Is science interested in finding God ?

[blü 2]

We don't know. Nor would we be able to tell if we thought we found it. God exists as a useful and apparently necessary possibility. Not as an identifiable phenomenon.

Would it be stretching the friendship to ask, the apparently necessary possibility of what? And why "it" appears necessary?

 

[Audie]

Would it be stretching the friendship to ask, the apparently necessary possibility of what? And why "it" appears necessary?

"God" is the opposite of being necessary if the
goal or purpose is understanding nature, human or
otherwise.

If the exercising of power and control is the purpose,
then " god" / religion is a terrific asset to exploit.

These things are readily demonstrated by endless examples.

 

[PureX]

Would it be stretching the friendship to ask, the apparently necessary possibility of what? And why "it" appears necessary?

Something cannot logically be presumed to have come from nothing. Order cannot logically be presumed to have come from disorder. Thus, it appears that 'something' transcendent of our witness and reason was/is required for that to have occurred.

 

[cladking]

You have contempt for science. You should ponder why.

I have contempt for pseudoscience. I have contempt for the growing belief that science derives from Peers and experts rather than from experiment. I have contempt for the notion that science has provided us the big picture of all things and all that remains is to color it in. I have contempt for the superstition that true knowledge can be found in books rather than hard won through experience and thought. I hate superstition and belief but none moreso than that which is unexamined and used as an excuse to do whatever the believer desires.

I hate how many real scientists now days use words like "maybe" and "might" in every sentence but rarely or never state the axioms upon which they depend. I hate how even most real scientists don't understand that all experiment applies to all reality simultaneously so they ignore vast swathes of experiment that contradict what they believe, I hate that most scientists don't comprehend the simple observation that all of reality affects all other reality on a real time basis. I hate that even most real scientists now days believe mother nature is beholden to mathematics and the "laws of nature".

I find it despicable that metaphysics is no longer taught in schools. I hate that "science" is becoming something built on consensus and money rather than experiment, logic, or existing knowledge.

"Science" is a friend of mine. For better or worse I married her long ago. Together it has been an interesting ride. It's funny how life and its parts always lead in a circle. Homo circularis rationatio.

 

[F1fan]

I have contempt for pseudoscience. I have contempt for the growing belief that science derives from Peers and experts rather than from experiment. I have contempt for the notion that science has provided us the big picture of all things and all that remains is to color it in. I have contempt for the superstition that true knowledge can be found in books rather than hard won through experience and thought. I hate superstition and belief but none moreso than that which is unexamined and used as an excuse to do whatever the believer desires.

I hate how many real scientists now days use words like "maybe" and "might" in every sentence but rarely or never state the axioms upon which they depend. I hate how even most real scientists don't understand that all experiment applies to all reality simultaneously so they ignore vast swathes of experiment that contradict what they believe, I hate that most scientists don't comprehend the simple observation that all of reality affects all other reality on a real time basis. I hate that even most real scientists now days believe mother nature is beholden to mathematics and the "laws of nature".

I find it despicable that metaphysics is no longer taught in schools. I hate that "science" is becoming something built on consensus and money rather than experiment, logic, or existing knowledge.

"Science" is a friend of mine. For better or worse I married her long ago. Together it has been an interesting ride. It's funny how life and its parts always lead in a circle. Homo circularis rationatio.

Sorry, you spout anti-science rhetoric. Yet another non-expert who has a problem with science, presumably because you hold sour grapes that it doesn't prop up your religious beliefs. Look how much of your language mirrors critique of religious belief. Frankly your hate is your problem as a biased thinker.

 

[cladking]

Sorry, you spout anti-science rhetoric.

"Rhetoric", eh? I just made this up from evidence and knowledge. There's no rhetoric here. I seriously doubt you can find anything like it anywhere.

Yet another non-expert who has a problem with science, presumably because you hold sour grapes that it doesn't prop up your religious beliefs.

How can one person be so wrong and have so many errors in one sentence.

