Proving logic can't explain existence

[ChristineM]

Many people say God did not do it. Atheists mainly I guess.
But in science God is not even an option. That is why science with the hypothesis that an intelligence must have done it is called pseudoscience even if the reasoning in the hypotheses may be quite sound.

Can you please provide one valid* hypothesis that an intelligent designer did it.

* accepted by mainstream cosmology

 

[Brian2]

As i said, time is not linear, it is effected by gravity

I also heard it is effected by speed, but that may have changed since I heard it. It is interesting that someone can go into a place where time is said to slow down for them and then come back to where they were before and not be behind everyone else timewise. I wonder if it just that things move slower in some places. But I guess it has all been worked out mathematically.
So anyway, how does time not being linear effect the idea that time cannot have come from eternity in the past?

If it was thought that a god was instrumental how would it not be mentioned?

How would it be mentioned when science that puts forward the hypothesis that God exists and is needed is called pseudoscience?

Is it?

IMO as a theist. But of course it may be a different God than the one in the Bible in some hypotheses.

No you don't, you have faith and opinion.

I was not talking about myself necessarily.

Guesses are not considered, as i stated at the beginning, universe creation hypotheses arw based on maths or hard, observed, falsifiable evidence

Books such as The God Hypothesis are based on hard, observed, falsifiable evidence as far as I know.

 

[Brian2]

Can you please provide one valid* hypothesis that an intelligent designer did it.

* accepted by mainstream cosmology

No I don't think so. Does that mean it is wrong? or just rejected by mainstream cosmology. Science wants naturalistic answers and will plug away until it comes up with something even if some pseudo scientists reason otherwise. God it seems has to be shown to exist before science considers the possibility. Reasoning that seems to show the need for a God is side lined as non science.

 

[Brian2]

No, it is a violation of reasoning for a justified reason. What the unknown is, includes that we don't whether logic applies or not. That is so, because it unknown.

Are you talking about logic in general in this sphere or in the past before the big bang?

 

[ChristineM]

No I don't think so. Does that mean it is wrong? or just rejected by mainstream cosmology. Science wants naturalistic answers and will plug away until it comes up with something even if some pseudo scientists reason otherwise. God it seems has to be shown to exist before science considers the possibility. Reasoning that seems to show the need for a God is side lined as non science.

It means it is not considered by the people who study the creation of the universe , you are of course welcome to your beliefs and opinions

 

[Brian2]

It means it is not considered by the people who study the creation of the universe , you are of course welcome to your beliefs and opinions

Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you talking about logic in general in this sphere or in the past before the big bang?

No, I am talking about objective reality as independent of the mind. I believe objective reality is real, but it is unknowable, because it is independent of the mind. Here:
"...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]

..."
The core belief about objective reality is that it is real. The rest of the beliefs in naturalism are not necessary to live in the everyday world. Hence I believe in "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.", but I am not a believer in naturalism. E.g. for logic that is a process in humans as a mental process and say nothing about objective reality itself. Logic is in the mind.

 

[McBell]

Many people say God did not do it. Atheists mainly I guess.
But in science God is not even an option. That is why science with the hypothesis that an intelligence must have done it is called pseudoscience even if the reasoning in the hypotheses may be quite sound.

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you base so much on your own guesses...

God is not considered simply because there is no reason to substitute "I Don't Know" with "GodDidIt" other than wishful thinking.

 

[cladking]

that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

There are more things wrong with this than I can count.

The biggest problem is that reality exists independently of every observer individually or in groups. The problem is that individual modern humans each see what he believes rather than reality. These beliefs are chosen by the observer and usually based not on reality or even reality as determined by experiment but rather on beliefs of those who have come before. Sir Isaac Newton was a great man who led us to quantify much of what we see as natural but these quantifications aren't reality itself even though most all scientists take them as so. Not only do beliefs arise from misinterpretation of experiment but they arise from shared ideas imparted by language such as the meaningfulness of "numbers" other than unity or nothingness (1 or 0), and the ability of any individual to be a "rational observer".

"Reality" does what it does whether we understand it or not. We can't even see we have no clue about reality because we see only we believe. We think we understand everything we see so we rarely see the anomalies of which real nature is chiefly composed. We are not even an "intelligent" species much less a "rational" one.

 

[paarsurrey]

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you base so much on your own guesses...

God is not considered simply because there is no reason to substitute "I Don't Know" with "GodDidIt" other than wishful thinking.

