Even if you’re declared sterile you can still help make a baby, science and most religion agree on this point. Regardless it is no more an argument for or against a god either way- his child or not- as it can still be explained through the “mysterious workings” of a higher power or basic science. Neither can be proven incorrect so it’s a silly argument.
Being declared sterile is not a certainty one can’t have a baby. It happens quite often. Between the fact that sometimes doctors are just wrong, “sterile” as a diagnosis exists on a spectrum, and that the human body often surprises us, it’s a given. While sterility and infertility are not the same thing, sterility still has some odds of producing viable embryos even without medical aid. As for the spiritual debate: science cannot prove anything is impossible, improbable yes, never impossible. The scientific method doesn’t allow one to prove the impossible. It’s against the nature of science and logic. Religion does not preclude science. Regardless of a religious stance, science is the mechanism by which we observe the universe to work. The existence of one does not mean the other cannot exist, nor does the possibility of existence prove something does exist. There is that which is observable and that which is not. What I mean by wether or not it is his child is:
Scientifically it is possible that it could be his baby, or another mans. Without observable proof like dna or some features which indicate a certain dna “finger print” that can eliminate or prove more likely who the father is, it’s empty speculation. Religiously there is no reason to say that god(s) or deities would or would not facilitate or allow such events to take place. All arguments come from a place of uncertainty- not enough facts to form any compelling argument using demonstratable realities. Is it his? Is it random chance? Is it a “miracle” of a “higher power,” is it not his? If not is that some workings of some grand design? Who knows. Science is trust in what can be demonstrated to be factual. There are no facts to demonstrate either argument would have any more validity than the other, a conclusion is emotional reaction and not intelligent deduction.
It’s possible to expand on that line of thought to include that science cannot prove that she’s pregnant, or that either one of them exist, or that they were ever posted on Funsubstance. It sure as hell can’t explain why his nipple is exposed in the photo.
Solipsism may be the extreme end of what you are alluding to but following that path at all isn’t practical. Math can tell me that it’s impossible for 1+1=5 unless you say that we can’t prove math is real.
Anything can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. The fact that a person can run away with something off the deep end is not a reason why it is invalid. No more so than to say that the concept of banning heroine would require you to ban cheese or apples since all three substances alter the flow of chemicals in the body and brain. As for Math.... to begin with, if sciences are the rules of the universe, math is the language those rules are written in. Math does not prove or disprove anything except itself. The fact that math is internally consistent is required by its nature. Math evolves, from the basic concept of “0” being added, to newer higher numbers, scalable infinities, and so on. Math eveloves as our understanding of the universe changes and needs new language to describe. Math is tried and true, it exists in a vacuum from fact, but we trust it because it applies to observable reality consistently. Where it does not, we either change math or evolve our concept of reality.
In plain terms- we have never observed 1+1 to equal 5. Everything we know and see, thousands of years of real experience, as well as trial and error give us no reason to think it would. However that does not mean it cannot. It doesn’t mean that we can apply what we observe in our lives to other dimensions or quantum states. It also doesn’t mean that because those things are possible that we must believe they exist, are true, or rely upon them. Science is based on open mindedness. Some of the great shakes and bottle necks in history have come from people refusing to accept change in what we know, that the “impossible” was possible- things like discoveries in astronomy, how the solar system works, medicine- it took a very long time to convince doctors germs were real because we couldn’t see them and it offended people. Science isn’t about believing everything you’re told. It’s about believing anything is possible, and figuring out how to make it a repeatable reality.
To be effective one must focus wisely. It’s besbto start with the probable, a thing which you have some ability to build upon to prove as correct. You can’t prove black holes are actually full of gummy bears if you can’t even see inside a black hole can you? You start at the level closest to what you can do and build, maybe over lifetimes of work being carried on. By the very nature of most dieties and religions- even IF they were true, they cannot be consistently proven true, and if they are false- nothing can be proven to not exist. Therefore it is a waste of sciences time to try to deal with religion. Science can teach of our world but not what lies beyond knowable reality. A scientist trying to prove a god exists is like a scientist trying to prove a god doesn’t- a waste of time and irrelevant to science. It’s a philosophy debate, and philosophy can’t be proven or disproven either, it’s mental masturbation.
Well, if I were to ask you “If are holding no apples and you accept one apple each from two different people would you then have two apples?” you might answer “Probably” to keep your options open but if you ask me “Did this dude’s wife get barebacked by some other guy who got it past the goalie?” I would answer “Yup” without a second thot.
It’s all about probability as you pointed out.
But we don’t have any more information than he claims to be sterile- not that he was diagnosed as sterile, just his statement. It could be a self diagnosis like people who diagnose themselves as automatic or as having an allergy or a disease based off of a web article or off of subjective experience. If we want to talk statistics, we have 2 data points that aren’t even verified. To my original point- that’s no more scientific than saying “because there is thunder, a god must be angry.” It’s jumping to a conclusion and isn’t supported. As to your apples- if you have 4 apples, and you divide them among 0 people, how many apples do you have? My example doesn’t work and neither does yours. It’s just word play. Anyone can read a book on engineering and learn the “rules,” it takes years learning where and how to apply each “rule.” Knowledge doesn’t always mean the wisdom to apply it correctly. That is why a little info can be a more dangerous thing than none in the wrong hands.
If we assume he IS actually sterile- all stated still applies to the statics and the rest, and even someone declared sterile may still have a child. Without more info there’s no science here, just wild speculation akin to attributing everything to supernatural forces and then closing the book.
Most likely. But the overall premise is flawed. I thank them for sharing and don’t want to dimish their contribution, but “Batman and Robin” was just a story someone made because they wanted people to enjoy a super hero movie, any number of “B” rated “knock off” films like “Transmorphers” are likewise created as serious endeavors and not as parodies. It would seem that the way we tell a story can have as much or more impact on the finished product than simply what we intended to create. I’m sure there are people who were amused by the joke and it’s ambiguous phrasing. I’m not here to insult them or the creator. No one will connect to everything as intended. But it is FUN substance and I saw something here I thought might be fun to discuss. People are free to ignore me and enjoy the meme as they like, or engage in discourse if they too feel it would be entertaining. The great thing about text is you don’t have to read it if you don’t like.
Solipsism may be the extreme end of what you are alluding to but following that path at all isn’t practical. Math can tell me that it’s impossible for 1+1=5 unless you say that we can’t prove math is real.
It’s all about probability as you pointed out.