God can not be disproven by science

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a shame you won't answer the question. I thought this was about "epistemical honestyy"?

Okay, science is objectively better at objective reality, because if you objectively want to kill as many people being close together, it is objectively better to use STEM and produce a nuclear weapon. So yes, science is objectively better at objective realty.

That is the joke about objectively better. It is better both for good and bad subjectively. So yes, I agree with you, if you really want to play objectively better.

 

[AppieB]

Okay, science is objectively better at objective reality, because if you objectively want to kill as many people being close together, it is objectively better to use STEM and produce a nuclear weapon. So yes, science is objectively better at objective realty.

That is the joke about objectively better. It is better both for good and bad subjectively. So yes, I agree with you, if you really want to play objectively better.

So again you refuse to answer the question:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So again you refuse to answer the question:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

Objective reality is not all of the world, so that science is better at objective reality, is meaningless unless there is more to the world than just objective reality. That is my point. I get what you are saying about objective reality, but it is not the world as such.

 

[AppieB]

Objective reality is not all of the world, so that science is better at objective reality, is meaningless unless there is more to the world than just objective reality. That is my point. I get what you are saying about objective reality, but it is not the world as such.

So again you refuse to answer the question:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So again you refuse to answer the question:
"What other meaning of better could you possibly apply to the orignal statement that makes any sense?"

I always think in context when doing this. There is no concept of objective reality unless there is more than objective reality. That you think differently I accept, but then so do I.
So I don't stop at your claim, but ask how does that work if there is more than objective reality. So sorry, we don't think alike.

And for your question you have at least one word which have no objectively reality, so you are yourself talking about more than just objective reality. That is the point.

 

[wellwisher]

I took a different scientific approach to God. I worked more under the assumptions of Psychology. To me God and the gods were projections from the Collective Unconscious, which is the more ancient part of the unconscious mind, common to all human and define us a species. This is why religions all tend to create wide scale bonds between humans. We are each holographic parts of the common whole.

My perception, with tons of direct proof, is God is real, but this phenomena is not something outside yourself. Rather is a projection of something inside you; inner self and archetypes of the collective unconscious. This was the approach of Buddha and Jesus.

In Luke 17:20–21, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (NKJV).

All these discussions of God, still seek science proof in the wrong place; outside. I instead decided to do unconscious mind research on myself to see if I could induce direct inside experiences of the archetypes, in action. What I found is this journey allows one see for yourself and develop some higher human potential, which is why these projections are often associated with the gods.

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The god effect comes for the inner self; natural. The ego is newer in terms of evolution, and is more a product of external conditioning and therefore expects to be see things on the outside. In terms of gods, this happens, but as projection; appear outside but is really start in your deepest unconscious. The inner self can simply induce the sensory circuits from the inside. This is why dream scapes can appear even with your eyes closed.

As a modern example, falling involve, often makes the beloved appear beyond who they really are; idealized. We might model that with Cupid arrow as though it came from outside. But it I more like the person of your dreams, overlaying reality.

Since the modern ego is more autonomous and is not attached at the hip, to the inner self, it lost has that open connection to the inner self,that was available to the ego in ancient times. Those experiences were more common at one time.

The building of the pyramids is attributed to ancient aliens by some. However, it was simply the holographic inner self leading all the egos; networking.The plans appear by inspiration, from the inner self, who does the data crunching; mainframe part of the brain. The receptive ego who worships the gods is receptive to the inspiration. The Pharaoh was a god in the sense of being an inner self; direct visionary.

The perspective offers a way for each person to prove this to themselves, so there is no doubt there is something to it. This does not discount the world religions, since they represent the layout of the brain's operating system, which makes the journey have a map.

 

[AppieB]

I always think in context when doing this. There is no concept of objective reality unless there is more than objective reality. That you think differently I accept, but then so do I.
So I don't stop at your claim, but ask how does that work if there is more than objective reality. So sorry, we don't think alike.

And for your question you have at least one word which have no objectively reality, so you are yourself talking about more than just objective reality. That is the point.

