God as defined using science.

[mikkel_the_dane]

A straw-man is an argument based on false premises, there were plenty of those

You still haven't made a reasoned argument. I have learned something new before and changed my understanding. Now please make some effect and present your case.

 

[Altfish]

You still haven't made a reasoned argument. I have learned something new before and changed my understanding. Now please make some effect and present your case.

God is NOT defined by science. Science cannot describe the supernatural; gods are supernatural 'beings' so science cannot say anything about them

 

[ChristineM]

Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.

Nature is chaotic, it only seems orderly from the limited human point of view.

We can know nature.

Only what we observe and measure at a particular point in time

All phenomena have natural causes.

All natural phenomena have a natural causes

Nothing is self evident.

It is self evident that a whole is greater or equal to the sum of its parts

Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.

Yes

Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Yes

so some of your propositions fail, hence no god defined by science

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is NOT defined by science. Science cannot describe the supernatural; gods are supernatural 'beings' so science cannot say anything about them

You don't get that these assumptions function as beliefs about what objective reality as independent of the mind is. To claim you know something, which is independent of your mind, is supernatural, because you can't know about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

For my bold part, I understand you. And part of that as for intersubjectively verifiable is that religious human behavior is a part of the world. So what is next?

What do you mean, what next? All human behaviour and beliefs are part of the intersubjectively verifiable world but the truth of those beliefs may or may not be. If I believe the there is a pub at the end of my road or that computers can can be use to communicate with people around the world, then the truth (or otherwise) of those beliefs are intersubjectively veritable. If I believe in ghosts, gods, or invisible pink unicorns, not so much.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean, what next? All human behaviour and beliefs are part of the intersubjectively verifiable world but the truth of those beliefs may or may not be. If I believe the there is a pub at the end of my road or that computers can can be use to communicate with people around the world, then the truth (or otherwise) of those beliefs are intersubjectively veritable. If I believe in ghosts, gods, or invisible pink unicorns, not so much.

Correct, that is a part of how the world works. You have stated a fact about the world.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, I would agree if it is negative theology that in some sense we can't know the mind of God. Now here is another solution. Just admit that you believe different and that it works for you. Explain how you do it and leave it at that.

We're not talking about belief though. Your topic is "God as defined using science". If you're blindly accepting the assertion that God can't be defined, your thread eats itself. You're also putting yourself in the position of suggesting something exists that you can't define, which makes absolutely no sense.

The simple fact is that there is no reason science can't be used to study anything proposed to exist. There are limitations on our ability to apply it in some contexts but that isn't any fundamental limitation of scientific process. If any kind of god exists, it would be potentially subject to scientific process by definition.

 

[HonestJoe]

Oh yes it has. In several religions "god" is LIGHT but this is mostly forgotten by modern cosmological scientists who´re having troubles understanding the very concept of light and it´s meaning for all formations.

If god is just light, why have a separate word for it? Light is perfectly well understood as what it actually is. If you're proposing god is some kind of light is not currently understood, you're not really just saying "god is light" by any common understanding, you're just playing misleading word games to avoid actually defining what you believe exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're not talking about belief though. Your topic is "God as defined using science". If you're blindly accepting the assertion that God can't be defined, your thread eats itself. You're also putting yourself in the position of suggesting something exists that you can't define, which makes absolutely no sense.

The simple fact is that there is no reason science can't be used to study anything proposed to exist. There are limitations on our ability to apply it in some contexts but that isn't any fundamental limitation of scientific process. If any kind of god exists, it would be potentially subject to scientific process by definition.

Okay, do morality only using science. Or observe the singularity as proposed in regards to the Big Bang.
You are a believer. If there are fundamental laws that cover human understanding then they are as fundamental as gravity.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

That is the definition of God as used by science.

I don't see a definition of "God" there.
Moreover, the premises seem something other than science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see a definition of "God" there.
Moreover, the premises seem something other than science.

Please explain more.

 

[Altfish]

You don't get that these assumptions function as beliefs about what objective reality as independent of the mind is. To claim you know something, which is independent of your mind, is supernatural, because you can't know about it.

So, you are saying that gods are not supernatural?

 

[Revoltingest]

Please explain more.

I don't know how to expand upon not seeing a definition of "God" there.
You listed some claims that are independent of deities.
As for the claims being something other than science....
I've taken many science courses, & never saw any of
those claims taught. They seem to be musings.
The 3rd one is an unstated scientific premise though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, you are saying that gods are not supernatural?

No!
That any belief about what reality is in itself independent of the mind is supernatural. Now if you can solve epistemological solipsism and the problem of Descartes' evil demon, there is properly a Nobel prize in there somewhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is one belief system. I don't believe in that.

I understand. But still you are stuck somewhere.

Oh yes it has. In several religions "god" is LIGHT but this is mostly forgotten by modern cosmological scientists who´re having troubles understanding the very concept of light and it´s meaning for all formations.

I too believe that. Light, heat, it is 'physical energy' that is all what exists in the universe. But it is not 'God'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand. But still you are stuck somewhere.

So are you.

 

[Altfish]

No!
That any belief about what reality is in itself independent of the mind is supernatural. Now if you can solve epistemological solipsism and the problem of Descartes' evil demon, there is properly a Nobel prize in there somewhere.

Do you know any longer words, care to put that into English, I'm not that good a scholar.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The whole point I was making is that it appears to work for everybody. Just as we seem to share an experience of the external world that is qualitatively different to our internal thoughts and is unavoidable.

It is a reality that arose out of that reality, that is what Hindu scriptures said. One of the most important views in Hinduism says:

"Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnam udachyate;
purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate."

(That is whole, this is whole, they say from that whole arises this whole;
if the whole is given away from the whole, what remains is still the whole.)
Sort of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know any longer words, care to put that into English, I'm not that good a scholar.

Take this definition of objective: having reality independent of the mind.
Now I will unpack that. When you see say a dog, you have an experience of the dog. But your experience is not the dog. It is your experience of the dog.
Now ask this question, can I know what the dog is, independent of my experience of it?

That one is epistemological solipsism; .i.e all knowledge (episteme) is subjective (solipsistic as ego/self/the subject itself).
In other words, if you say you can know what the world is independent of your experience of it, you are saying something supernatural, because the natural state of knowledge is subjective as dependent on the mind.

Now very long history, very short. Forget about that and lets us assume that the world is natural. I.e. it is there independent of us as in the same sense as it appears in the mind and from my POV you are there as you in yourself.
Now there is no proof of that and evidence in science rests on in part the assumption that the world is natural.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

Regards and love
Mikkel

If "nothing is self-evident", how do you know you exist? How do you refute solipsism?

If nothing is self-evident, how can you say this self-contradictory statement, since nothing, including the sentence you posted, is evident of truth?

All of us start with axiomatic truths.

It is self-evident to me that I exist, that others exist, and that the Lord Jesus Christ exists, loves and cares.