I'm ok with that, I just don't see the need to trash science to have subjective personal truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God as defined using science.
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you will not get evidence
all you can do is THINK about it
and yeah....reversing the the motion (gotta do it in your head)
and you end up at the primordial singularity
and SOMETHING has to set the thing off......BANG
but substance is not SELF motivated
Spirit First
Jimmy
I have always existed
the phenomenon of God starts to get a little unnaturalIt 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.
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.
- 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.
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
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Spirit in science is a gas, and science said that gas is a spirit as compared to the presence MASS, solid held fused and spatial vacuum cooled and held as MASS.
Science said cold radiation fusion in spatial vacuum holds mass, but says mass came from spirit, gas history.
Yet where did the gas and expansion come from in space as heat?
Gases exist burning as light, are cooled in a spatial vacuum, yet also get burnt out and leave a carbon imprint?
Which says that it was once some other physical form, which human spiritually taught was once the eternal that owned change. Change being the first law before burning.
Reason to make that claim, burning removes and owns the subtraction and also deduces and reduces presence.
If a human says the presence of spirit in reality existed before creation or space formed as a removal subject to change of what spirit was in its origin form. A mass presence with spirits living inside of that mass presence.
Then formation and conjuring and presence evil spirit in burning conditions would be absolute proof that creation came from an eternal mass removal of a spirit in history.
Why you can see abstract imagery in the gas state of spirit beings.
Therefore + is not equals and even equal is not equal when it involves plus and the cross for the minus is symbolically also already involved.
+ the addition or the cross
= minus x 2
Addition symbolically and minus equates that equals gives you nothing.
Science as a theme to force change to natural by using natural mass first in the physical changed mass body machine.
First condition, science changed natural mass history in spatial cooling mass and converts mass. Space already is involved in the physical presence built machine. Natural mass owns presence by spatial cold vacuum. So owns naturally coldest space. Science heats mass to convert mass for invention, already owns 2 spatial conditions in the reason, to get a machine.
Already science has removed natural history to own a machine.
Then his reaction is to also force change mass either as a state of natural gas or a state of mass as owner historically of natural gases.
He also applies this circumstance for his machine physically by taking the mass of stone and converting it to gain a gas. To put the gas inside of his machine to use.
2 places of science forced status where space is already introduced as heat versus cold vacuum to own machine and gas for the machine.
Gases in the heavenly mass however were never stone mass, and then they also by equals of cause get mass burnt out back to a carbon foot print, which equals the already physical mass for machine and gases for machine taken out of mass.
The carbon foot print is therefore caused by science in their invention and is equals to a science inside of a gas mass spatial form.
In reality, if the vacuum sucks out the burning of gas as mass, then where is the mass imposition of carbon?
Science was already taught a long time ago that God relativity was his conscious thinking ability to conceptualise how the circulation movement in the gas heavens formed O circles by G the swirling motion. And so no man is God, for no man invented God, the movement of circulation.
You however tried to emulate that movement in science, and instead caused atmospheric gas spirit burning radiation fall out and we got ground life attacked and converted and named the attack Satanism.
Science said cold radiation fusion in spatial vacuum holds mass, but says mass came from spirit, gas history.
Yet where did the gas and expansion come from in space as heat?
Gases exist burning as light, are cooled in a spatial vacuum, yet also get burnt out and leave a carbon imprint?
Which says that it was once some other physical form, which human spiritually taught was once the eternal that owned change. Change being the first law before burning.
Reason to make that claim, burning removes and owns the subtraction and also deduces and reduces presence.
If a human says the presence of spirit in reality existed before creation or space formed as a removal subject to change of what spirit was in its origin form. A mass presence with spirits living inside of that mass presence.
Then formation and conjuring and presence evil spirit in burning conditions would be absolute proof that creation came from an eternal mass removal of a spirit in history.
Why you can see abstract imagery in the gas state of spirit beings.
Therefore + is not equals and even equal is not equal when it involves plus and the cross for the minus is symbolically also already involved.
+ the addition or the cross
= minus x 2
Addition symbolically and minus equates that equals gives you nothing.
Science as a theme to force change to natural by using natural mass first in the physical changed mass body machine.
