Is science interested in finding God ?

[gnostic]

I attempt to reject all beliefs and especially beliefs about science.

But your 40,000 years old ancient language and ancient science are nothing more than belief, and it's your belief, that no one else but you believe in.

All humans always make sense in terms of their premises. I don't share a lot of premises with many people. We are each homo circularis rationatio and the only species or thing in existence that is illogical and we are illogical by definition. I find common ground with many religions and most people.

I am not religious but am spiritual.

And yet, you are the one who is using circular reasoning for your personal belief.

 

[Audie]

Then who was it said, "Four, he's a jolly good fellow"?

His Satanic Majesty.

 

[Trailblazer]

No evidence or proof

In my opinion/belief, the Messengers of God are the evidence for God's existence.

That's not evidence, just opinion.

It is not an opinion that God sent men who proclaimed that they were Messengers of God.
It is an opinion/belief that they are Messengers of God since it can never be proven as a fact.
It is an opinion/belief that they are not Messengers of God since it can never be disproven.

 

[gnostic]

In my opinion/belief, the Messengers of God are the evidence for God's existence.

Yes, it is your personal opinion and your personal belief about both the existence of God and the Messengers of God...they are however not evidence, just opinions.

Neither are facts.

It is not an opinion that God sent men who proclaimed that they were Messengers of God.
It is an opinion/belief that they are Messengers of God since it can never be proven as a fact.
It is an opinion/belief that they are not Messengers of God since it can never be disproven.

The last 2 lines, sound more like questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it is your personal opinion and your personal belief about both the existence of God and the Messengers of God...they are however not evidence, just opinions.

Neither are facts.

It is my opinion/belief that God exists.
It is my opinion/belief that sends Messengers to represent Him and reveal His will.
It is my opinion/belief that Messengers are the evidence that God exists since e they are sent by God as evidence.

None of the above are facts, since they cannot be proven.

The last 2 lines, sound more like questions.

They were not questions. They were statements about what I consider an opinion/belief.
An opinion/belief might have evidence to back it up but it cannot be considered a fact since it can't be proven.

 

[blü 2]

His Satanic Majesty.

Ah, of course. LeVey's version, Satan as a far-right Lothario?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, of course. LeVey's version, Satan as a far-right Lothario?

I thought that was an album by the Stones.

 

[blü 2]

I thought that was an album by the Stones.

Hmm. Depends what you mean by 'Stones', I guess,

 

[Bthoth]

In my opinion/belief, the Messengers of God are the evidence for God's existence.

Muhammad: The Messenger of God is a 2015 Iranian Islamic epic film directed by Majid Majidi and co-written with Kambuzia Partovi.

It is not an opinion that God sent men who proclaimed that they were Messengers of God.

Even the movie about muhammad (messenger of god), was man made.

It is an opinion/belief that they are Messengers of God since it can never be proven as a fact.

correct. I can prove that many are said to be messengers of god. And none can be proven to be sent or actually taking notes from a god.

It is an opinion/belief that they are not Messengers of God since it can never be disproven.

Each of mankind can play the part as messengers of god

The ancient writer Apuleius likewise calls Anubis the messenger of gods.

Hermes functions as the emissary and messenger of the gods,


.

 

[cladking]

As long as they get the science right, and defer to experts, and avoid adding personal beliefs to it.

People get the science wrong all the time. Experts get it wrong as well and then science changes one funereal at a time.

I'm sure you have medals and everything.

It has set me on the trajectory I am on.

Until it's abused with bad ideas.

I don't believe you can damage language with ideas. This is what it is for.

So if facts and science isn't truth, what is?

Truth can not be expressed in any of our eight billion languages

There was no ancient science.

How did the "human" race invent agriculture and cities? Archaeologists believe it was a rain dance or something and people buy this!!!
.

 

[cladking]

So if facts and science isn't truth, what is?

Truth can apply only to individuals in our species and even then it is still dependent on definitions and axioms. When communicated it is also dependent on perspective and relevancy as well as how it is parsed.

