What "science" disproves higher beings?

Post Reply New Topic

OK, I'm not sure you know quite what "peer-reviewed" usually means in the context you are using it. Generally, the work is submitted to a series of experts before publication. They suggest changes and the work is not published until they are happy. It is rare that this will happen with whole books - getting a series of experts to each review a chapter is more common. Neither of the books you cite thank reviewers, which is standard - otherwise how would anyone know that they were peer reviewed?

The sociology blog post you cite is riddled with errors - it spells "Mlodinow" wrong, for example, and also waffles on about discredited Freudian ideas. It's not peer reviewed - indeed, the journal has stopped being peer reviewed altogether since 2010.

Hyland is a book review, not peer reviewed primary literature. The book being reviewed is discredited (Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion).

So that leaves Gentry. Again, that's not a paper, as far as I can tell. At first, I thought it was probably a letter, but no, it's a summary of a presentation. http://absimage.aps.org/image/APR14/MWS ... 000100.pdf
Of course, I did not see the presentation, but the abstract is not promising - lots of grandstanding, little of worth. The only substantial thing is the claim to have discredited redshift, but without any evidence that's useless. Again, this is not peer reviewed.

It's generally considered academic malpractice to cite something you haven't actually consumed. You certainly haven't consumed Hyland. I would be surprised if you saw the Gentry presentation, but if you did, then perhaps you can shred some light (pun not intended) on the flaws in redshift that Gentry points out.

No offense intended, but there is something ironic in a scientist, and particularly an Aspie, citing peer pressure as a source of moral authority.

The materialists complain about flying spaghetti monsters, yet cannot reproduce any of their most pivotal claims -- even by intelligent intervention.

In that everything in the observable world is prone toward disorder over time, it might be inferred that all order comes from a higher order, and the natural order comes from a supernatural order.

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
And so on…

More info from http://godisimaginary.com/i14.htm

This is a simplistic argument which has been debunked many times. Simple but effective examples of order from disorder in nature are: plants growing from seeds and multiplying their complexity, snow flakes, stalactites, fluted sand-beds in flowing water, lightning. Wherever energy flows, you will often find it propagating order. The sun beats down on the earth, producing complex orderly weather patterns.

Pardon me, but I don't believe anyone has done so.

It was the OP (evidently not a scientist) who brought up peer review and claimed to have peer reviewed literature supporting him. AspieOtaku is the only person disagreeing with him on his central claim, and hasn't attempted to cite peer reviewed literature or anything.

Peer review is distinct from peer pressure, but it's not actually a very good system. Post-publication review seems stronger. It was Shep who raised peer review, I simply pointed out that he was wrong, I am not actually arguing with his central claim that empiricism cannot actively disprove supernatural phenomena that have no effect upon the real world.

I also don't think anyone mentioned "moral authority" before you.


Toss a coin a thousand times and by chance you'll get five heads in a row.

There are also laws of physics other than entropy which can fight against entropy somewhat. Life is basically an exercise in fighting entropy.

“A god who is capable of sending intelligible signals to millions of people simultaneously, and of receiving messages from all of them simultaneously, cannot be, whatever else he might be, simple. Such Bandwidth!”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

The existence of "higher beings" is not even in the realm of scientific inquiry until the term is assigned a precise meaning. You might as well ask if there is scientific proof pertaining to the existence of googledygoggedies or boogles or ninnynonnies or fragglecytes.

National Geographic has disproven god if you chalenge National Geographic you fail and will always lose hence god has been disproven as well as other gods since christianity was made up and stolen from more primitive religions, you have lost!

Here in Australia, we now have fibre-optic all the way to the house (for some of us). I wonder if God suffers lag or time-outs, or even 404's....

You are the higher power. All of you. You may be smoking it too.

You are gods.
True ego driven petty tyrants.

Go prove someone else wrong, I know what you are.

I'm only a minor deity - god of my own life, and not very omnipotent.
The gods of politics, economics and taxes are more powerful.

"Very omnipotent"? Surely "not very powerful" or "not omnipotent"?

See? I can't even conjugate properly.

It's o.k.. You have a really cool avatar, so it balances itself out.

What I meant to say was clear and that is Word of God is literally from God (as in, written by God) rather than inspired (as in, what you are referring to), I never said that the words aren't allegorical.