Is science interested in finding God ?

[cladking]

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

Most "science" cited by "the educated" here is not true. They do not properly apply known science to the real world.

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

Ask Kuhn about this. You are wrong. Science simply flip flops from time to time. It is called paradigm shift.

We see religious folks abuse language, which includes the rules of language, as they try to argue for their beliefs.

So only believers in science can find truth!! Who knew?

And there are 8 billion languages?

Every individual parses every utterance differently every single time.

This is a well explained phenomenon.

Just like a witch doctor can explain locusts and volcanoes.

What motive and reason do you have to sabotage what truth means?

Truth to tell, I have no right. I'm just trying to understand reality here.

Another claim, and no explanation.

Do you actually believe the government has your best interests at heart? Wanna buy a bridge. Do you really think reality gives a damn about what you or I believe? Science is supposed to be a reflection of reality and NOT what experts choose to believe.

 

[blü 2]

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

I don't think 'imaginary' means non-existent. I think it means existing only as a concept / notion / thing imagined thus not found in the world external to the self.

It's another of those ways in which we continue to differ.

 

[cladking]

When existence itself is an imaginary condition.

Do you mean that we can't see ourselves as we are, only as we imagine we are? We don't see the world only our imaginations.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, that is what I said.

Each of mankind can play the part as messengers of god

That is true. Whenever we deliver God's message we are messengers, but first we have to know something about God and His message.
Where do you think we can come to know about God and His message?

 

[Audie]

I don't think 'imaginary' means non-existent. I think it means existing only as a concept / notion / thing imagined thus not found in the world external to the self.

It's another of those ways in which we continue to differ.

What's imaginary and unreal are all
things your friend makes up.
Which is like 99 percent of content.

 

[Bthoth]

Yes, that is what I said.

That is true. Whenever we deliver God's message we are messengers, but first we have to know something about God and His message.
Where do you think we can come to know about God and His message?

Read lots of religious dialogue coupled with scientific material. Learn what makes us alive.

 

[blü 2]

What's imaginary and unreal are all
things your friend makes up.
Which is like 99 percent of content.

We've evolved to think in abstractions and categories. One of the many splendid things about watching little kids grow is seeing infants acquire language so instinctively; the way they follow where the carer looks or points, and echo the carer's word for that thing, 'car' 'daddy' 'doggy' ─ and without any stress, they distinguish the example 'car' from the category 'car', 'this car' from 'a car'. On what we presently know, we don't think any other species does this at anything like the same level.

 

[F1fan]

Most "science" cited by "the educated" here is not true.

Really? And you are uniquely qualified to indentify science that isn't true, in your mind? I'd be curious to see some examples of science that you deem untrue.

They do not properly apply known science to the real world.

So the educated don't apply science properly as a category? All educated people get this wrong?

Ask Kuhn about this. You are wrong. Science simply flip flops from time to time. It is called paradigm shift.

You make it sound as if all science is fraud. Yet not a single scrap of evidence, so I'm not convinced. Sounds like the blanket contempt for science typical among conservative theists.

So only believers in science can find truth!! Who knew?

There are no "believers" in science. Educated people accept the results of science, and that is because science shows its work.

Every individual parses every utterance differently every single time.

Which is vastly different than claiming 8 billion languages. You have a pattern of broad classifications along with dismissing the precision of science. It's as if you are wary of knowledge.

Just like a witch doctor can explain locusts and volcanoes.

Can they? Another exaggeration?

Truth to tell, I have no right. I'm just trying to understand reality here.

Yet you condemn the best method we have to understand how things are, science. That's why i say you sabotage your understanding.

Do you actually believe the government has your best interests at heart?

I think most Democrats do, and a small number of republicans who seem to fear doing the right thing due to backlash. Look at the ACA as an example. Look how Biden is helping the economy and investing in our infrastructure. That's in our best interest. I'm not sure what your attitudes and beliefs are, but liberalism is what the most stable societies apply as a political approach.

Wanna buy a bridge.

So you bought one, eh? That's bad luck. But I'm not a sucker. so keep it.

Do you really think reality gives a damn about what you or I believe?

Reality doesn't have a brain or emotions, so odd question. I don't think in these terms.

Science is supposed to be a reflection of reality and NOT what experts choose to believe.

No, science describes what is real about how things are. You don't stike me as having a working knowledge of science, and perhaps that's why you condemn it.

