Does it exist before science....

[Polymath257]

So God can exist even critiques say no?

Has God been searched for and not found? Would it be expected that an observation would be made in the last few centuries if existence is the case?

 

[Polymath257]

Does something exist before science discover it?

Is it impossible that something that seems invisible do not exist because science has not discovered it yet?

What if something, is impossible to exist if science have not yet discovered it?

if something exists, it exists whether or not science discovers it.

But, if science has looked and not found when it should have, that drastically decreases the likelihood of existence.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not disagree with you on what science is and are used for.

But a lot of discussion about Gods existence are stopped because some claim there is no evidence, then they use science to say, only the physical world exist.

But they can not know, since science has not vet discovered the realm of God. Spiritual masters have.

So, give some way of reliably detecting the spiritual world. if you can do that, science would then agree it exists.

The problem is that people claim things exist when there is no evidence. At best, all they can say is that it is unknown whether the thing exists.

But, if extensive attempts have been made to detect the thing (Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, God), and no detection has been made, then the weight of the evidence points to non-existence unless a *very* good reason is given why observations have failed.

Usually that good reason is another way to detect the thing in question, which then allows for science to study it.

It isn't that scientists have been ignorant of the claims that spiritual things exist. Some scientists even believe such things exist. And others have, over the centuries, attempted to actually detect such things. Nobody has been able to do so in spite of all the effort.

At what point does non-existence become the more reasonable alternative?

 

[Polymath257]

You say something very important.
God is not a scientific concept. True, God is a spiritual concept, so skeptical people can not use science as a measure for Gods existence or not

OK, what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

 

[Polymath257]

So until science discover it, it does not exi?

Until 'science' detects it , we don't know it exists.

Depending on the attempts made for detection, that is all that can be said.

 

[Polymath257]

Want it to exist?

In the case of Gods existence, i have faith and belief God exists, can i prove it by science, no because it is a belief.

OK, so you believe it because you want to believe it.

How is that a reliable method for finding truth?

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly, one has to look at religious belief and science as two different aspects of life

Why does one *have* to do this?

 

[Polymath257]

Calculated, rather than measured. Sorry to be pedantic, but we can't measure what we can't observe.

Well, gravitational lensing could well be considered an observation of dark matter.

 

[Polymath257]

In what sense do you mean that all observations are indirect? Certainly we can directly observe electromagnetic radiation, reflected light, gravitational lensing etc. Perhaps you are referring to gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force? In which case I agree, the forces of nature cannot themselves be observed, only their effects can.

And we *do* observe dark matter through gravitational lensing.

We don't directly detect things with light. We detect the light and interpret it as carrying information about whatever emitted or reflected it.

We don't directly detect things with sound. We detect the sound (or even the vibrations) and use that to infer properties of whatever emitted or reflected the sound.

I don't directly detect the chair in my room. I see the light reflected from it, maybe smell the chemicals off gassed from it, maybe hear the vibrations produced as it slides across the floor, etc. That information is used by my brain, along with learned expectations, to form an image of a chair in my mind.

In astronomy and cosmology, what differentiates dark matter and dark energy from baryonic matter and electromagnetic radiation, is that the existence of the former is hypothetical. They are theoretical phenomena extrapolated from the evidence, and therefore speculative. Though you could of course argue that the standard cosmological model is speculative in it's entirety.

I would disagree here. We have detection of dark matter in a number of different ways that are consistent with each other.

What we do not have is detection of the actual particles that make it up. THAT part is mostly speculation at this point.

 

[sayak83]

So God can exist even critiques say no?

The argument is different.
Let us assume that a God X is posited having some properties P. The consequence of having such properties P may be that there should be a set of observables O that could be detected through science. If, now, such observables O are not found by science even after searching, that serves as a counter-evidence for the existence of that specific God with properties P.

 

[nPeace]

if something exists, it exists whether or not science discovers it.

But, if science has looked and not found when it should have, that drastically decreases the likelihood of existence.

Science does not look for God. It can't. Otherwise, it is not methodological naturalism.

 

[nPeace]

OK, what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

1. Consider the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-20; Acts of the Apostles 14:17; Psalms 19:1
2. Search or investigate. Psalms 10:4; 1 Chronicles 28:9
3. Be honest about the facts. Joshua 23:14; John 17:17

 

[Polymath257]

Science does not look for God. It can't. Otherwise, it is not methodological naturalism.

There is nothing that prevents attempts to find God using the scientific method: make hypothesis that can be tested (there is a way to tell if the hypothesis is false by observation) and actually do the observation. Then, if necessary, change your hypothesis to agree with the observation and make a different prediction based on the new hypothesis.