First condition, science changed natural mass history in spatial cooling mass and converts mass. Space already is involved in the physical presence built machine. Natural mass owns presence by spatial cold vacuum. So owns naturally coldest space. Science heats mass to convert mass for invention, already owns 2 spatial conditions in the reason, to get a machine.
Already science has removed natural history to own a machine.
Then his reaction is to also force change mass either as a state of natural gas or a state of mass as owner historically of natural gases.
He also applies this circumstance for his machine physically by taking the mass of stone and converting it to gain a gas. To put the gas inside of his machine to use.
2 places of science forced status where space is already introduced as heat versus cold vacuum to own machine and gas for the machine.
Gases in the heavenly mass however were never stone mass, and then they also by equals of cause get mass burnt out back to a carbon foot print, which equals the already physical mass for machine and gases for machine taken out of mass.
The carbon foot print is therefore caused by science in their invention and is equals to a science inside of a gas mass spatial form.
In reality, if the vacuum sucks out the burning of gas as mass, then where is the mass imposition of carbon?
Science was already taught a long time ago that God relativity was his conscious thinking ability to conceptualise how the circulation movement in the gas heavens formed O circles by G the swirling motion. And so no man is God, for no man invented God, the movement of circulation.
You however tried to emulate that movement in science, and instead caused atmospheric gas spirit burning radiation fall out and we got ground life attacked and converted and named the attack Satanism.
Last edited:
I don't know who wrote that list you hold up as 'God', but you'd be closer to the mark if you thought of them as guidelines when employing scientific method ─ reasoned enquiry through empiricism and induction. That means all conclusions of science are our best understanding for the time being, never absolute statements. As professor and commentator Brian Cox said, A law of nature is a statement about nature that hasn't been falsified yet. Such a rule is true BECAUSE it works, and if it's later found not to work, or not to work in certain circumstances, then it'll be amended or if necessary scrapped.
That's a naive statement. If nature is found to be disorderly then it will be through the explorations of science, and science will adjust to that situation. Meanwhile, relativity was disorderly in comparison to the Newtonian view of physics in 1915. Quantum mechanics was extremely disorderly, and still is, since the dominant Copenhagen interpretation, supported by Bell's theorem, admits of physical events that have no cause in the classical sense.
But means for bringing order to their new problems were found.
You'll have to admit we're doing pretty well. The alternative view, that we can't know nature, would have people like you going home and citing 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' as a demonstration of our inability to know ─ instead of bringing reasoned enquiry to bear on solving the problems. The history of science is a history of solving problems about nature.
Name a real phenomenon outside of QM which is known not to have a natural cause. (Inside of QM, the statistical explanations function in the place of cause, of course.)
That is, I take it, that everything about nature is in principle capable of explanation. The alternative, once again, is going home saying, Yeah, that's got us beat, instead of bringing reasoned enquiry to bear on finding a solution.
What's your argument against that? We all make guesses, but the guesses are subordinate to evidence, to the facts.
"When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise' eh? Comfort is better than facts, you say?
With respect, that's not even a tenable analogy. Science requires conclusions to be derived honestly and impartially from examinable evidence and made open to debate and further testing. Religion does not.
They're simply guidelines.
As for Agrippa's Trilemma, I don't see your point. Please express your argument against science as a logical argument ─ premise, premise .... therefore conclusion. Then we can see how well your claim fits the situation.
It's often very difficult to discover what, if any, definition of 'truth' is used in religious conversation.
'Truth' in science is the correspondence meaning ─ truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. That is, 'truth' is testable, and answers to an objective standard.
What definition of 'truth' are you using?
Last edited:
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
God has a definition, and that is love.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, neither do I see a need to trash science. The difference is between 2 kinds of science, the one is about what we learn to do in regards to the world; the other is about what the world is.
For the latter, we end in a combination of science, religion and philosophy and what knowledge is. That is the point!
Science as science is what that is. Science as we know what the world is and science is only form of knowledge, is what I fight. And yes, I fight that.
So here is how it can go.
Someone: Science is in practice about what the world is and how it works.
Me: Religion as a human behavior is a part of the world as it is and how it works.
Someone: Don't you think*...
Me: Stop right there. That is not science. That is subjective.