 

[cladking]

And you are uniquely qualified to indentify science that isn't true, in your mind?

No. Doing a little math and knowing a little science is not a "unique qualification". But I don't need three guesses to know whether a plane can take off from a conveyor belt or not. 3% of physicists and more than half of aviation engineers get such things wrong. Most people rarely or never make true statements about the application of science to the real world.

I don't need a Peer to explain many experiments to me.

So the educated don't apply science properly as a category? All educated people get this wrong?

No. Most of the believers apply it incorrectly. They call themselves educated and trust Peers.

Educated people accept the results of science, and that is because science shows its work.

Experiment has results; not "science".

You make it sound as if all science is fraud.

No. Belief is a fraud.

Yet you condemn the best method we have to understand how things are, science.

I've done no such thing. Science is the best tool we have for understanding the real world. But it is only a tool and some use it improperly.

Reality doesn't have a brain or emotions, so odd question. I don't think in these terms.

Reality doesn't care about your opinion. It doesn't care what Peers believe.

 

[Kfox]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Which God? People are known to call all sorts of things "God". There are people wha worship the Sun, even nature. BTW there is a lot of scientific literature on the Sun and Nature. I would say; whatever it is you choose to call God, if science can detect evidence of it, they would definitely investigate it.

 

[oldbadger]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Hi Chinu! It's been a while since we talked........
Yes, of course science is interested in finding the reason for our existence, that just being another title for 'God', I think.

I have been watching Professor Cox's latest film-series about the early Universe and I noticed similarities with the first verses of Genesis.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The truth of God is kept secret by the Illuminati

 

[F1fan]

No. Doing a little math and knowing a little science is not a "unique qualification".

You don't explain how you are qualified to reject science that experts report. All we can conclude is that it's your bais against science. What is the basis of your bias?You say many things that creationists say, so it sems to be religion even though you don't refer to it.

But I don't need three guesses to know whether a plane can take off from a conveyor belt or not.

Irrelevant example. You are rejecting results by experts. Why?

3% of physicists and more than half of aviation engineers get such things wrong.

Where's your evidence? Just made it up?

Most people rarely or never make true statements about the application of science to the real world.

Speak for yourself as a person who doesn't make true statements. But again you make a claim without any examlpes or evidence, so we throw it out.

I don't need a Peer to explain many experiments to me.

If you are going to reject the reults of experts then you need better education.

No. Most of the believers apply it incorrectly. They call themselves educated and trust Peers.

This is blatant bias. Could it be that you lack education and aren't trusted given your beliefs that you feel outcast and jealous?

Experiment has results; not "science".

Experiments and results IS science. Why are you constantly getting basic things wrong, and seem proud of it?

No. Belief is a fraud.

You have false beliefs about science, so in your case your beliefs are fraud, much like what creationists try to do against science.

I've done no such thing. Science is the best tool we have for understanding the real world. But it is only a tool and some use it improperly.

See, here is your blatant prejudice against science. And notice you insist science isn't the best way to understand the universe but offer no answer of what is, as if you know you aren't being honest here.

So what's the problem? If science isn't the best method we have to understand the universe and what is true about how things are, what is?

Reality doesn't care about your opinion. It doesn't care what Peers believe.

Odd that it is your opinion against the one method that explains what reality is, yet you write this as if you are exempt. This is the hubris of your beliefs and prejudice that seems to have infected your mind.

 

[PureX]

If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of us, in some unimaginable 'blaze of glory', what could science do to verify that this experience is actually God?

Answer: nothing. Science could do nothing to verify the nature or existence of God even if God were hovering right in front of us all. So what can science do to verify the nature or existence of God when God is not hovering in the air right in front of us all? The answer is even less than nothing, as it wouldn't knowhow or where to even look. And in fact, there is no human intellectual endeavor that could verify the nature or existence of God, for humanity. The concept of God transcends the boundaries of existence as we perceive it. It is beyond our comprehending except as a mysterious possibility.

 

[F1fan]

If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of us, in some unimaginable 'blaze of glory', what could science do to verify that this experience is actually God?

That's OK because even believers don't know what their many gods are. The confusion and uncertainty is surely caused by there being no evidence of any of the many gods in human lore.

Answer: nothing.

Correct. Science can't verify any imaginary being existing. Oddly, nor can believers.

Science could do nothing to verify the nature or existence of God even if God were hovering right in front of us all. So what can science do to verify the nature or existence of God when God is not hovering in the air right in front of us all? The answer is even less than nothing, as it wouldn't knowhow or where to even look.

