Is science interested in finding God ?

[cladking]

That would make consciousness a synonym for life. I don't attribute consciousness to vegetation, nor to microorganisms, but they're certainly alive. Indeed, I seem to recall I pointed out to you before that this is to attribute consciousness to every cell of your body, as well as all your microorganisms.

Yes.

I do believe every blade of grass is as conscious as it needs to be to improve its odds of survival.

Consciousness underlies change in species because every individual is equally fit.

 

[F1fan]

I don't believe there is such a thing as physical or natural law.

Well if you can't get science right you lose right there.

I believe reality is logical and since math is logic quantified and reality corresponds to math it appears to follow natural laws. There are no laws of nature, it merely seems so to us.

Only human minds use logic which is a set of rules that we use for various calculations and understanding of what is true about reality.

I make no such assumption. Nor do I assume there is no God. Rather I weight the odds concerning what I do know and can estimate.

So you are agnostic, or atheist, or agnostic atheist? You're not a believer in any God, yes?

I have no idea what the characteristics of a God might be.

You do understand that many religious frameworks have their own diverse set of gods and they offer descriptions. So I take it you reject all of them as accurate?

With reality being logic manifest, life logic incarnate, and math logic quantified perhaps God is the source of logic or some universal logic. How am I to know?

Why guess at all? Logic is just a tool we use. You might as well say hammers are manifest and are God for hammering.

Perhaps logic manifested as truth? All things turn out alright in the end. Logic complete.

Why guess? You could say hammers manifested as truth. If you don't hit your thumb while hammering all is good in the end, yes?

You tell me what we're looking for or how we'll know if we find It or catch a glimpse.

Are we looking for something? Why so vague?

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

I do believe every blade of grass is as conscious as it needs to be to improve its odds of survival.

How is grass conscious? Be sure to use the common defintion so your explanation is valid. If you have a special definition then state it, and why you aren't using the common definition.

Consciousness underlies change in species because every individual is equally fit.

This is a claim, explain how it's true.

 

[Audie]

Hmm. I'm not sure about that. We've found supernatural beliefs in 100% or so of all the world's distinct cultures, suggesting that in the wild such beliefs have their place and function, whether as explainers or as part of stories in common which go to tribal identity hence tribal solidarity.

I don't mean there was no connection with power and control. I mean there may have been a connection that was beneficial to the tribe collectively, whether at the expense of some individuals or not.

My secomd evening in rural Philippines happened
to include a lunar eclipse.

Everyone was out banging on cookpots etc.

To scare away the lizard that was trying to eat the moon.

You tell me how superstition helps people understand
what's really going on.
moon.

 

[McBell]

Something cannot logically be presumed to have come from nothing. Order cannot logically be presumed to have come from disorder. Thus, it appears that 'something' transcendent of our witness and reason was/is required for that to have occurred.

Other than you, who is claiming something came from nothing?

 

[cladking]

Only human minds use logic which is a set of rules that we use for various calculations and understanding of what is true about reality.

Only humans don't use logic. Indeed, on many levels this is literally true. A stone rolls down hill with insufficient support. Life is logic incarnate and every other species operates on the logic of which they are comprised. Humans act on the beliefs they have chosen.

 

[cladking]

You're not a believer in any God, yes?

At this point in time I consider my religion as "undefined"; much like you can't divide by zero.

You do understand that many religious frameworks have their own diverse set of gods and they offer descriptions. So I take it you reject all of them as accurate?

All humans always make sense in terms of their premises. I don't share a lot of premises with many people. We are each homo circularis rationatio and the only species or thing in existence that is illogical and we are illogical by definition. I find common ground with many religions and most people.

I am not religious but am spiritual.

Why guess?

I'm not really guessing. I know I can't know. I am merely suggesting possibilities that may be in keeping with my beliefs (that all people make sense and reality exists).

Are we looking for something? Why so vague?

I seek truth and understanding. I long sought to understand thought and it is still a consideration.

 

[blü 2]

Yes.

I do believe every blade of grass is as conscious as it needs to be to improve its odds of survival.

Consciousness underlies change in species because every individual is equally fit.

Since I can think of no way in which that can be correct, we'll have to continue to disagree.

 

[blü 2]

My secomd evening in rural Philippines happened
to include a lunar eclipse.

Everyone was out banging on cookpots etc.

To scare away the lizard that was trying to eat the moon.

You tell me how superstition helps people understand
what's really going on.
moon.

Alternatively, they were successful, the lizard didn't eat the moon, and we still have the tides on which so many littoral critters depend. That would account for why neither of us noticed the lizard, hein?

The correctness of these things depend on where you stand, I guess.

 

[Audie]

Alternatively, they were successful, the lizard didn't eat the moon, and we still have the tides on which so many littoral critters depend. That would account for why neither of us noticed the lizard, hein?

The correctness of these things depend on where you stand, I guess.

You are welcome to use a copper bracelet
for arthritis and look for a place to stand where it works.

 

[gnostic]

God is not a scientific question, idea, or issue. So I don't know why you're even bringing science into it.

i have never said anything about God being “scientific question, idea, or issue”.

What I do question is attributing “God” to nature, as a “mysterious” force or source, and its ability to organise nature in any way…or what you have called it - “the origin of that order”.

 

[cladking]

Since I can think of no way in which that can be correct, we'll have to continue to disagree.

What any individual can believe, understand, or imagine has absolutely no effect on reality. No matter how impossible something is all life forms other than humans will act appropriately. Humans will stand and gawk. Reality is what happens, not what we believe or believe is possible.

We believe we think therefore we are. More accurately it's we think therefore we sleepwalk.

 

[F1fan]

At this point in time I consider my religion as "undefined"; much like you can't divide by zero.

This is vague. Do you have religious beliefs or not? If you are confused then you aren't in a place to be making any definitive claims about reality and science.

All humans always make sense in terms of their premises. I don't share a lot of premises with many people. We are each homo circularis rationatio and the only species or thing in existence that is illogical and we are illogical by definition. I find common ground with many religions and most people.

I didn't ask about common ground, I asked if you reject the many diverse claims of different gods from other religions. To say "common ground" is vague and clarifies nothing. If you are hiding your assumptions that you share with other theists then perhaps you understand that you have dubious premises that distort any conclusions you make.

I am not religious but am spiritual.

This is more vague confusion. And again short on details about what you think the difference is. We all know that many believers are actually religious but are ashamed of it and deny being religious for the more acceptable word "spiritual". You seem to be hiding quite a bit, but we can see how your beliefs affect your conclusions about reality, and do so in a way that distorts what we understand of reality. The question I have is how much you are hiding from yourself since we skeptics can see the effects of religious assumptions in your posts but you don't.

I'm not really guessing. I know I can't know. I am merely suggesting possibilities that may be in keeping with my beliefs (that all people make sense and reality exists).

Who cares? It's apparent your assumtions and "possibilities" are religious in nature. Are you trying to fool us, or just yourself? We can see the "religion" in your guesses, but you seem confused about it. As you admit, you consider your religious undefined. So you do have beliefs, but can you manage them, and can you separate out your beliefs from what is true about how things are? Thus far it looks as though you are struggling. We see many theists try to infuse their religious assumptions into descriptions of reality so they can justify their religious beliefs to themselves, and do this in forums to work it all out. I wonder how much this is subconscious versus conscious in the believer.

I seek truth and understanding. I long sought to understand thought and it is still a consideration.

Facts and science is truth. Religious lore is not. But we humans evolved with certain anxieties and we are attracted to the traditions of religious belief, and often adopt the ideas subconsciously. these ideas are like viruses that infect thinking. And without skilled reasoning the believer can be in a confused state trying to reconcile the emotional comfirt of religious belief and the hard reality of science.

 

[cladking]

This is vague. Do you have religious beliefs or not? If you are confused then you aren't in a place to be making any definitive claims about reality and science.