Repeat.

Nothing in this requires methodological naturalism. it just requires observation and a willingness to change ideas based on the results of observation.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Consider the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-20; Acts of the Apostles 14:17; Psalms 19:1
2. Search or investigate. Psalms 10:4; 1 Chronicles 28:9
3. Be honest about the facts. Joshua 23:14; John 17:17

I find it interesting that you consider *any* of those to be evidence. Instead, to me, they look like propaganda.

Evidence is the result of controlled observation, not the result of hopes or desires. The verses you gave are evidence, at most, of the beliefs people had that wrote those texts. Nothing more.

Also, how in the world do the last two verses say anything factual? Again, at most, they give some propaganda for the beliefs of whoever wrote the texts.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Consider the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-20; Acts of the Apostles 14:17; Psalms 19:1
2. Search or investigate. Psalms 10:4; 1 Chronicles 28:9
3. Be honest about the facts. Joshua 23:14; John 17:17

Let's take these one by one:

Religious Forums "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: "

What actual evidence is given here? Which 'invisible things' are 'clearly seen'?

This is rather vague claims without any supporting evidence and claims that nobody has an excuse if they don't see. That is simply called intimidation, not evidence.

Religious Forums "Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. "

Again, a claim that these things are produced by some deity, but no actual proof is given.

Religious Forums "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. "

Again, long on claims and short on actual evidence. What, precisely links the heavens to the glory of God and how, precisely, does the 'firmament' show his handiwork?

For that matter, what, precisely, is the firmament? Wasn't it supposed to be what separates the waters above and the waters below in Genesis? Funny, there doesn't appear to be anything like that anywhere we have seen.

Religious Forums " The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. "

This looks to me to simply be more intimidation. Declaring everyone who disagrees to be wicked or prideful seems like rather dishonest tactics, don't you think?

Religious Forums "And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. "

Once again, no actual evidence or even anything of value in searching. it is an admonition to Solomon to follow what the priests say. Intimidation, yet again.

Religious Forums "And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. "

Again, rather vague claims with no actual evidence. Something for everyone to read into it what they want, but so vague as to really be meaningless.

Religious Forums "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. "

Yet more propaganda with no actual evidence.

So, exactly what in these do you see as being *evidence* and what do you see as being *factual* in a way that an objective observer who is skeptical but open minded would find convincing?

 

[George-ananda]

The difference is the factual sea of scientific data leading to the discovery of Higgs-Bosen.

There is no factual sea of scientific data leading to the discovery of a soul.

How much factual sea of scientific data existed for the Higgs-Boson in the 1800's? Yet the Higgs-Boson existed all the same.

We have paranormal evidence suggestive of a soul right now.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And we *do* observe dark matter through gravitational lensing.

We don't directly detect things with light. We detect the light and interpret it as carrying information about whatever emitted or reflected it.

We don't directly detect things with sound. We detect the sound (or even the vibrations) and use that to infer properties of whatever emitted or reflected the sound.

I don't directly detect the chair in my room. I see the light reflected from it, maybe smell the chemicals off gassed from it, maybe hear the vibrations produced as it slides across the floor, etc. That information is used by my brain, along with learned expectations, to form an image of a chair in my mind.



I would disagree here. We have detection of dark matter in a number of different ways that are consistent with each other.

What we do not have is detection of the actual particles that make it up. THAT part is mostly speculation at this point.

I’m not sure gravitational lensing constitutes direct observation of dark matter, does it? It may be strong evidence, but the evidence is more theoretical than strictly empirical. Dark matter affords a galaxy sufficient mass to account for the observed gravitational effect on light passing round it; as it similarly accounts for the mass which prevents spiral galaxies from flying apart. But what is directly observed is the effect of dark matter, not dark matter itself, surely?

As for not seeing objects, but rather the light reflected or emitted by objects, a French impressionist painter (don’t remember which one, probably a pointillist) made exactly that observation in the 19th century. Of course you can argue that all our experience of the world is conveyed to us by sense data, and therefore indirect; but it’s a bleak prospect following that line of reason too far imo; at some point we have to decide whether our senses afford us a reasonable approximation of external reality, and allow us a degree of genuine intimacy with it. We come at a lot of our understanding of the world obliquely, but those things which are starting us in the face, we can reasonably claim direct experience of.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not sure gravitational lensing constitutes direct observation of dark matter, does it?

And why not? is it really any less direct that if we got light from it?

In both cases, you have an interaction with something else that gives us information. The fact that we usually detect with light because of our biology doesn't make it any more 'direct'.