* That one is not unique. In all the debate we end in the subjective, what matters to the individual. And we also ended there in this thread.
So for metaphysics, ontology, logic, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, phenomenology and science I can find the subjective part in all those. And yes, all of them have been subject to try to remove the subjective and make it objective.
Regards
Mikkel
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, because that is love for straight people.
Any version of everything is X whether for the world or God runs into the same problem. It is an over-reduction. Everything is X, Y, Z and so on. And the "and" is not strongly logical in the sense as with strong coherence or logical constituency.
God is love runs into the same problem as the world is physical.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
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.
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.
- 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.
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!
Regards and love
Mikkel
So, what's your point?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
As for truth I don't believe in any one of the versions, that is out there. All have problems including the philosophical correspondence theory of truth. I do truth as a skeptic. Not what it is, but what its limit is.
The problem is that "a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality" is not a part of objective reality. That is a part of subjective reality. You operate with a duality of subjective and objective for which subjectively to you only the objective is real. The joke is that itself is subjective.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Science in a sense is a belief system, which you can't prove, just like you can't prove a religious God.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No, it isn't just like religion at all. As has already been discussed, science, investigates, predicts and manipulates our shared experience of "the world" and its results are intersubjectively verifiable.
Adding the philosophical point that we can't prove that that shared experience is "reality" doesn't make science anything like religion. It's just pointless philosophical pedantry.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, of course, but that is the point. It is subjective as to what you believe just as it is subjective what I believe.
Just as I can't give proof for God, you can't give proof for science, so you retreat to what makes sense to you subjectively.
That is what we share. We subjectively make sense of reality, we just do it with individual variation. I am not about proving God. I know, I can't. I am about that neither can you give proof for your worldview.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The difference is that I rely on intersubjectively verifiable results and you (for god, at least) don't. You take the "real" world just as seriously as everybody else (otherwise you'd probably not survive for long) - to pretend that there is no difference between that and ideas like god, is just that, a pretence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I know. I was born on a cliff, and I spent all my time wondering if I should jump or not.
It is in effect as a stupid argument to reduce reality down to a 2 factor explanation of getting killed or not.
Here is an example. I can chose to agree with you as for your example or disagree. I disagree and now I am dead.
Do you know what? How is it that you haven't checked your own example and found out if it has limits? I mean, you know how to check something, because you claim to be able to do intersubjectively verifiable results. I have in effect used your methodology on you and found that or model of only die or live as the 2 only possible outcomes for any situation is absurd.
Could you learn to do as you claim you can do?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry, but I simply don't believe it if you say you don't take the "real" world seriously and that you can't see a
It's totally unconvincing.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You have to explain quantitative. You have to explain the actual test and what it entails.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sorry, didn't check the spell corrector, should have be "qualitative".
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, we have to look closer at "see" and "intersubjectively".
Here is my point about those 2:
We could both if sighted see a dog.
We could both if not having a disorder see 2+2=4
We could both if normal see that killing an innocent human is wrong.
The "see" and the "intersubjectivity" are not the same in these 3 cases.
So I can't see as see a quality and it is not intersubjective as objective with the dog and 2+2=4. Even that is 2 different kinds of objective. A quality can intersubjectively be shared by 2 or more humans, which they subjectively share the same evaluation of the quality. That is not science, that is intersubjective psychology.
As a quality science has a subjective usefulness or not, but that is still subjective. As a quality God has a subjective
usefulness or not. But there is no objective standard for comparing them.
You have your subjective standard and I have another.
I accept that God doesn't make sense to you. I even accept that according to you it shouldn't make sense to me. But it does and as facts go, it is a subjective fact, that I can make positive qualitatively sense of God. Now if you want to go psychology on that as whatever you want, bring it on.
But it in practice ends here. We are the same in general as humans and different as individuals. That is how the world works in practice for humans. We are social animals, who as individuals need groups. But I don't need to be a member of your group and you don't need so in reverse. And none of us will die because of that.
Regards
Mikkel
PS These debates always end with subjective qualities. You are not the first one, who has tried to "pull" that one on me. In effect you have tried to form a shared positive feeling among us 2. But I don't need that and no, I am not dead now, nor do I have a totally bad life.