God as defined using science.

[blü 2]

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.

Since thoughts are physical, what's the problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since thoughts are physical, what's the problem?

That you can't do that in strict physical terms. You always end up using mental terms.

Now do this sentence in pure physical scientific terms and no mental words. You can't and you won't, because you are not the first that don't get, that everything is physical, is a mental rule, that can't be expressed in physical terms.

We are in a sense playing logical positivism and that one was refuted in the 1940s.
You are so old school.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Yes, 'truth' is a concept, and is found only in working brains accordingly.

So what?

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.

No, only the objective is objectively real.

There's a subjective world we occupy on the inside of our eyes (as it were) because that's how our brains function. That's where our concepts and imaginings and language and appetites and body-awareness are, and where our sensory input about reality is processed.

We can then check the worth of our concepts in particular and our imaginings in general to see how well they fit objective reality.

And when we do that, we find that gods only exist among our concepts. You can't find them in objective reality. They're not objectively real, just things in our heads ─ perhaps as an evolved tendency, as I mentioned.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, 'truth' is a concept, and is found only in working brains accordingly.

So what?
No, only the objective is objectively real.

There's a subjective world we occupy on the inside of our eyes (as it were) because that's how our brains function. That's where our concepts and imaginings and language and appetites and body-awareness are, and where our sensory input about reality is processed.

We can then check the worth of our concepts in particular and our imaginings in general to see how well they fit objective reality.

And when we do that, we find that gods only exist among our concepts. You can't find them in objective reality. They're not objectively real, just things in our heads ─ perhaps as an evolved tendency, as I mentioned.

You are a dualist in effect. To you subjectively only the objective is real, but that is something you do subjectively and you don't get that.
You don't get that " No, only the objective is objectively real." is subjective. That is it.
Objectively real has no objective referent. You do know what an objective referent is, right?

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

You seem to have gone off on some tangent of your own. I'm talking about intersubjective/objective in the sense used by Popper - which basically applies to the "real world" that is unavoidable and that we all seem to share. So, at least in principle, any two people, with normal cognition and sight can tell if something is a dog (or at least looks like one) or a building, or a mountain, or an artichoke, or whatever. Similarly everybody can check that the internet, or phones, or cars work.

That is the world science deals with and is demonstrably able to predict and manipulate. No matter how many words you use, you cannot call that as subjective as the endless different notions of god (or morality for that matter, which is a whole other subject in its own right).

But I don't need that and no, I am not dead now, nor do I have a totally bad life.

You're not dead because, at some level at least, you know that the "real world" is unavoidable and qualitatively different to notions of god. If you tried to defy gravity by jumping off a tall building, you'd be dead, but the same isn't true if you defied your notion of god.

I'm not suggesting that you have a totally bad life but you've posted this is a debating forum and it seems to me that you are (for reasons that are beyond me) desperately trying to convince yourself of something that is rather silly - and I'm not talking about your god.

If it makes you personally happy, I guess that's fine, but why debate it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science in a sense is a belief system, which you can't prove, just like you can't prove a religious God.

Ow, so you are just stating the obvious then, ok.

Yea, science isn't about proving things. It's more about disproving things in that sense.
It's also about supporting things.

That's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.
One can be supported and the other can not.
One can be disproven and the other can not.

So while both can't be proven, clearly they aren't on equal footing either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's all he has, to the point of it being an obsession.
You can't make a single point using scientific evidence without him jumpin on it to go on and on about this silly point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to have gone off on some tangent of your own. I'm talking about intersubjective/objective in the sense used by Popper - which basically applies to the "real world" that is unavoidable and that we all seem to share. So, at least in principle, any two people, with normal cognition and sight can tell if something is a dog (or at least looks like one) or a building, or a mountain, or an artichoke, or whatever. Similarly everybody can check that the internet, or phones, or cars work.

That is the world science deals with and is demonstrably able to predict and manipulate. No matter how many words you use, you cannot call that as subjective as the endless different notions of god (or morality for that matter, which is a whole other subject in its own right).



You're not dead because, at some level at least, you know that the "real world" is unavoidable and qualitatively different to notions of god. If you tried to defy gravity by jumping off a tall building, you'd be dead, but the same isn't true if you defied your notion of god.

