages that encourage people to pray together. Perhaps some of the experiments on prayer could be done with this in mind such that large numbers of people prayed together at the same time, if not the same location.

    I thought it was intriguing that the Pope asked for people to pray on a certain day last year to prevent a U.S. attack on Syria. In this example, people praying were linked by a common time. Perhaps this is a way to "pray together".

    There is also a passage about: "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God". This is consistent with the visions of heavenly beings by children in Fatima, Portugal, in the early 20 th Century.

    I wonder if there is a way to evaluate the perception of God among children in a prospective fashion?

    The first idea is probably easier since designing an experiment with children might be difficult.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Yes, once a guy (don't remember who) that measured someone's weight, while they were on their deathbed. After the person died, he weighed him again. He weighed less. The difference of weight is believed to be the guy's soul.
    He did this a few times to a few people, and people that were more violent in their life had a heavier "soul" and vice versa.
    Please explain why you think the soul should have any mass at all.

    Some points made on this subject by the geneticist Steve Jones in his book The Serpents Promise (chapter 3, Battle of the Sexes):
    According to Macdougall the soul weighs 21 grams, having weighed aged patients at the moment of death.
    Now, according to Catholics the soul is inserted at the instant of fertilization. But, identical twins arise when an embryo splits well after sperm met egg. So where does the second soul come from? Does God have a stock of spares ready to insert when needed?
    Do chimeras also gain an extra helping?

    Try asking that to a catholic priest. He will probably say there are things that only God knows.
    Yawn.... no, I feel sick.
    pavlos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are there experiments that could help prove god(s) exist? This does not include pointing at the universe and saying "there's your proof". I mean if there aren't any experiments then how can anyone study theistic religion scientifically?
    They are in the case of my belief.

    My belief is in a cosmic consciousness and although not yet a belief, I think science is looking at where the cosmic consciousness I believe in lives, if you will. In the earths magnetic shield.

    Through The Wormhole - Is There A Sixth Sense PART 2/2 on Vimeo

    I hope I am right as it seems to fit well. I do recognize my bias though.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Oh boy. Another thread started to mock religion. Just what we needed. We haven't had one of these for a week or so.
    If Christians did not run so hard and fast away from debates on the morals of their God then perhaps those who mock would find a better way to saved those foolish enough to think they need saving, --- except from their own immoral thinking.

    My Gnostic Christian Jesus is a Universalist and he died for all, not just for the few that scriptures say are to be saved.

    Nothing about God can be proven but some consensus on his poor morals can be gotten to.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    67
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,225
    Oh good.
    Supporting your belief with a TV "documentary".
    One that rides nearly roughshod over actual science.
    It doesn't distinguish sufficiently between established science, scientific speculation and (decidedly) fringe ideas.
    Guess where your particular belief lies.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 30th, 2013, 08:17 AM
  2. Help with Lab for Homework
    By Clovertail in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 05:35 PM
  3. Mrs. God says God is a one woman God. No Mary thank you.
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 02:30 PM
  4. lab purpose
    By coolaak in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 28th, 2007, 09:22 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •