Does Science has nothing in common with God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

To you yes.not to religious and spiritual people

Horoscopes are also considered real by astrology believers.
Talking to the dead is also considered real by seance believers
Moving objects with one's mind is also considered real by paranormal telekinesis believers.
Crystal healing is also considered real by believers.
Alien abduction is also considered real by alien abductees.
Bigfoot is also considered real by bigfoot believers.
Toddlers also consider Santa to be real.


In summary: it is really no surprise at all that X is considered "real" by a believer of X.

The difference with scientific conclusions however, is that X in that case can be independently shown to be real - regardless of what is being "believed".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When the vail of ignorance has been removed, spiritual people do experience the spiritual realm.
Something a non religious or spiritual person can not fathom

Have you considered that it actually might be the other way round?
That it's exactly the vail of ignorance that makes people believe in those things, and that those beliefs are abandoned when the vail is removed?


Your first hint that this might be the case, is the fact that you speak about "ignorance".
Ignorance as supposed to knowledge. But knowledge is demonstrable.
Knowledge is what one derives from science, not from "beliefs" - spiritual or otherwise.

So really, you are contrasting "ignorance" with "faith".
But "faith" is belief despite ignorance.

When you are NOT ignorant on a subject, then you don't need to appeal to "faith".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You only believe in what your eyes see,

Actually, I only believe what all eyes see.
If only my own eyes can see it, then chances are quite high that my eyes are playing tricks on me.

many theists "see" with their spiritual heart, and or the third eye. ( in my understanding)

By what method can you differentiate this type of "seeing" with hallucination, honestly being mistaken, illusion, etc?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My struggle is because of idiotic discussion with incredible stupid questions.
But if there was no struggle there would not be any progress either.

I dont have any special abilities. But I believe they exist.

Make not of the words FAITH AND BELIEF
And no i do not have to prove to anyone about my personal belief. It is personal. And if you or others like you dont believe it. It does not matter to my belief.

So the only thing that matters to you in terms of your beliefs, is that you believe it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or maybe Jesus will miraculously prolong the work of the Sun.

Or maybe he will turn the moon into cheese and thereby solve world hunger by having Elon Musk mine it.

 

[F1fan]

I wish all atheists understands this.

Atheists know that religious beliefs don't require physical validation, or any sort of validation that is objective and accurate.

 

[F1fan]

No God of the gaps. There are no gaps; it’s all God.

Prove a god exists outside of your imagination. If you can't, then your claim here is false.

The material world, in which we play out the drama of our lives, is but a dream of God, a remarkably consistent self sustaining mirage, which we each experience subjectively, as facets of a universal consciousness - a unity expressing itself in multiplicities. It is this subjective otherness which sets the limits of our understanding and our perspective; only the whole can conceive the whole, and only by communion with the whole, can we perceive more than a tiny fraction of the universe of which we are ourselves a tiny, integral fragment.

None of this is a true, factual statement.

If you disagree, provide facts, data, and a coherent explanation that accounts for the evidence without assumptions.

But to return to the physical world, and the question of What is real?
“The frank realisation that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant advances [of the 20th century]. In the world of physics we watch a shadow graph of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table, as the shadow ink flows across the shadow paper. It is all symbolism, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes the alchemist Mind who transmutes the symbols…To put the conclusion simply, the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”
- Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (astrophysicist and mathematician).

I don't see this quote backing up your false religious claims.

 

[wellwisher]

The Biblical Religion says, that at the Second Coming of Jesus
the Sun with be shining, and the human life on Earth will be going normal comfortable way.

But Physics says that it is not possible after 4 billion years from now.

Hence, Science does not allow God to come after 4 000 000 000 AD.

If Science has something in common with religion,
then religion is scientific? And science is religious, isn't it?

More text about it is in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357970713_Is_Religion_Scientific


It is spiritual war. Unfair, dishonest war.
For example, the Voltaire has written: "If there were no God, He has to be invented. But, He exists without any invention." But only this part was repeated by atheists through the centuries: "If there were no God, He has to be invented." That is why some of my papers could become a weapon against goodness, love and truth. Because they will be cited out of context.

The philosophy of science defines reality based on what the sensory systems of the group can all perceive and all agree upon. Sensory systems also include extensions such as telescopes and sensitive microphones, etc. This philosophy attempts to factor out human subjectivity and other forms of internal assessment, since this other type of data, although real, is not always subject to group verification.

For example, if I like chocolate the most of all flavors, I would stating a fact that is objective to me based on my wide experience trying all flavors. However, science will call my objective assessment subjective, since the philosophy says the entire group has to be able to prove this statement with their sensory systems. But since there is no good sensory tools for mind reading and truth detection, to help the group form a easy consensus, science will call this subjective, instead of objective. This is not the best conclusion but it is consistent with the philosophy.

Religion falls within that region that is outside the scope of the philosophy of science. Religion is based on natural neural dynamics; meditation is internal and not external. One can be objective to their many reasons for faith; internal data such as a gut feeling. But since this internal data cannot be verified with any science tools, it is called subjective and not objective, even if this is the product of careful and objective self observation.

The purpose of the philosophy of science was to draw a line in the sand between internal and external reality so we could isolate and better define external reality. Internal reality was harder to investigate; due to its unless variety and would be left as the final frontier. Using one side of the line in the sand, where everyone needs to agree, based on sensory systems was useful ,in that it helped define physical reality, not as we hope it could be, but as it was in objective reality. This was needed for advances in technology, that would improved our standard of living. Only real and tangible group observations of physical reality can be extrapolated by the applied scientists to make all types of tangible extensions. If we assumed the moon was made of cheese, since this is not real, we could never made pizza out of moon rocks. But if the tools and group say moon rocks are dirt, we would not ever try to make pizza.

We are at a point in time, where the tools are getting better and the line in the sand is partially erased and crossed. Soft science, like psychology, appeared to deal with output from consciousness; internal data, that is natural and spontaneous. It is called soft science because the word of the patient cannot be verified by sensory means, by any group of scientists. However, the experience of the psychologists shows there is something more here, than meets the external sensory world. All innovation starts here, before it can be group verified. It is called subjective, even if trey from the beginning. It first has to be dumb down to stay on outside of the line in the sand.

When science says God does not exist, it can only speak on its side of the line as imposed by its philosophy. It is not advanced enough to speak for the other side of the line. It will need to up it game which will be resisted by those fear the unknown outside the box of science. I am a scientist by trade who is also spiritual. I can see the line in the sand and have attempted to cross the line, bringing the objectivity of science with me to explore the land of internal data for one.

 

[1213]

...
But Physics says that it is not possible after 4 billion years from now.

Hence, Science does not allow God to come after 4 000 000 000 AD.
...

I don’t think we have to wait 4 billion years , but “Science” can be wrong and has often been wrong. There is no good reason to believe that number to be correct.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Prove a god exists outside of your imagination. If you can't, then your claim here is false.


None of this is a true, factual statement.

If you disagree, provide facts, data, and a coherent explanation that accounts for the evidence without assumptions.


I don't see this quote backing up your false religious claims.

I don’t offer you proof, I can merely try to articulate for you an inwardly consistent, self validating belief system. You are free to reject it if you wish; clearly your mind slams shut at the mention of the word God. Only you know why this is, I can’t speculate for you. Nor can I search for God in the recess of your heart, if you are not willing to undertake that search for yourself

Your contention that, because I cannot prove God to you my awareness of His presence in all phenomena must therefore be false, is clearly erroneous. The God idea, philosophers of science will tell you, is unfalsifiable. And thus we reach, once again, an impasse only a leap of faith can help us overcome.

The mistake the naive materialist makes, I think, is to take the world we construct from the tiny fraction of information we have access to, and consider it the whole. To declare the material world as it manifests itself to us, to be the only reality, is to invest one’s entire existence in an illusion. And attachment to illusion is the root of all suffering. Being a Buddhist, you are presumably familiar with that concept, at least.

 

[F1fan]

When science says God does not exist, it can only speak on its side of the line as imposed by its philosophy. It is not advanced enough to speak for the other side of the line. It will need to up it game which will be resisted by those fear the unknown outside the box of science. I am a scientist by trade who is also spiritual. I can see the line in the sand and have attempted to cross the line, bringing the objectivity of science with me to explore the land of internal data for one.

Science doesn't say God does not exist. Science does its work examining the world we can verify exists. Theists knock on the door and want attention and to have its ideas part of the process. But religion offers nothing to the process, and causes distractions. So God concepts are irrelevant to science and they have to go. Science isn't the 3rd grade where everyone has to be picked for a team so they belong. Science is like the Olympics, you have to earn your way in and on to the team. And if you can't, then too bad.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t offer you proof,

And that is why your claims fail.

