God as defined using science.

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, existence is philosophy and so are self-evident and truth.. But what you claim, is not self-evident. Just be strong in your beliefs. You don't need truth and all that to believe in God.

 

[Native]

If god is just light, why have a separate word for it? Light is perfectly well understood as what it actually is.

The ancient cultures used just LIGHT as the prime divine source and force of creation/formation.
And:

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.

Modern astrophysical science does understand the very concept of LIGHT as the visible part of many frequences - but at the same time they´re having troubles understanding HOW these EM frequensies participates in all kind of formation and they´re having troubles of connecting the ancient LIGHT with the modern concepts.

My point is just that ancient and modern knowledge could and should come together if understanding the basic EM concepts of creation.

 

[HonestJoe]

Okay, do morality only using science.

What do you mean "do morality"? If you want to address something scientifically, you need to present a defined hypothesis.

Or observe the singularity as proposed in regards to the Big Bang.

I can't do that, because of my physical and temporal limitations. If there was a being without those limitations, they could theoretically make that observation as part of a scientific study of it. It is not science as a concept which is limited.

If there are fundamental laws that cover human understanding then they are as fundamental as gravity.

Not fundamental laws, just a whole set of disparate limitations, many regularly changing and even varying between individuals. Nobody could study the physical make-up of moon dust until we successfully travelled there. We couldn't study microscopic organisms until someone invented the microscope. A blind person can't (easily) study rainbows.

 

[sayak83]

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

Some problematic assumptions. But yes, science is empirical and pragmatic in its approach. The argument that can be made though is that other approaches towards knowledge about the world have not delivered even if they use some strict concepts of Truth, Reality etc. They promise much and deliver nothing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it.

"Dirty secret?" Ridiculous. Reaction to the reality we are presented with - i.e. study, modeling, recording, measuring, reporting - all of that has real-world application that can be used to come to tried and true, REPRODUCIBLE methods of dealing with your surroundings toward your greater likelihood of survival. I don't care what you call it... don't use the word "Science" if it gets your panties in such a bunch, fine. The fact remains that religion doesn't have this. Reproducibility of God's interaction with the human race? HA! Being able to consistently depend on ANY effects you want to attribute to have been caused by your religious practice? HA!

And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong

Science doesn't have to prove that "religion is wrong." No one does. The onus is on the practitioners of religion who want others to believe their stories to prove that "religion is right." At least produce some form of compelling evidence that what you are saying somehow models reality. Instead it's just a story meant to have explanatory power, but with only tangentially-related evidence (like pointing at a book, or claiming the world around us is somehow the evidence) ever presented.

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.

What? Please explain this. Right now I can't make heads or tails of this ridiculous sentence.

 

[viole]

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

Well, I am sure there are alternative epistemic tools that do not use neither Reason, nor Logic. I think they are called "faith".

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean "do morality"? If you want to address something scientifically, you need to present a defined hypothesis.
...

Start be explaining, how we can observe or measure good or bad. I can't do that. Maybe you can.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Dirty secret?" Ridiculous. Reaction to the reality we are presented with...

Prove that "we"!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I am sure there are alternative epistemic tools that do not use neither Reason, nor Logic. I think they are called "faith".

Ciao

- viole

Or there is the understanding that even reason and logic are limited. But if you want to do epistemological rationalism be my guest.

 

[HonestJoe]

Start be explaining, how we can observe or measure good or bad. I can't do that. Maybe you can.

We can't as abstract concepts but then I never suggested we could. They can be defined in specific context though; If a BMI of 20 is defined as "good" and a BMI or 30 defined as "bad", they can be labelled and measured.

Even in the context of subjective morality, you can't talk about things as being "good" or "bad" without defining the terms and, in some manner, measuring against those definitions. The complications don't come about from our ability to measure the facts but in our ability to clearly establish and agree on the definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can't as abstract concepts but then I never suggested we could. They can be defined in specific context though; If a BMI of 20 is defined as "good" and a BMI or 30 defined as "bad", they can be labelled and measured.

Even in the context of subjective morality, you can't talk about things as being "good" or "bad" without defining the terms and, in some manner, measuring against those definitions. The complications don't come about from our ability to measure the facts but in our ability to clearly establish and agree on the definitions.

If only we could get to there.

 

[HonestJoe]

If only we could get to there.

Of course, it would only be a good thing if the definitions we agreed on were good ones.

 

[Thief]

Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact.

so the motion we see in our telescopes .....
does not indicate a starting.....point?

as in primordial singularity

 

[Thief]

and the logic.....Someone had to be First

doesn't work for you?

 

[ratiocinator]

and the logic.....Someone had to be First

doesn't work for you?

That's not logic. If it was something it might be a reasonable conjecture, given certain evidence, but someone is (at best) pure guesswork.

 

[Thief]

That's not logic. If it was something it might be a reasonable conjecture, given certain evidence, but someone is (at best) pure guesswork.

Spirit First

otherwise.....substance (not having a thought or emotion)
would have to be SELF starting

and science would say.....nay

 

[Nakosis]

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

So you point out the limitations of science and then use science to define God.
I'm probably being a little dense but are you making a very sophisticated joke?

Science, my understanding of sciences that it tries to eliminate what doesn't work. So hopefully what is left can be relied on to work consistently. Well, until it doesn't and then it gets eliminated.

God, can be defined however you want. Science can't eliminate God because once it is discovered one definition of God doesn't work, another gets created.

Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

These things can't be resolved by "science" because they can't be resolved by or for anyone other than ourselves. You can't resolve it for me and I can't resolve it for you. It gets resolved, if at all, according to our personal preferences which makes it all arbitrary.

Aesthetics, morality and theology, the study of the arbitrary.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Prove that "we"!

Sure! Do you experience gravity? Can you tell me about some of your experiences with gravity and how it affects your life? I'll bet you $100 that your experiences are just about the same as mine to a very high degree.

"WE" experience a shared reality, whether you religious people like it or not. All this talk like "Everything's just make-believe, so I'm completely justified in just tacking a little more on." It's crap. It isn't working. Get a new schtick. I don't care what you think is make-believe. I care about what I am presented with as reality... and "God" isn't in that.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Good grief, why is this in science and religion? Shouldn't it be in Philosophy?

 

[ratiocinator]

Spirit First

Meaningless.

otherwise.....substance (not having a thought or emotion)
would have to be SELF starting

and science would say.....nay

Nonsense.