I'm not suggesting that you have a totally bad life but you've posted this is a debating forum and it seems to me that you are (for reasons that are beyond me) desperately trying to convince yourself of something that is rather silly - and I'm not talking about your god.

If it makes you personally happy, I guess that's fine, but why debate it?

Evidence and only evidence of that. Not what it feels like or how it makes sense. Use strong science and only science on that as you claim you can do.
Explain the experiment. What is the measurement standard in objective terms? Does it involve observation or instruments?
I don't want you just to use words. I want the actual science as per the experiment. That should be possible, because science can be replicated and it this case that also goes for us 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ow, so you are just stating the obvious then, ok.

Yea, science isn't about proving things. It's more about disproving things in that sense.
It's also about supporting things.

That's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.
One can be supported and the other can not.
One can be disproven and the other can not.

So while both can't be proven, clearly they aren't on equal footing either.

Evidence of that only using science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Explain the experiment. What is the measurement standard in objective terms? Does it involve observation or instruments?
I don't want you just to use words. I want the actual science as per the experiment.

What experiment? The point is that the contents of the "real world" (and the results of science) are intersubjectively verifiable, which means that, in principle anyway, anybody can check them regardless of their beliefs about them.

You can't turn a dog into a mountain just be forming a different belief about it, just as you can't fly like a bird just by believing you can. You can believe whatever you want about god(s), however, and they change accordingly (at least as far as you're concerned).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What experiment? The point is that the contents of the "real world" (and the results of science) are intersubjectively verifiable, which means that, in principle anyway, anybody can check them regardless of their beliefs about them. (as P1)

You can't turn a dog into a mountain just be forming a different belief about it, just as you can't fly like a bird just by believing you can. You can believe whatever you want about god(s), however, and they change accordingly (at least as far as you're concerned). (P2)

P1: ...
P2: ...
Therefore: What?

You are missing at least one premise if not more if you want to arrive where you want to arrive as I understand your intent.

 

[ratiocinator]

P1: ...
P2: ...
Therefore: What?

Therefore beliefs about gods are subjective and beliefs about the "real world" (what science deals with) are objective (in the sense of being unavoidable and intersubjectively verifiable).

You are missing at least one premise if not more if you want to arrive where you want to arrive as I understand your intent.

I've no idea where you think I want to arrive it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Therefore beliefs about gods are subjective and beliefs about the "real world" (what science deals with) are objective (in the sense of being unavoidable and intersubjectively verifiable).
...

Correct and therefore... (We have hit the is-ought problem) You have stated 2 general facts, I agree. Now you only need to give evidence of the "ought" using science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence of that only using science.

It's in the post you are responding to.

Scientific ideas are testable, verifiable, falsifiable. Those properties are what makes them 'scientific' ideas in the first place.

Religious ideas, are faith based all the way through. They can't be supported. They can't be verified. They can't be falisified.

This is so by definition of both words.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's in the post you are responding to.

Scientific ideas are testable, verifiable, falsifiable. Those properties are what makes them 'scientific' ideas in the first place.

Religious ideas, are faith based all the way through. They can't be supported. They can't be verified. They can't be falisified.

This is so by definition of both words.

Correct. Now you only need to give evidence as per science of the word "useful".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

A belief in God does not equate theism.
And yes, it is psychological. But is also more. I am honest. I don't have proof or evidence for what the objective reality really is, so I say it as it is. I am religious and believe in a God.

So no answers to what "works" about your theism "day in and day out?" Hmm. You seemed to state it so confidently a few posts ago. Interesting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So no answers to what "works" about your theism "day in and day out?" Hmm. You seemed to state it so confidently a few posts ago. Interesting.

It gives me comfort. And I use it again and again, if I need to.

 

[ratiocinator]

Correct and therefore... (We have hit the is-ought problem) You have stated 2 general facts, I agree. Now you only need to give evidence of the "ought" using science.

Why do you think is-ought has got anything to do with it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you think is-ought has got anything to do with it?

That is simple.
Take a fact, like I need water to survive. From there doesn't follow whether I ought to drink water or not.

You stated 2 facts, but what we ought to do what, that is something else.
That one is a skeptic by the name of David Hume.

 

[ratiocinator]

That is simple.
Take a fact, like I need water to survive. From there doesn't follow whether I ought to drink water or not.

Of course not. What is it about what I said that led you to think I meant anything like that?