Nonsense ANYONE can be making definitive claims about reality and science. Indeed, everyone does. Every single homo omniscience models reality. It's what we do.

I didn't ask about common ground, I asked if you reject the many diverse claims of different gods from other religions.

I attempt to reject all beliefs and especially beliefs about science.

We all know that many believers are actually religious but are ashamed of it and deny being religious for the more acceptable word "spiritual"

I don't how to state this more clearly. I am not a believer nor am I religious. I am not a joiner and do not make alliances with like minded people.

The question I have is how much you are hiding from yourself since we skeptics can see the effects of religious assumptions in your posts but you don't.

The term "skeptic" used to mean one who doubts. I am the world's leading skeptic. Now it is usually used to mean one who believes in science. In today's language I am no longer a skeptic. "Inflammable" used to mean highly combustible. Now it means something can't burn. The capital of China has changed many times in my lifetime but to my knowledge it is still in the exact same place and they are still laughing at the gullible Americans.

Language is a wondrous thing.

So you do have beliefs,

I believe reality is digital and homo omnisciencis is analog and this gives rise to thought and confusion that doesn't exist in any other species.

Religion is an attempt to present the conclusions of ancient science into modern abstractions. Hence my "beliefs" about religion are "undefined".

Facts and science is truth

Oh God, no!

 

[cladking]

If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.

 

[PureX]

That’s why atheists don’t presume God exists.

Theists would say that as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, that God transcends the limits of existence. Atheists think nothing can do that. But something must have, or nothing could exist.

Why opt for a God always existing when it’s simpler to assume energy always existed.

You are assuming that God must comply with our definition of existence. A theist assumes that God transcends oudefinitions of existence. Therefor God is not bound by our requirement to have been either created, or eternal.

At least we know energy exists unlike gods.

We have no idea of what energy even is. Measuring it and naming it is not understanding it.

That’s why we have physicists to explain how energy behaves according to the laws of physics.

Explaining some of the ways that energy "behaves" is not understanding what it is, how it exists, or where it comes from.

 

[PureX]

I'm inclined to agree.

Order comes from disorder all through nature, surely?

Even chance is limited to a very small number of possible outcomes. Limited by what? By the ways energy can and can't be expressed, mostly. Existence as we know of and experience it is following a 'blueprint' of possibility and impossibility. How, why, and from what source those are being imposed is a complete mystery to us.

Particles become atoms (inter alia). Atoms become 'dust'. Dust becomes stars and planets, chemicals become biochemicals, life becomes animals and vegetables, these being self-reproducing ─ and so on.

The source and the 'blueprint' precede all that. Those are all expression of what was possible, and what was not possible.

I'm all for awe and delight and wonder. I just don't see them pointing back to a purposeful "intelligence" of some kind.

They 'point back' to a great mystery. Purpose and intelligence are our presumed assessments of it. The reality of it is far beyond our comprehension.

Ah well. Perhaps such different views are part of human nature too.

Yes, they are.

 

[PureX]

i have never said anything about God being “scientific question, idea, or issue”.

Then why were you suggesting that we must use scientific methodology to explore and discuss the idea?

What I do question is attributing “God” to nature, as a “mysterious” force or source, and its ability to organise nature in any way…or what you have called it - “the origin of that order”.

Nevertheless, the questions stand, because the mystery (source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is) is real. And science isn't going to resolve it. Neither will religion, philosophy, or art. Though each can contribute to our better understanding of the mystery.

 

[blü 2]

You are welcome to use a copper bracelet
for arthritis and look for a place to stand where it works.

Who would dare go to town without their rabbit's foot?

Can it be mere chance that the Christian cross resembles the four-leaf clover?

 

[blü 2]

What any individual can believe, understand, or imagine has absolutely no effect on reality. No matter how impossible something is all life forms other than humans will act appropriately. Humans will stand and gawk. Reality is what happens, not what we believe or believe is possible.

We believe we think therefore we are. More accurately it's we think therefore we sleepwalk.

Ah, my poor pessimist, I recommend a stiff dose of science to cheer you up.