It may be strong evidence, but the evidence is more theoretical than strictly empirical. Dark matter affords a galaxy sufficient mass to account for the observed gravitational effect on light passing round it; as it similarly accounts for the mass which prevents spiral galaxies from flying apart. But what is directly observed is the effect of dark matter, not dark matter itself, surely?

And when we see a star, we don't see the star itself, but rather the light from the star. We use this effect to gain information about the star (temperature, composition, etc).

As for not seeing objects, but rather the light reflected or emitted by objects, a French impressionist painter (don’t remember which one, probably a pointillist) made exactly that observation in the 19th century. Of course you can argue that all our experience of the world is conveyed to us by sense data, and therefore indirect; but it’s a bleak prospect following that line of reason too far imo; at some point we have to decide whether our senses afford us a reasonable approximation of external reality, and allow us a degree of genuine intimacy with it. We come at a lot of our understanding of the world obliquely, but those things which are starting us in the face, we can reasonably claim direct experience of.

I actually think it is perfectly correct, though. We *never* directly detect anything. We *always* detect through the action of something on our senses and the following processing by our brains.

Humans are very visually oriented, so we tend to think of sight as being 'direct detection'. But it is no more direct that any other detection through any other radiation or interaction regime.

We can have some confidence in our senses because they evolved to promote survival. So they have to give information that is conducive to survival in at least those situations in which we evolved. Past that, we *know* we are subject to optical and other sensory illusions. We *know* we have cognitive biases and defaults that are often illogical.

Nobody said that getting reliable information would be easy. But that is why we insist on testing and re-testing and pushing the boundaries of what we think we understand.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And why not? is it really any less direct that if we got light from it?

In both cases, you have an interaction with something else that gives us information. The fact that we usually detect with light because of our biology doesn't make it any more 'direct'.



And when we see a star, we don't see the star itself, but rather the light from the star. We use this effect to gain information about the star (temperature, composition, etc).



I actually think it is perfectly correct, though. We *never* directly detect anything. We *always* detect through the action of something on our senses and the following processing by our brains.

Humans are very visually oriented, so we tend to think of sight as being 'direct detection'. But it is no more direct that any other detection through any other radiation or interaction regime.

We can have some confidence in our senses because they evolved to promote survival. So they have to give information that is conducive to survival in at least those situations in which we evolved. Past that, we *know* we are subject to optical and other sensory illusions. We *know* we have cognitive biases and defaults that are often illogical.

Nobody said that getting reliable information would be easy. But that is why we insist on testing and re-testing and pushing the boundaries of what we think we understand.

We don’t have to hypothesise the existence of the sun though, do we? A child can have first hand visceral experience of it, without the need to push back the barriers of understanding just to confirm it’s there.

And whilst light may create all sorts of illusions, especially when refracted through the ubiquitous substance we call water, intimate first hand awareness of the qualities of both is endemic to every living creature. Hardly so with dark matter or dark energy.

 

[rational experiences]

Con science in old legal documents.

The human men in governing power always over write old legal terms. When legal said machines come from Satan melt not God.

As in God earth mass machine metal is sealed in an earth seam pressure as gods body. God owning law the metal position used to build machines isn't dusts.

So don't name God as a theist or humans DNA biology in life will get removed.

Known legal position science is satanism. Satanism against natural life earth laws.

As God was given entity status for humans legal arguments only. Planet earth.

Mass was planet.
Heavens was a mass too as natural law legal position entity.

Given two named legal titles.

God.
Son of God for legality. Inheritance. Bodies. Bodies of mass. Mother of God was M and the a s s body. Moving O as earth the journey through space. Inference donkey is an a s s. Heavens body hurt ASSisi.

Legal.

Man human liar says I'm father and son in one body human as theist two in one. Holy ghosts support me.

Then he gives his life as a human son of his own adult father to a thesis machine science laws in science only not anywhere else.

Lying illegal as legal was to tell only humans natural truth as human equality by law.

So son and father one man gave holy spirit's gases to machines.

Leaving one adult man position to be Sacrificed yet earth gained holes...nature bush combusted. Animal life sacrificed burnt in stone altar of God as did human women.

Woman was number two in man's presence. He said he'd survive as two humans existed. Two humans were hurt another status he didn't teach correctly legally....verbally.

In law one and two equal positions human man human woman.

Father.
Son.
Brother.
To....
Mother.
Daughter.
Sister. Holy three by words only.

Mutual family equality. Legal.

Legal natural law is first science. By machine it never owned any laws. Locked deep inside gods body They lied. It's coercion thesis only.

All laws he theoried upon convert by human terms to reactor machine only.