It's kinda like asking a husband why he's not cheating on his wife. It's not a relevant question, and there is no answer required.

And in fact, there is no human intellectual endeavor that could verify the nature or existence of God, for humanity.

Right, because intellectual questions require something that can be identified and examined. All we have is fallible, evolved humans who adopts patterns of behavior and mimic it. We can examine why humans believe in a supernatural, and we do have answers. None of the answers suggest these believers are rational in their belief, nor that the gods they believe exist has any basis in reality. Humans believe in all sorts of untrue ideas for various reasons. Atheists are a group that has no pressure to conform and believe, which is interesting. But the majority of humans fall into a pattern of subconsciously confroming to the social norms of religious belief. Believers tend not to understand why they believe, they just do.

The concept of God transcends the boundaries of existence as we perceive it.

Not really. It's a set of ideas that have have integrated into social life and mental software. Ideas like gods and other rituals, and things like language, all become a sort of software that we use as sorts of utilities. Naturally we value these utilities for certain functionality of social life. Atheists, and even some former believers, have learned that belief in religious ideas aren't necessary in modern life. Non-belief might get you beheaded in Iran, but not in first world nations.

It is beyond our comprehending except as a mysterious possibility.

Oh god concepts aren't that complicated. Some are even ridiculous. Believers just avoid questioning whether their gods exist, and instead mask this uncertainty with invented mysteries. Why wold a believer risk examining whther their god exists on case they discover it doesn't? Being lost in the mysterious fog, as you like to claim, is a good way to hide from your own fer and anxiety of there being no gods. Walking alone or in groups in the fog doesn't sound very appealing to atheists, or even those theists are are absolutely certain their beliefs are true.

 

[PureX]

That's OK because even believers don't know what their many gods are. The confusion and uncertainty is surely caused by there being no evidence of any of the many gods in human lore.

I wasn't asking about 'lore', nor was I asking about any 'believers'. It was a simple question. What could science possibly do to verify that a direct visitation from God was an actual visitation from God?

Correct. Science can't verify any imaginary being existing. Oddly, nor can believers.

But we aren't talking about "imaginary" visitations. We're talking about an actual direct experience that BOTH witness.

It's kinda like asking a husband why he's not cheating on his wife. It's not a relevant question, and there is no answer required.

Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that science would be useless to us in the face of such an event? Perhaps it's because you don't want to discuss WHY science would be useless in the face of such an event.

Right, because intellectual questions require something that can be identified and examined.

They do?. Philosophers discuss and debate immaterial speculative possibilities all the time. Is philosophy not an intellectual pursuit? Art also depicts images and representing questions and possibilities that have no correspondence in the material world. Is art also not an intellectual pursuit? Or are you just so blinded by your worship of science as the only possible means of understanding the truth of 'what is' that you just habitually ignore these other possibilities?

All we have is fallible, evolved humans who adopts patterns of behavior and mimic it.

That sentence makes no sense. Yes, humans are fallible. Yes, we have 'evolved'. Yes, we do adopt patterns of behavior ... to mimic what? Those around us? Of course. We learn from each other. We do it to survive.

We can examine why humans believe in a supernatural, and we do have answers. None of the answers suggest these believers are rational in their belief, nor that the gods they believe exist has any basis in reality.

First, you don't seem to understand that what ANYONE believes about God (including you) is irrelevant to there being an actual God, or not. And secondly, being able to explain why someone else would choose to believe whatever they do about God (even if you were correct) likewise has nothing whatever to do with God's actually existence. So whether you know why people believe in God, or not, it still has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. So your proposed 'justification' here fails on both counts. It fails to show that anyone else's belief in God is wrong, and it fails to show that your lack of belief in God is right. Because what you or anyone else believes about God has no bearing at all on the actual question of whether or not God exists.

Humans believe in all sorts of untrue ideas for various reasons.

Humans choose to believe in all sorts of unverified ideas. How true they are is seldom knowable. Especially when it comes to the nature and existence of any gods.

But the majority of humans fall into a pattern of subconsciously conforming to the social norms of religious belief. Believers tend not to understand why they believe, they just do.

Conforming to group opinion, or NOT conforming to group opinion has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of ANYONE'S opinions. Whether it's shared by a group or not. So this weak attempt at justification also fails regardless of the opinion being upheld, or rejected.

