Does 'religion' even qualify to be a 'hypothesis'?

I never said that this study proves God does not exist. And of course, I could see religion making people happier considering what certain religious people advocate: an everlasting blissful life after this one.

 

A hypothesis is a query only. I suspect you are talking about a proven hypothesis which, then would have to be elevated to a scientific theory through repetitive, successful and predictable experimentation.

Neither religion nor evolution meets that standard yet.

 

A "proven" hypothesis is a theory, of which evolution is.

 

It is obvious that we are much more capable than we can conceive of. One need only look at the mental giants throughout recorded time. The Bible teaches us that we were made in the image of the Creator. Could it be that we actually benefit from belief in a higher power.

I could be that those who limit themselves to a more secular-humanist belief are shunting most of those higher capabilities. Call that higher level God, Creator or whatever or whomever but clearly, there is more than science can explain.

 

How is evolution proven? I am not aware of any modern-day experiment where life has been created and 'evolved' into a human being under controlled scientific control and observation.

 

Things not normally found in nature in a finished state. IE... A computer, television, airplane, jet engine, hand grenades, atomic bombs, automobiles. etc.

 

Oh really? Where is that proof at? If you disproved them, then why do they still exist?

 

It isn't proven, hence why I used quotes. There is no way to prove, in an absolute sense, anything in any field of natural science. Gravity is not proven, the cell theory of disease is not proven, etc. This is because one day we may find evidence contrary to the theory and the old theory would be discarded. This is equivalent to the "problem of induction" in philosophy.

Secondly, evolution isn't life evolving into a human. We are not the "ultimate goal" of evolution or anything; there is life better adapted to conditions on this planet than us.

Third, we have seen evolution in action. Evolution is commonly misinterpreted to being "organism turns into a completely different organism. Evolution is simply genetic change in a population over time due to mutation and natural selection. We HAVE seen this happen. Ever see the variety of dogs on this planet? All of them evolved from the grey wolf thousands of years ago. All of our food, from fruit to cattle, have been domesticated from species much unlike the modern day species.

 

Okay, you answered one question out of two. Is this answer referring to "items" or "scientific creativity"? Also, none of those things are theories or hypotheses, but instead items created from our knowledge of science. I was saying, originally, that scientific hypotheses result from our observation of the Universe. Obviously inventions require an imagination, sorry if that is what you meant.

 

Can doctors (professional men of a science infected world) give a guaranty to every cancer patient that they will be cured due to the treatments offered by those doctors? No? I guess it looks like it is a bit of tit for tat on that subject huh?

 

The charge sir was that you could disprove religion/God. You obviously have fallen far short of that. It seems as though are you backpeddling now.

 

There is no guarantee that medicine will work, but there is obviously more evidence that it does work than prayer. Do you admit that?

 

Can you cite an example of those "nutbag over the top Christians"? I have never heard of that denomination. Or is that just you and your imagination hard at work?

 

There is no question that we benefit from the belief in a higher power. The question is, why?

As far as "mental giants", it seems to me its all about perspective. For example, if there be a God such mental giants have no comparison to the Almighty. Put me in a room full of Downs Syndrome patients and I become a mental giant as well.

 

The original claim was that we can disprove religions. Obviously if we disprove certain claims of religions, such as the Earth being 6,000 years old, then we can slowly disprove that the religion is an accurate description of the Universe. God is a different story, considering it is an unfalsifiable claim.

 

Outstanding acknowledgement. Now can you explain WHY science does not even attempt to concern itself with religion? The evidence of the existence of religion cannot be disputed due to its widespread usage by the greatest percentage of people living. So, is it due to the fact that science cannot explain religion and religious belief, in spite of the widespread evidence constituting its existence?

 

Medicine is a game of statistics. For example, you have a certain percentage chance that a particluar medical procedure will work and a certain percentage chance that a particular drug will work a certain way. However, when it comes to the Almighty, what is the percentage chance that the Red Sea will split before us? What are the chances of that dust on the ground sprining to life etc? It seems to me that those chances are astronomical at best yet we know that at least one of these events occured.

Also, you turn a blind eye to the fact that God could provide medical help needed. It's just like evolution. You gain some insight into how things work and just assume you understand it all as if it were mutually exclusive from the hand of God.

 

That the chances of supernatural events occurring? I would say that the chances those things occurring is 0%, but I don't know for sure.

 

Well, obviously religion exists, but the question is whether or not religions' claims are true.

 

Then You are contradicting yourself;

a) .... each religion is 'falsifiable'
b)..... hypothesis: if incorrect, is falsifiable

ie..... your "NO" is disqualified.

no one denied a "god". No one debating whether a 'god' exists or not.

Making a religion 'falsifiable' is not discounting any 'god'.

What evidence would you like?

I asked if 'religion' (s), even qualify to be a hypothesis. You answered and it was disqualified based on the premise you offered

perhaps.

But i have noticed it is 'black, with lil'white dots about half the time'.

Sure there is; go for a walk and see.

likewise............... DV is like the 'god' of star wars, a created being.

before during and after; religions are manmade!

No hypothesis to that claim, it's a fact!

 

but didnt you ask if 'light' was god?

at least there is an effect.

religions dont have an effect to anything but the imagination and then, they can cause world wars

it wasnt a 'god' that is doing it, unless the 'creator' of the religion is a 'god' to you. Therein ....that would mean, your god is a man.

So likewise, a moron can't comprehend truth, when they read it; they are subjective to their own ignorance.


Is there any religion that is not falsifiable?

 

actually, that prayer would prove HE was no god.

I bet alchohol does more than prayer, for life or death!

 

nice hypothesis you post

for example: the schism

mormonism

religions dont have standards; they require adherants

evolution is a theory.

For example: my hypothesis is that knowledge evolves over time.

Proof: the religions change over time

for example: the schism or even 'torah to bible to quran' all derived from egypts monotheism

 

no they did not.

Did you witness it?

name a person who did witness it.

Otherwise, you breaking 'the law' (no false witness). ie.... taste how science works................ You can't mislead, or you fail 'every' god.

Where did that 'hypothesis' come from?

What 'hand'?

Did you see it?

Did anyone see it?

Bring that witness forward.

otherwise, you of false witness................... and lying into the face of 'every' god.

 

Obviously not, since the dust of the earth now speaks.....