I can merely try to articulate for you an inwardly consistent, self validating belief system. You are free to reject it if you wish; clearly your mind slams shut at the mention of the word God. Only you know why this is, I can’t speculate for you. Nor can I search for God in the recess of your heart, if you are not willing to undertake that search for yourself

It's called confirmation bias. A person can believe anything they damn well please, and convince themselves its true. If you want to convince a skilled thinker that you are correct, your own internal bias using no evidence won't cut it. You won't take the word of a theist from some other religion just because they say what they believe, so you understand how easy it is to reject a claim that has no evidence.

Your contention that, because I cannot prove God to you my awareness of His presence in all phenomena must therefore be false, is clearly erroneous. The God idea, philosophers of science will tell you, is unfalsifiable. And thus we reach, once again, an impasse only a leap of faith can help us overcome.

The cognitive sciences can explain why some people believe in irrational ideas like religion. It can explain why wives stay with abusive husbands. Humans do not have perfect brains, and to be able to reason concepts to valid conclusions there is a requirement for learned skills and the recognition of the self's biases. PET scans show that people who think of religious ideas process them through non-reasoning g areas of the brain, mostly the emotion and reward centers. This is a behavior that become habitual and cyclical. the believe will by habit not be able to examine the very beliefs that give them a little hormone boost. It's like Pavlov's Dog.

The mistake the naive materialist makes, I think, is to take the world we construct from the tiny fraction of information we have access to, and consider it the whole. To declare the material world as it manifests itself to us, to be the only reality, is to invest one’s entire existence in an illusion. And attachment to illusion is the root of all suffering. Being a Buddhist, you are presumably familiar with that concept, at least.

How Buddhists and other Eastern religions think of illusion is vastly different than the Western, materialist views. You decry materialism without realizing your theology is based on a materialism. That is why you have a God that is supposedly a male, alive, has all sorts of human attributes, is independent of your mind, etc. That's called anthropomorphism. In the East ideas are more symbolic and representative of actual things in nature and life and experience. The self in Eastern thought is part of nature, not a separate and special creation. The East focuses on life and the current state whereas some of the Abrahamic religions focus on an afterlife, which is again a materialistic view since it is tied to an attachment to life, and wants to deny death, which is a material process.

 

[Sheldon]

Veil, and the first part is a circular reasoning fallacy yet again, and the second a pretty obvious no true Scotsman fallacy. Though no doubt these objections will be waved away again.

If you're going to respond, maybe offer something of value.

 

[lukethethird]

When the vail of ignorance has been removed, spiritual people do experience the spiritual realm.
Something a non religious or spiritual person can not fathom

You describe such experiences in religious terms is all, people of all stripes can have them, and they describe them in their own way, religious and non religious alike.

 

[Sheldon]

I don’t think we have to wait 4 billion years , but “Science” can be wrong and has often been wrong. There is no good reason to believe that number to be correct.

Well it is you verses a global scientific consensus, I'm inclined to go with science, given it has a rigorous and objective methodology, and you have squat.

 

[Sheldon]

an inwardly consistent, self validating belief system. You are free to reject it if you wish;

You mean the way you reject it in all those hundreds of millions who arrive at a very different deity? Come on now, you recognise a bare appeal to numbers by now.

Inwardly consistent, self validating belief system, sounds like subjective unevidenced bias to me, if ever there was any.

Nor can I search for God in the recess of your heart, if you are not willing to undertake that search for yourself

So we should just believe it, or at least make ourselves suggestible toward the belief, and then hey presto, we will believe it, come on.

Your contention that, because I cannot prove God to you my awareness of His presence in all phenomena must therefore be false, is clearly erroneous.

Well I will go as far as to say that claim would require evidence, however I can simply disbelieve your claim a deity exists, as you can offer nothing beyond subjective anecdote to support it.

The God idea, philosophers of science will tell you, is unfalsifiable. And thus we reach, once again, an impasse only a leap of faith can help us overcome.

So how many other unfalsifiable claims do you believe, invisible mermaids, flying unicorns that can't be empirically detected? An unfalsifiable claim is meaningless, or as scientists are sometimes minded to say, not even wrong.

The mistake the naive materialist makes,

Ding ding ding ding, we have a straw man, atheists and materialist are not the same. Furthermore are you denying the objective fact of the existence of the material physical universe? So the existence of one is an objective fact, the other is unevidenced superstition, hmm?

To declare the material world as it manifests itself to us, to be the only reality, is to invest one’s entire existence in an illusion.