Not really. It's a set of ideas that have have integrated into social life and mental software. Ideas like gods and other rituals, and things like language, all become a sort of software that we use as sorts of utilities. Naturally we value these utilities for certain functionality of social life. Atheists, and even some former believers, have learned that belief in religious ideas aren't necessary in modern life. Non-belief might get you beheaded in Iran, but not in first world nations.

Oh god concepts aren't that complicated. Some are even ridiculous. Believers just avoid questioning whether their gods exist, and instead mask this uncertainty with invented mysteries. Why wold a believer risk examining whther their god exists on case they discover it doesn't? Being lost in the mysterious fog, as you like to claim, is a good way to hide from your own fer and anxiety of there being no gods. Walking alone or in groups in the fog doesn't sound very appealing to atheists, or even those theists are are absolutely certain their beliefs are true.

So you have no actual justification, then, for slandering theism, or promoting atheism.

 

[gnostic]

If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of us, in some unimaginable 'blaze of glory', what could science do to verify that this experience is actually God?

Answer: nothing. Science could do nothing to verify the nature or existence of God even if God were hovering right in front of us all. So what can science do to verify the nature or existence of God when God is not hovering in the air right in front of us all? The answer is even less than nothing, as it wouldn't knowhow or where to even look. And in fact, there is no human intellectual endeavor that could verify the nature or existence of God, for humanity. The concept of God transcends the boundaries of existence as we perceive it. It is beyond our comprehending except as a mysterious possibility.

Sorry, but when have anyone, such as believers, have ever verify the existence of God?

None. Never. There have been zero verification.

The only required for believing in God or gods, is FAITH.

FAITH is about conviction and trust in belief to be true, regardless of there being no verifiable physical evidence for such existence. What you called “experience“, is highly subjective, personal and required the person to be biased. So the experiences required biases, not verification.

Verification in natural sciences, is just about being seen, PureX. Observations and verification also require the evidence to be tested, quantified, measured, compared…something that you cannot do with any so-called experiences of God. You cannot observe God, you cannot test God.

Attributing nature to God, or to say “God did it”, are merely superstitions that you have no way of verifying.

Do not compare witnesses‘ experiences of supernatural as verification, PureX, because you cannot physically verify God.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but when have anyone, such as believers, have ever verify the existence of God?

None. Never. There have been zero verification.

The only required for believing in God or gods, is FAITH.

Why "believe" at all? All "belief" is, is the arrogant internal presumption that we are right when we can't verify that we are. If we could verify that it, we wouldn't need belief. We'd simply know it to be so.

So I agree with you about faith. As faith does not require that we ignore or deny the possibility that we could be wrong, as belief does.

FAITH is about conviction and trust in belief to be true, regardless of there being no verifiable physical evidence for such existence.

I agree, but your wording is sloppy, here, and prone to confusion. Faith is our choosing to trust in the idea that what we hope to be true, is or will turn out to be true, when we act on it. And this does not require that we ignore or deny the fact that we do not know that it is or will turn out to be the truth. Which is why faith is the more honest way to approach and work through the unknown.

What you called “experience“, is highly subjective, personal and required the person to be biased.

Yes, but what is your imagined alternative? You can't stop being you. None of us can. And none of us can stop being biased by our own experiences and the way we have come to understand them. To be human is to be biased.

Verification in natural sciences, is just about being seen, PureX. Observations and verification also require the evidence to be tested, quantified, measured, compared…something that you cannot do with any so-called experiences of God. You cannot observe God, you cannot test God.

Science is also a bias, as it is based on experiences and observations made by and for we humans. And not only that, it is useless apart from the realm of physicality. Which leaves a whole lot of 'what is' beyond the reach of science to even explore.

Attributing nature to God, or to say “God did it”, are merely superstitions that you have no way of verifying.

I agree. If God were hovering right in front of us, right now, we still couldn't tell if it was a "natural" or "unnatural" phenomenon. The limitations of "nature" lay beyond the reach of our comprehension.

Do not compare witnesses‘ experiences of supernatural as verification, PureX, because you cannot physically verify God.

Yes, that was my point. "God" is beyond the human capacity to verify, no matter how it is manifesting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.

What is that supposed to mean?
Bashing science again?

 

[Kfox]

If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.

Anybody able to prove the existence of God would immediately become world famous and rich beyond measure. Why would any scientist not want to become world famous and rich beyond measure?