For most practical purposes we should think of "truth" as being non-existent. This goes many times over for models composed of extrapolations from experiment. Such "truths" arrived at in this manner are dependent on several other variables as well. Math and science are ideal for providing facts and knowledge but not truth. It is ideal for picking a path through the details of life but not for creating a mode or means of living. We must adhere to the dictates of "science/ Caesar" but living your life in such terms is self destructive because we will end up on the wrong path.

The truth is just as Caesar doesn't have your best interests at heart, neither does science.

 

[cladking]

The truth is just as Caesar doesn't have your best interests at heart, neither does science.

Caesar has no clothes and if we could dig up science and see, she would have no clothes either.

 

[cladking]

But your 40,000 years old ancient language and ancient science are nothing more than belief, and it's your belief, that no one else but you believe in.

No. It is a conclusion derived from my axioms, extensive physical evidence, and logic. I believe there's a 70% chance I am essentially correct. You believe there is no chance you can be wrong about anything at all. I know even if I am essentially correct there are many flaws in my theory.

And yet, you are the one who is using circular reasoning for your personal belief.

Somebody give that man a cigar.

Yes! Exactly! I reasoned in circles exactly like every other homo circularis rationatio who ever lived. It's what I do. Not by choice but by nature.

 

[Bthoth]

The truth is just as Caesar doesn't have your best interests at heart, neither does science.

That is funny. Please tell your doctor that just before your next surgery.

I often consider midwives and the medicine man as the initial scientist. From child births thru to farming began as experiments

Look up what the word even means before suggesting that science is not to help US as human beings.

 

[PureX]

Ahm, I'd say there's absolutely no requirement that they be equally possible. People win lotteries by chance at odds close to a billion to one, for example. Image what combinations a random bunch of elements and molecules might form given a billion years and a vast range of physical circumstances over time.

You win or you don't. Two possible results. That's the 'chance'. The rest is curcumstantially and deliberately imposed to warp the probability. That's NOT chance.

Impossibility, as distinct from improbability, is an absolute, and absolutes have proved to be fallible concepts over the years.

Chance exists because possibility exists, and can contradict. Probability does not exist. It's an imposed concept, by we humans. Some of us don't even believe that chance exists. And as an absolute, it may not. But we clearly do not live in an absolute world. OR, we don't live in this world, absolutely.

Will we ever find, or devise, a faster than light phenomenon? Is (as it appears) quantum entanglement ─ spooky action at a distance ─ in fact faster than light, for example?

We are almost infinitely too ignorant to guess at that.

I can make sense of that statement if we delete "blueprint" with its suggestion of purposes and planners.

Yeah, this whole obsession with a "planner" is your bogeyman to deal with. Not mine. I don't care either way. It's just a great big mystery to me. And I'm using the terms that best fit my meaning (blueprint, etc.). I can't help it you and some others here just can't deal with the possibility of a "planner".

In my book there is no "immaterial universe" that is not entirely imaginary.

What's so sad is that you think "imaginary" means non-existent. When existence itself is an imaginary condition. And so is non-existence.

 

[cladking]

That is funny. Please tell your doctor that just before your next surgery.

Doctors are not "science".

From child births thru to farming began as experiments

Science by definition is experiment. Ancient Language had no abstractions and no words for thought so experiment was impossible.

Look up what the word even means before suggesting that science is not to help US as human beings.

I NEVER said that science won't help us individually or collectively.

 

[cladking]

What's so sad is that you think "imaginary" means non-existent. When existence itself is an imaginary condition. And so is non-existence.

Truer words were never spoken.

Many scientists and most people don't even accept reality as a universal given.

 

[Bthoth]

Doctors are not "science".

Both help mankind even if the doc is a person and the science is a process.

Science by definition is experiment. Ancient Language had no abstractions and no words for thought so experiment was impossible.

Trying on a part of shoes is an experiment ................ a test.

Per the bible, god was using mankind as an experiment. A sort of science to see if 'we' could be good by our own choices.

Or do you just hate the word "Science' while using that terminal to write with?