You won't answer the question, because you realise that there is no sensical meaning other than what was being meant. So far for "epistemical honesty".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You won't answer the question, because you realise that there is no sensical meaning other than what was being meant. So far for "epistemical honesty".

I agree on the meaning. I just put it into a wider context than just the sentence. So we agree on the narrow meaning but don't agree on the world as such as far as I can tell for good and bad broadly. That is it.

Not human can live a life on only "science is the best method for objective reality". But yes, I agree on the meaning for just the sentence, but not the world as such. That is my point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A strawman fallacy is something that includes refuting it

Agreed. It's not a fallacy unless it's part of an argument. The description you rejected describes something that somebody who misunderstood an argument might turn it into without disagreeing with the altered version.

Something similar comes up when people use the phrase "ad hominem" to mean an insult, which I suppose has grandfathered in as acceptable usage, but it's shortened from ad hominem fallacy which is part of an unsound argument, not just an epithet. If it's not part of an argument, as with the difference between "You're an idiot" (not an argument) and "Your claim is incorrect because you're an idiot" (an argument) it isn't a fallacy.

Your link says ─

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

To expand a bit on your comment, I wish we could substitute empiricism for the word science in discussions about acquiring knowledge.

Most of our knowledge about how the world works, how the world affects us, and how to best navigate it to optimize experience by maximizing the euphorias (enjoyable experiences) while minimizing the dysphorias (unpleasant ones). We get almost none of our individual practical knowledge from science. The science I know is rarely useful, and science benefits us without having to understand it.

Living daily life is a kind of informal science. We have experiences, we attempt to generate useful inductions, and then we test them (deduction). It is in this way that we know where to find a good Italian meal nearby. THAT's useful knowledge that can be used to effect desired outcomes.

And yes, it's subjective that I might like Italian, and that you wouldn't enjoy that restaurant, but if the subjective experience is reproducible for the individual and generates inductions useful for, it constitutes knowledge.

Our reasoning faculty combined with our external senses tell us what is true about the world around us, but it also allows us to manage knowledge of our reproducible subjective experiences empirically, including moral and aesthetic judgments, and learning what is true about them and ourselves - what kinds of things are experienced as moral or beautiful and result in positive feelings and outcomes (the euphorias), and which feel ugly and immoral (dysphorias) are determined empirically as well. We can apply reason to the experience of our internal senses such as the conscience to manage and optimize experience, and we can call this informal science for reasons given: experience->induction->deduction->experience. We can word that like this:

All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Both of these are knowledge, that is, useful inductions acquired empirically even if they are knowledge of one's subjective preferences.

(Formal) science as in laboratories or observatories plays no role in most or any of this, but empiricism (evaluating and managing reproducible experience) performed all day every day does.

In summary: Empiricism = formal science (done by professionals and published in science journals, knowledge of which has limited practical value) + informal science (knowledge acquired experientially living daily life with tremendous practical value). If we could just escape this way of thinking. Our informal science is done not just on the evidence of the external senses, but of the internal senses as well, which includes somatic sensation (muscle position and motion, for example), visceral sensation (heartburn, urge to urinate), chemical senses (thirst), and neurological senses (sleepiness, sense of familiarity). We receive and evaluate input from all of these and do informal "science" on them when we apply reason and memory to them. What does this nausea mean? What's going to taste good for dinner and how do I get it?

To me God and the gods were projections from the Collective Unconscious, which is the more ancient part of the unconscious mind, common to all human and define us a species.

Disagree. What defines man symbolic thought and the capacity to use it to shape his world and to optimize his experience of it.

This is why religions all tend to create wide scale bonds between humans.

They also create division, which is more relevant. The bonds just mean that you congregate with like-minded people to sing hymns and listen to sermons, but religion isn't needed for that, and those same bonds are the basis for the divisive us-vs-them tribalism religion yields. We're seeing that play out in the States today, as the divisiveness of American Christianity has caused significant culture war in areas like abortion, contraception, IVF, LGBTQ+ rights, ongoing efforts at inserting religious doctrine into public schools, and book banning.