You simply refuse to read my posts that I attempt to have beliefs whatsoever. I've listed my axioms dozens of times but most believers in science only axiom is that "if it's in a book it is exactly correct" (no matter how it is parsed).

Look how much of your language mirrors critique of religious belief.

I wouldn't know since the only religious beliefs I really "follow" are the six or eight posters here who make sense and have a lot of insight. But, no, I don't believe they are right; merely that they are insightful and make sense unlike believers in science who usually know less science than I and are calling me names (many of which can't be repeated in polite company).

Frankly your hate is your problem as a biased thinker.

[sigh] We are all biased. We are all homo circularis rationatio (circularly reasoning man). I am no different except I hate superstition rather than embrace it.

 

[cladking]

... believers in science who usually know less science than I and are calling me names (many of which can't be repeated in polite company).

...And frequently make misstatements about science. Their misstatements about how science works are legion. Many believers believe they can just paraphrase complex ideas they've seen in books. This is rarely true.

I rarely make many statements about science because I know how easy to say something that isn't true. The nature of language is such that even true statements can be parsed wrong. But I've studied "all" these subjects and have a working knowledge of them. I am far more a metaphysician than any sort of scientist. I am a generalist and metaphysician.

 

[Eli G]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Still funny

I don't know why there are so many people who believe that science is a specific group of people sitting somewhere and deciding what to investigate and to approve so that people have to accept what they say out of obligation...

The alternative to this illusion would be that there was some kind of sect with some group of directors trying to dominate the human mentality... an inquisition? This is no longer funny but terrifying.

Good thing that we, JWs, do not belong to this world. YAY.

 

[F1fan]

Because there is also no evidence to suggest reality can arise of its own.

So it must have always existed because there’s no evidence of it being created by non-reality.

As I said believers in science take reality as proof that reality arose spontaneously and there is no God.

What do you mean by reality, energy? Who is claiming energy created itself?

 

[F1fan]

Something cannot logically be presumed to have come from nothing.

That’s why atheists don’t presume God exists. Why opt for a God always existing when it’s simpler to assume energy always existed. At least we know energy exists unlike gods.

Order cannot logically be presumed to have come from disorder.

That’s why we have physicists to explain how energy behaves according to the laws of physics.

Thus, it appears that 'something' transcendent of our witness and reason was/is required for that to have occurred.

Only if you ignore evidence and avoid reasoning. We can examine why some humans use sloppy thinking to form irrational beliefs.

 

[Eli G]

The original energy is God

John 4:24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.

SPIRIT means basically ENERGY.

Is. 40:25 “To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One.
26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing."

 

[blü 2]

"God" is the opposite of being necessary if the
goal or purpose is understanding nature, human or
otherwise.

Hmm. I'm not sure about that. We've found supernatural beliefs in 100% or so of all the world's distinct cultures, suggesting that in the wild such beliefs have their place and function, whether as explainers or as part of stories in common which go to tribal identity hence tribal solidarity.

I don't mean there was no connection with power and control. I mean there may have been a connection that was beneficial to the tribe collectively, whether at the expense of some individuals or not.

 

[blü 2]

Something cannot logically be presumed to have come from nothing.

I'm inclined to agree.

Order cannot logically be presumed to have come from disorder.

Order comes from disorder all through nature, surely? Particles become atoms (inter alia). Atoms become 'dust'. Dust becomes stars and planets, chemicals become biochemicals, life becomes animals and vegetables, these being self-reproducing ─ and so on.

Thus, it appears that 'something' transcendent of our witness and reason was/is required for that to have occurred.

I'm all for awe and delight and wonder. I just don't see them pointing back to a purposeful "intelligence" of some kind.

Ah well. Perhaps such different views are part of human nature too.

 

[Bird123]

Is science interested in finding God ?

It doesn't matter whether science is interested in finding God. Why not? Science is walking toward God. Sometimes, one Discovers things one was never looking for in the first place. On the other hand, it looks like it will be a long journey until they arrive. Worry not!! There has never been a time limit on learning or Discovery.