I NEVER said that science won't help us individually or collectively.

But you are trying to correct me for being so open minded with appreciating science before beliefs/religion.

 

[F1fan]

People get the science wrong all the time.

That's why we see so many members get corrected by the educated.

Experts get it wrong as well and then science changes one funereal at a time.

And science self-corrects. Science moves towards more accurate descriptions over time.

It has set me on the trajectory I am on.

You do seem to value your beliefs more than anyone else.

I don't believe you can damage language with ideas. This is what it is for.

I disagree. Language changes over time due to changes in use. The word "truth" can mean: a set of false ideas believed true. We see religious folks abuse language, which includes the rules of language, as they try to argue for their beliefs. This makes it harder for people to be comprehensible, and requires more and more dialog to understand what others actually mean.

Truth can not be expressed in any of our eight billion languages

Actually truth is easy to express as long as the person has intellectual integrity and adequate language ability.

And there are 8 billion languages? Are you telling the truth, or exagerating? If you can't clarify and back up your claim then your sentence is an example of how people can abuse language. Saying untrue things and not even attempting to explain why it's said is a pattern of abuse.

How did the "human" race invent agriculture and cities? Archaeologists believe it was a rain dance or something and people buy this!!!
.

This is a well explained phenomenon. Agriculture and cultivation and accumulating surplus was surely trial and error, but once understood it allowed popuations the freedom to settle and not have to follow herds of animals, or migrate. They didn't have formal text books and methodology. If the RF forum members were a tribe of ancient people and we were out gathering food, and saw some bright colored thing growing on a tree, and someone asked if it was safe to eat, we'd say "Umm, let @cladking try it and let's see what happens to him." You might call this trial and error science, but it is more a matter of problem solving. There are examples in the Bible that are totally incorrect, like breeding striped goats that are near sticks.

 

[F1fan]

Truth can apply only to individuals in our species and even then it is still dependent on definitions and axioms.

No, truth is truth. Facts are true. They are true no matter who or what it relates to. It's true that feeding your cat onions puts it's life in danger. Does the cat know this truth? No, but it still applies in reality. You are trying to make truth ONLY relevant to those who can know what is true. That is a different thing than what I'm referring to. That is you abusing langauge.

Truth: onions are dangerous for cats. This is a fact and applicable to cats even though they don't know it.

When communicated it is also dependent on perspective and relevancy as well as how it is parsed.

This is about communication, not what is true and what isn't. False ideas can be communicated and treated as true by listeners. That is a matter of human behavior and psychology. religious concepts are seldom true, but many will treat the ideas as true and certain. This becomes their "truth" which is an ironic definition.

For most practical purposes we should think of "truth" as being non-existent.

But as a word it does exist and have value. What motive and reason do you have to sabotage what truth means?

We see members like @PureX distort and manipulate words, meanings and contexts to manufacture confusion in his thought process, and it seems to serve his need to believe in some "mystery" that he considers God. These examples of human behavior are interesting, and the level a person will go to to manipulate their own minds for the sake of meaning is amazing. You seem to be doing a similar thing. Is that your spirituality?

This goes many times over for models composed of extrapolations from experiment. Such "truths" arrived at in this manner are dependent on several other variables as well. Math and science are ideal for providing facts and knowledge but not truth. It is ideal for picking a path through the details of life but not for creating a mode or means of living. We must adhere to the dictates of "science/ Caesar" but living your life in such terms is self destructive because we will end up on the wrong path.

Models don't get called "truth" by those who form them and use them. You are doing this as a sort of strawman argument. Are you aware that you are doing this? I see many with some "truth" they believe in manipulate their own thinking in ways they are not aware of, and it is a sort of habit. Is it possible you have some subconscious motives that drives your flawed thinking?

The truth is just as Caesar doesn't have your best interests at heart, neither does science.

Another claim, and no explanation.

At face value this looks as if you have contempt for science and see it is nefarious. Is that the science itself, or the scienists, or what? Being vague like this makes you look a bit silly. Can you show us on the doll where science hurt you?