That's the face of your religion to me. I understand that there are many Christians who agree that that is all wrong and divisive, but they aren't helping any in the battle to resist these incursions into the lives of those uninterested in being subjected to them, so they aren't part of the face of Christianity to an outsider.

The people doing attempting to resist these theocratic tendencies call themselves atheistic humanists, the group I identify with and who engage in the kind of behavior I and others like me embrace on these threads denouncing that kind of selfishness and hypocrisy, the famous examples being the likes of Dawkins, Hitchen, and Harris.

My perception, with tons of direct proof, is God is real

I don't believe that you have any proof of any god's existence. What I believe you have is a psychological state that you very well may be misinterpreting as indicating the existence of a god. I know this was the case with me from first-hand experience. I understood my ecstatic experiences in church as communing with the Holy Spirit, but later had evidence that that was not the case, and reinterpreted those experiences as I do now: endogenous mental states previously understood as informing me of and revealing to me something outside of my mind.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, I am glad you referenced the physical, objective, real, scientific theory of good with its formulas for calculating good and what scientific instruments to measure it with. And I am pleased that you got a Nobel prize for it. Good for you!!!

You don't understand that brains can be subjective and not objective.

Brains ─ perhaps not yours, since you so insist, but brains generally ─ are capable of enquiring into "the physical, objective, real" world external to the self and bringing us useful understandings of what it appears to be and our relationship with and reliance on it. That makes sense, since it's where we find our parents, air, water, food, society, education, and such pleasures as we have.

Or as I've said to you previously, in order to understand your personal relationship with that external world, try going holding your breath for an hour and see what you can learn.

 

[blü 2]

To expand a bit on your comment, I wish we could substitute empiricism for the word science in discussions about acquiring knowledge.

I take your point. Science employs empiricism and induction, but it's not the only kind of enquiry that does so.

Most of our knowledge about how the world works, how the world affects us, and how to best navigate it to optimize experience by maximizing the euphorias (enjoyable experiences) while minimizing the dysphorias (unpleasant ones). We get almost none of our individual practical knowledge from science. The science I know is rarely useful, and science benefits us without having to understand it.

In that context I'd mention medical science including pharmaceuticals, and the modern science of materials. Still, it may be that Hubble and James Webb, and CERN don't produce results of much immediate use (though I like the idea of Elon Musk clearing out to Mars), but they scratch a deep human itch to understand the origin, nature and future of the universe.

Living daily life is a kind of informal science.

Nicely put.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Brains ─ perhaps not yours, since you so insist, but brains generally ─ are capable of enquiring into "the physical, objective, real" world external to the self and bringing us useful understandings of what it appears to be and our relationship with and reliance on it. That makes sense, since it's where we find our parents, air, water, food, society, education, and such pleasures as we have.

Or as I've said to you previously, in order to understand your personal relationship with that external world, try going holding your breath for an hour and see what you can learn.

Yeah, there is a reason science is based on methodological naturalism.

Edit. How do you decide what is the probability of being in a Boltzmann Brain universe?

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, there is a reason science is based on methodological naturalism.

Edit. How do you decide what is the probability of being in a Boltzmann Brain universe?

Oh, stop it!
Are you going to do this every time? Don't you understand these statements are done with the generally acccepted presuppositions about reality as we percieve it? Unless you're really believing you're an being in a Boltzmann Brain universe then stop arguing for it or act like this is a real counter argument. It doens't add anything but frustration and confusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, stop it!
Are you going to do this every time? Don't you understand these statements are done with the generally acccepted presuppositions about reality as we percieve it? Unless you're really believing you're an being in a Boltzmann Brain universe then stop arguing for it or act like this is a real counter argument. It doens't add anything but frustration and confusion.

Sorry that you have these feelings. But that is not so for me, so it would seem that it is subjective and not generally so for all humans.

So we agree on it would seem that methodological naturalism is not evidence that the universe is natural? Do you agree?

 

[AppieB]

Sorry that you have these feelings. But that is not so for me, so it would seem that it is subjective and not generally so for all humans.