The best thing science can do: Be open to all possibilities with the Widest of Views. Never let the journey of Discovery end. Finally , Keep correcting the errors.

If science can keep doing these things, science will Discover God long before religion will. Sadly, religion has eliminated almost everything by simply claiming to know it all along with valuing Beliefs above all else.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[cladking]

So it must have always existed because there’s no evidence of it being created by non-reality.

This is your opinion. I have no opinion on the subject. i realized from a very young age I would spend a lifetime working on this without arriving at the goal. It is an adjunct to my work of trying to understand the nature of consciousness and thought which I believe I have achieved. Life is consciousness.

We weren't there when the foundations of reality were laid. God only knows what has always existed.

What do you mean by reality, energy? Who is claiming energy created itself?

Energy and matter are the exact same thing.

Reality is binary and logic manifest. There is one reality and eight billion different beliefs about it.

Perhaps time and energy are the same thing as well.

 

[cladking]

On the other hand, it looks like it will be a long journey until they arrive. Worry not!! There has never been a time limit on learning or Discovery.

I'm not sure science on its current trajectory can ever even understand the nature of the fundamental forces far less the nature of things like consciousness. We are probably are headed to a reconfiguration of science which will include such things; one funeral at a time.

The best thing science can do: Be open to all possibilities with the Widest of Views. Never let the journey of Discovery end. Finally , Keep correcting the errors.

Science does a remarkably poor job of the former two and a great job of the latter two.

If science can keep doing these things, science will Discover God long before religion will. Sadly, religion has eliminated almost everything by simply claiming to know it all along with valuing Beliefs above all else.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I think you're right except I see religion as the driver of all human thought and am not sure we can find God even if "He" exists. Humans will forever be far more ignorant than anything else.

 

[Bird123]

I'm not sure science on its current trajectory can ever even understand the nature of the fundamental forces far less the nature of things like consciousness. We are probably are headed to a reconfiguration of science which will include such things; one funeral at a time.



Science does a remarkably poor job of the former two and a great job of the latter two.



I think you're right except I see religion as the driver of all human thought and am not sure we can find God even if "He" exists. Humans will forever be far more ignorant than anything else.

Even taking baby steps, one can walk across the world given enough time. Look at mankind. Mankind is far from those caveman days. Further, the more one learns: the faster one advances and learns.

Patience. Mankind might wander from the path, however the journey remains forward for now.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[blü 2]

It is an adjunct to my work of trying to understand the nature of consciousness and thought which I believe I have achieved. Life is consciousness.

That would make consciousness a synonym for life. I don't attribute consciousness to vegetation, nor to microorganisms, but they're certainly alive. Indeed, I seem to recall I pointed out to you before that this is to attribute consciousness to every cell of your body, as well as all your microorganisms.

 

[F1fan]

This is your opinion. I have no opinion on the subject.

Yeah, you just broght it up for no reason.

So you don't think it's more likley that energy and the natural laws always existed versus a supernatural cause?

We weren't there when the foundations of reality were laid. God only knows what has always existed.

Assuming a God exists, right? Or do you have an opinion that a God exists, and can know things?

 

[cladking]

So you don't think it's more likley that energy and the natural laws always existed versus a supernatural cause?

I don't believe there is such a thing as physical or natural law. I believe reality is logical and since math is logic quantified and reality corresponds to math it appears to follow natural laws. There are no laws of nature, it merely seems so to us.

Assuming a God exists, right?

I make no such assumption. Nor do I assume there is no God. Rather I weight the odds concerning what I do know and can estimate.

Or do you have an opinion that a God exists, and can know things?

I have no idea what the characteristics of a God might be. With reality being logic manifest, life logic incarnate, and math logic quantified perhaps God is the source of logic or some universal logic. How am I to know?

Perhaps logic manifested as truth? All things turn out alright in the end. Logic complete.

You tell me what we're looking for or how we'll know if we find It or catch a glimpse.