Oh really? So you have objective evidence for something beyond the material universe? This is massive news, or is this to be one of those tedious claims that dreams, emotions, and consciousness can exist without a functioning physical brain?

And attachment to illusion is the root of all suffering.

Physician heal thyself...

 

[RestlessSoul]

You mean the way you reject it in all those hundreds of millions who arrive at a very different deity? Come on now, you recognise a bare appeal to numbers by now.

Inwardly consistent, self validating belief system, sounds like subjective unevidenced bias to me, if ever there was any.



So we should just believe it, or at least make ourselves suggestible toward the belief, and then hey presto, we will believe it, come on.



Well I will go as far as to say that claim would require evidence, however I can simply disbelieve your claim a deity exists, as you can offer nothing beyond subjective anecdote to support it.



So how many other unfalsifiable claims do you believe, invisible mermaids, flying unicorns that can't be empirically detected? An unfalsifiable claim is meaningless, or as scientists are sometimes minded to say, not even wrong.



Ding ding ding ding, we have a straw man, atheists and materialist are not the same. Furthermore are you denying the objective fact of the existence of the material physical universe? So the existence of one is an objective fact, the other is unevidenced superstition, hmm?



Oh really? So you have objective evidence for something beyond the material universe? This is massive news, or is this to be one of those tedious claims that dreams, emotions, and consciousness can exist without a functioning physical brain?



Physician heal thyself...

Do I have evidence for the illusory and insubstantial nature of the material universe? Who yes, Sheldon, I do, or rather these physicists do;

“It is better to consider a fundamental particle not as a permanent entity but rather as an instantaneous event. Sometimes these events form chains that give the illusion of being permanent, but only in particular circumstances and only for an extremely brief period of time in each individual case.”
- Erwin Schrodinger

“An electron is a particular type of regularity that appears among measurements and observations that we make. It is more pattern than a substance…Thus we arrive at a strange place. We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but then the pieces, when examined, are not there. Just the arrangements of them are. What are things? If things are forms of forms of forms of forms, and if forms are order, and order us defined by us…they exist, it would appear, only as created by, and in relation to, us and the Universe.”
- Anthony Aguirre

“You may be inclined to believe that when you observe something in the world, you are passively looking at it just the way it would have been had you not been there. But quantum contextuality rules this out. There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.”
- Chris Ferrie

“If the world were made of things, what would these things be? The atoms, which we have discovered to be made in turn of smaller particles? The elementary particles which, as we have seen, are nothing other than ephemeral agitations of a field? The quantum fields, which we have found to be little more than codes of a language with which to speak of interactions and events? We cannot think of the world as if it were made of things, of entities . It simply does not work.”
- Carlo Rovelli

 

[Sheldon]

Do I have evidence for the illusory and insubstantial nature of the material universe? Who yes, Sheldon, I do, or rather these physicists do;

“It is better to consider a fundamental particle not as a permanent entity but rather as an instantaneous event. Sometimes these events form chains that give the illusion of being permanent, but only in particular circumstances and only for an extremely brief period of time in each individual case.”
- Erwin Schrodinger

“An electron is a particular type of regularity that appears among measurements and observations that we make. It is more pattern than a substance…Thus we arrive at a strange place. We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but then the pieces, when examined, are not there. Just the arrangements of them are. What are things? If things are forms of forms of forms of forms, and if forms are order, and order us defined by us…they exist, it would appear, only as created by, and in relation to, us and the Universe.”
- Anthony Aguirre

“You may be inclined to believe that when you observe something in the world, you are passively looking at it just the way it would have been had you not been there. But quantum contextuality rules this out. There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.”
- Chris Ferrie

“If the world were made of things, what would these things be? The atoms, which we have discovered to be made in turn of smaller particles? The elementary particles which, as we have seen, are nothing other than ephemeral agitations of a field? The quantum fields, which we have found to be little more than codes of a language with which to speak of interactions and events? We cannot think of the world as if it were made of things, of entities . It simply does not work.”
- Carlo Rovelli

Way to ignore the entirety of my response, then address a straw man, as what you have evidenced is not denied by any atheists, who you labelled materialists, even though there are atheists who are not of course.

 

[rational experiences]

If science says science is God then it uses God to change God which means no God as nothing is left.

If science were God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Way to ignore the entirety of my response, then address a straw man, as what you have evidenced is not denied by any atheists, who you labelled materialists, even though there are atheists who are not of course.

Naive materialism Sheldon…


Naive Materialism - The SpiritWiki