Generally speaking most humans accept that what they perceive as reality, is reality.

So we agree on it would seem that methodological naturalism is not evidence that the universe is natural? Do you agree?

Of course that is not evidence that the universe is natural. Again you are stating the obvious. There is no need for it. I understand what science is and what it can do, what it can't do and what it supposed to do. You don't have to point that out with every conversation. It's already implied when we talk about these things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Generally speaking most humans accept that what they perceive as reality, is reality.


Of course that is not evidence that the universe is natural. Again you are stating the obvious. There is no need for it. I understand what science is and what it can do, what it can't do and what it supposed to do. You don't have to point that out with every conversation. It's already implied when we talk about these things.

Okay, so you don't need evidence for your beliefs, but religious people need that? Is that it?

 

[AppieB]

Okay, so you don't need evidence for your beliefs, but religious people need that? Is that it?

Now you're just being dishonest. Open a thread about this and I'll explain my beliefs and evidence. You might learn something.

As for your question: I hold myself to the same epistemic standard as I hold others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you're just being dishonest. Open a thread about this and I'll explain my beliefs and evidence. You might learn something.

As for your question: I hold myself to the same epistemic standard as I hold others.

Okay, can I flag you in the new thread? Or should I do a conversation?

 

[AppieB]

Okay, can I flag you in the new thread? Or should I do a conversation?

Both is fine by me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In that context I'd mention medical science including pharmaceuticals, and the modern science of materials. Still, it may be that Hubble and James Webb, and CERN don't produce results of much immediate use (though I like the idea of Elon Musk clearing out to Mars), but they scratch a deep human itch to understand the origin, nature and future of the universe.

That was in response to, "Most of our knowledge about how the world works, how the world affects us, and how to best navigate it to optimize experience by maximizing the euphorias (enjoyable experiences) while minimizing the dysphorias (unpleasant ones). We get almost none of our individual practical knowledge from science. The science I know is rarely useful, and science benefits us without having to understand it," which I see now includes an incomplete sentence. After dysphorias (unpleasant ones), it should read comes from daily life (informal science), not (formal) science.

I'm not deprecating science at all. Yes, science provides us with many gifts like better pharmaceuticals and materials that improve our lives by making it longer (medicine), more functional (eyeglasses), easier (labor saving devices), more comfortable (air conditioning), and more interesting (global travel and communications), but my point was that one doesn't need the scientific knowledge necessary to invent and manufacture such things to avail oneself of them, and that knowledge has little practical value to people not involved at that level.

And yes, a scientific education is valuable, but mine doesn't affect my daily decision making much or at all. I guess it helped me to understand that a Covid vaccine was a good idea by allowing me to interpret the morbidity and mortality data of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, but people who couldn't do that but recognized that there was such a thing as expertise and trusted the advice of Fauci over Trump (for example) made the same decision.

My scientific education has been valuable to me on a spiritual level. Understanding the vastness of space and the distances to the nearest stars as well as our being made of the ashes of such stars that exploded billions of years ago makes looking up at the night sky a rich experience and promotes a sense of connectivity, belonging, awe, and gratitude to be here to experience and understand that, or as Sagan said, to participate as the cosmos becomes aware of itself.

Contrast that with the effect that antiscientific fundamentalist Christianity has on such experiences, where people are ashamed to be related to other apes and whose attention is deflected from the here and now to imagined gods and afterlives in imagined spaces outside of our universe.

********

Edit: I was sharing an RF post with a friend who doesn't post here, and apologized in advance for the poor editing, and he gave me a solution. Since my browser is Edge, Alt+i calls up software that will edit my words for me before I post them.

It generated this for me, which made my fragment into a sentence that says it well:

Much of our understanding of how the world functions, how it impacts us, and how to navigate it to optimize our experiences—by maximizing euphorias (pleasurable experiences) and minimizing dysphorias (unpleasant ones)—does not come from science. The scientific knowledge I possess is seldom practical, yet science still benefits us even without our full comprehension.