It's time to step in and break this horse.
:
|
No one can disprove the existance of God, because, if according to an athiest God did not exist, how do you prove something doesn't exist?
|
You can never prove that something does not exist without positive evidence for something contrary. No amount of not finding evidence for something is evidence that it does not exist, since it is not evidence for anything at all. Still, having to evidence is consistent with something not existing, but if it is also consistent with any theory, then you also know that you're on to something bogus.
:
|
But going on from what Carnix said, our world is what we view of it, we uphold science to be truth, but wasn't spontanious generiation once part of science? I can garuantee you that the majority of scientific theories we believe in today are wrong, if not completly correct, yet we attack anyone who doesn't believe in them.
|
Science is not the truth. Discovering the truth is not the goal of science, since with the scientific method we would never know that we got something right even if we did. It may be supported by mountains of evidence, but we're always trying to falsify our theories by testing them. That is how science progresses. The goal of science is to produce working models of the universe. theories that can make predictions about what we will observe in the field of an experiment. These models do not necessarily tell us what is actually occurring, but the are the best explanations we have, based on the available evidence. Which other "alternative" ideas emphatically are not, which their usefulness within the confines of reality reflects.
:
|
And seriously, is the big bang theories any more ridiclious than religeon (if you consider religeon ridiclious at all, which I don't, but I'm sure others do), it goes against the basic laws of science after all.
|
No. No. Emphatically no, the Big Bang theory is not ridiculous, nor does it go against the laws of science. The folk understanding of it, on the other hand, now that's another story.
:
|
So anyways, this world, is what we view of it, everything we see and hear, is from our perspective, but what if someone we saw, felt and experianced didn't apply to someone else? What if we lived in a completly different world than someone else? And what if someone controlled this world?
|
Then different things would occur than those we observe (using the scientific meaning of the word "observe" which is not confined to human senses or subjective experience).
:
This question was presented in the matrix, but the fact that our brains are in fact beyond our control, that we apparently think, feel and love because of chemicals going through our brains in quite frightening, and what dictates us to do this, is it chance, is all of this chance?
I present these questions to everyone. 
|
First we must define chance. The only truly random events are quantum (such as the decay of a radioactive atom), as far as modern science can tell. All others are a result of most, if not all, of the events that have come before it, right down to the basic interaction of particles. But in different fields of science, different events can be considered, practically and functionally, random as far as that level of science is concerned. Such as mutations, or rolling a die. Quantum physics can only predict occurrences in terms of probability, with throws into doubt this deterministic interpretation of the universe, at least at the fundamental level. The more accurately you measure the velocity of a quantum particle such as an electron, the more uncertain its position becomes. There have been experiments that have measured the effect of an electron meeting itself coming the other way, and if that can't drive home the strangeness of science, nothing can. Fortunately, since large groups of particles do not tend to move as one, these effects dissipate on large scales and the behaviour of the universe becomes more familiar, and more deterministic. The disparity is one we hope to solve by finding a grand unified theory of everything.
The evolution of the human brain was not chance, that's a result of natural selection and unconscious selective breeding by ourselves. Brains and minds become more complex when they interact with complex things, and what could be more complex than other people's minds? The increase in intelligence throughout human evolution has been somewhat a positive feedback loop.
Personally, I don't find the idea that our feelings, our minds, are simply a product of biochemical reactions frightening at all. It is what I have thought for a long time. There is no reason that mundane matter is not capable of extraordinary things when in particular, naturally occuring arrangements without the addition of an extraordinary ingredient, like spirit or soul. These are superfluous additions to our understanding of the human mind.
The Science of Discworld II,
Figments of Reality and
The Privileged Ape address these ideas thoroughly, so Nate and WoF are excused.
In short, the mind can be described as what it is like to be a brain. Feelings and impressions such as the colour red or the emotion of anger are termed "quales". We cannot quantitatively measure quales nor qualitatively examine them, as they exist only as biochemical and bio-electrical interactions within the unique structure of a portion of the person in question's brain. Translating them is currently beyond our ability, and may always be. We have no idea what makes quales so vivid, though we know where the experience occurs in the brain. Even if it were possible to turn brain activity into clear pictures of what someone is thinking, the same technique would not work on another person. Their brains have a different, unique structure, a different way of tackling the world and subtly different thought patterns. Experience another person's thoughts would be gibberish.
This is because we are shaped by our experiences, they mould us and made us who we are, who we are going to be. Literally, they change the way our brains tackle problems and come up with solutions, way way new connections form in one person when exposed to a stimulus will be different from those formed in another exposed t the same stimulus, because of their different experiences up to that point. They also started from different points, which is where genetics and the unique developmental conditions in their mother's wombs come into play.
This throws into question the notion of free will. Or rather our definition of it. While we certainly have will and are free to follow them, it doesn't quite amount to what we expect or hope it would. Certainly our minds give us the very vivid impression of free will, but nothing more substantial than that. You receive an input via your senses and the output is your subsequent response. The process is your mind. How free is your will? Your actions are biased from the start, due to the particular input. I don't think anyone will argue that is a bad thing. The process itself is shaped by our past experiences, what has happened to us before, or what we have seen happen to other people, regardless of whether it has any relation to the current event. We don't make choices, we make judgements. We judge the best response out of those we might make, and follow through. Rewind time, and you will make the same choice again and again: the cause of your decisions are the same after all.
Notice how people's behaviour is based on the conviction that they have free will, but no one else does. If Alcar started spamming or starting unfathomable topics, we don't say "Oh, Alcar is expressing his free will." We say "What the devil has got into Alcar?" and search for an adequate explanation. Based on our own experiences and understanding of Alcar, we may quickly home in on the explanation that he has altered his normal brain chemistry and thus function due to the liberal application of ethanol.
Novel inspiration is a more difficult to explain, by nature experiments with inspiration cannot be repeated. Something better understood but no less interesting are the bizarre, irrational responses to stimuli utterly outside our experiences. Many a lab animal has engaged in irrational grooming when faced with such stimuli, and people are no less vulnerable. Walk into a corner shop wearing a dress, seemingly not noticing yourself, and see how the owner reacts. A small town shop, the country may be hostile and the city will be used to it.
Though it really doesn't matter what we say about free will, business will continue on as usual. We like the way we think regardless of the mechanisms, and if we truly have free will we will keep doing our thing, if we don't, there's no option not to. In either case, our instincts, which have the final say (ultimate veto power against free will?), are too strong to let us tear our society apart over any sort of revelation.
Yeah well... well... I've found someone else to.