I understand, the Atheism surmise/summarize their ignorance with the words " I don't know". Right friend, please?
The Believers told/tell/convey in brief from " GodDidIt" where humanity had yet to know certainly the processes at work physically or non-physical, please. There is nothing wrong with it. The truthful Religion does not stop the scientific research being done by the Scientists rather it encourages and promotes it, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[McBell]

I understand, the Atheism surmise/summarize their ignorance with the words " I don't know". Right friend, please?
The Believers told/tell/convey in brief from " GodDidIt" where humanity had yet to know certainly the processes at work physically or non-physical, please. There is nothing wrong with it. The truthful Religion does not stop the scientific research being done by the Scientists rather it encourages and promotes it, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

I do not understand this as written.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are more things wrong with this than I can count.

The biggest problem is that reality exists independently of every observer individually or in groups. The problem is that individual modern humans each see what he believes rather than reality. ...

You can't see reality, if it is independent of you. That also applies to you. Reality is a first person abstract concept and to use it as "reality is real" requires you believe in it.

 

[cladking]

You can't see reality, if it is independent of you.

Nobody can see reality but anybody can get glimpses of it. It is visible in the proper interpretation of experiment or the study of the Bible. It is visible chiefly through insight. Reality is hidden from virtually every angle but is more often seen from within. It becomes (more) visible through well crafted questions and seeking to understand it.

We can never peer at it directly because our thoughts and beliefs are in the way. If we see it from the inside the light is poor.

Ironically "reality" used to be called "amun" which meant "the hidden" because they were at least aware reality existed.

We can't even see the existence of reality because it is not axiomatic for modern people and we believe we are learning the "laws of God" or the "laws of nature" neither of which are real at all. We mistake bits and pieces of the logic of which reality is composed as supreme law of one sort or another. So far as is observable reality can obey no law and is cause and effect where neither is ever knowable but can sometimes be glimpsed through insight and study.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody can see reality but anybody can get glimpses of it. It is visible in the proper interpretation of experiment or the study of the Bible. It is visible chiefly through insight. Reality is hidden from virtually every angle but is more often seen from within. It becomes (more) visible through well crafted questions and seeking to understand it.

We can never peer at it directly because our thoughts and beliefs are in the way. If we see it from the inside the light is poor.

Ironically "reality" used to be called "amun" which meant "the hidden" because they were at least aware reality existed.

We can't even see the existence of reality because it is not axiomatic for modern people and we believe we are learning the "laws of God" or the "laws of nature" neither of which are real at all. We mistake bits and pieces of the logic of which reality is composed as supreme law of one sort or another. So far as is observable reality can obey no law and is cause and effect where neither is ever knowable but can sometimes be glimpsed through insight and study.

Thank you for your answer.
I do it differently.

 

[cladking]

Thank you for your answer.
I do it differently.

Yeah, I know.

I'm not even so much saying you're wrong as that I am that taking reality as being both axiomatic and unknowable is probably the most effective way of discovering what is real; what is common to every possible observer.

I know I come across as being dogmatic but reality must share some characteristics between every observer.

Just because these characteristics are too complex to understand (at this time) changes nothing.

 

[cladking]

You can't see reality, if it is independent of you. That also applies to you.

We are each a part of reality. All of reality includes each of us. This is what I'm trying to say is (should be) axiomatic. This is what I'm saying is axiomatic to ALL THE REST of (conscious) creation.

 

[Brian2]

The core belief about objective reality is that it is real. The rest of the beliefs in naturalism are not necessary to live in the everyday world. Hence I believe in "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.", but I am not a believer in naturalism. E.g. for logic that is a process in humans as a mental process and say nothing about objective reality itself. Logic is in the mind.

An interesting thing about objective reality is that it seems the assumption came about because in the West because of the Abrahamic religions and their view that God made a universe that is real and could be studied objectively. Hence the West advanced in science faster than the East. (a belief in this creator God gives the basis for a belief in the reality of what the God created)
But of course these days God is excluded from science and science is not seen as a study of the reality that God has created.

 

[cladking]

An interesting thing about objective reality is that it seems the assumption came about because in the West because of the Abrahamic religions and their view that God made a universe that is real and could be studied objectively. Hence the West advanced in science faster than the East. (a belief in this creator God gives the basis for a belief in the reality of what the God created)
But of course these days God is excluded from science and science is not seen as a study of the reality that God has created.

Interesting ideas. Thanks.

Now days science isn't much looking for any sort of reality but rather ties between math and nature. This is why nonsense like the multiverse gain traction. Not even God could create a multiverse; and out of nothing no less.

 

[Willamena]

I see only 2 possible ways SOURCE came into existence:

1. It has always existed with no beginning and no end. (defies all logic)
2. Magically popped into existence from nothingness. (defies all logic)

Well, thanks for the explanation.

 

[questfortruth]

so there should be nothing, but that's not the case! You are living proof that all this is a miracle!

Wellcome to theism. Grow in faith.