But you can't see as see a defintion. You see as understand a defintion. You are doing the fallacy of reification.
What definition am I not understanding?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you can't see as see a defintion. You see as understand a defintion. You are doing the fallacy of reification.
A non-believer told me recently they didn't see how someone could be a scientist and believe in God or a higher power or a life after this. I wondered if that was accurate, or maybe if belief/nonbelief varied by what kind of scientist one was. Like, would an astrologist or a neurologist be more or less likely to believe in God or a higher power. Frances Collins, Owen Gingrich, Ben Alexander are a few who came to mind. I poked around a bit looking for information but a lot of what I found was outdated, in the early aughts. Anyone have any info they can provide?
And NOT a yecThere is at least one scientist on RF who holds a belief in God. He's an entomologist.
What a word means is a convention. It is ultimately an agreement between people.
So the meaning of a word is not a scientific question. I don't find that to be a problem because conventions are not questions of truth.
Well, what do *you* mean when you use the word 'physical'? What do you mean when you use the word 'exists'? What is an example of something that actually exists and is not physical?
Again, what a word means is a convention. There is nothing connecting the word 'cat', either as a sequence of letters, or as a sound produced, to the animal *except* that some people have agreed to use that sequence of letters and those sounds to represent that type of animal.
Conventions are not scientific questions. Since definitions are types of conventions, definitions are not scientific questions.
Once the definitions have been agreed to, we can then ask is the universe as a whole, or parts thereof, have the properties.
So, if you don't like my definitions, give yours and explain why they are more appropriate. That is an appropriate use of philosophy.
What definition am I not understanding?
And NOT a yec
Ok, you have a point there. I think I'm maybe stating the case too strongly. Anyway, a couple of examples of the kind of things that are impossible:The word "impossible" doesn't mean anything in that case.
Again, in that case, the word "impossible" doesn't mean anything.
What does it mean then to say that X is "impossible"?
Ok. So how I understand it is:No. The sciences are a methodology for the measurement of what is presented to us. There is nothing about science that requires that what is presented to us is some sort of objective reality.
I've got plenty time for epistemology.If I were going to try to argue your position, I would have considered epitemology a better tack. At least epistemology is a little more pragmatic and therefore ties better to science.
Always a pleasure.Such twaddle
One of my uncle's is a YEC, and a phd chemist. He got his degree some time in the early 70's, and went into pharma. I learned he was a YEC in the 80's and had never even heard of it. Some time later my mom said he was having problems advancing in his feild due to his religious beliefs about evolution. He eventually ended up in management instead of chemistry. But his career was never what it could have been.Oh no, he's not a yec. Like @Polymath257s prospective advisor he realises the bible is not fact, the earth is old, evolution is a thing there was no world flood, etc.
OK. Yes, a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. A description of a thing is not the thing.
I have no idea how to parse this sentence.You can't just observe as observe the meaning of that one, yet you know and understand the meaning.
Funny that this 'subjective knowledge' is shared by everyone. Doesn't that make it objective?That is subjective knowledge as you can even explain how it works. You have subjective knowledge and you use it everyday.
Well some folks are dualists. They believe there is a separate non-physical reality. I'd imagine there are scientists who can keep these to ideas separate from each other in their mind.
Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Leading scientists still reject God - Nature
Keeping in mind this is from 1998.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the case. I have already granted that there is no solution to hard solipsism.If we talk about what kind of objects are presented to us, the causal relationships between the objects presented to us, or how the presentation changes over time we'll still be making metaphysical assumptions. Even if we don't make the further metaphysical assumption that all of it is objectively real or not.
[cheesy grin]I've got plenty time for epistemology.
The man who was going to be my PhD advisor in physics was a theist (he died). Be made a comment before the died that he was excited to ask God all sorts of questions. He was an astrophysicist. He also knew that the universe is billions of years old and not just thousands. He understood that species change over time (evolution at humans are a very recent addition to the species on Earth.
It is certainly possible to believe in a deity and be a scientist. It takes a certain willingness to read the Bible (or other religious text) as allegory and not as literal history, but that is certainly possible.
Hmm...what, precisely, do you mean by the term 'supernatural'? if you define it in contrast to 'natural', what precisely, do you mean by 'natural'?Ok, you have a point there. I think I'm maybe stating the case too strongly. Anyway, a couple of examples of the kind of things that are impossible:
It's logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides.
It's epistemically impossible for a massive body to accelerate to the speed of light.
etc.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules of logic or physics or whatever that rule out supernatural stuff, though.
I'm more inclined to say that we will be making assumptions. And, those assumptions need to be tested. Again, part of the difficulty is figuring out precisely what is mean by 'causality'. This is another concept I have yet to see coherently defined (except in the context of natural laws).Ok. So how I understand it is:
If we talk about what kind of objects are presented to us, the causal relationships between the objects presented to us, or how the presentation changes over time we'll still be making metaphysical assumptions. Even if we don't make the further metaphysical assumption that all of it is objectively real or not.
I've got plenty time for epistemology.
InformativeOne of my uncle's is a YEC, and a phd chemist. He got his degree some time in the early 70's, and went into pharma. I learned he was a YEC in the 80's and had never even heard of it. Some time later my mom said he was having problems advancing in his feild due to his religious beliefs about evolution. He eventually ended up in management instead of chemistry. But his career was never what it could have been.
I don't believe a word you say.The process of thought is physical. To imagine is a thought process. Yes, imagination has no boundaries, but that does not make what all we imagine a truth.
If you are expecting my answers to be what you want to hear, that's not going to happen because Real Truth is not always the agreeable thing you insist that it should be.Have you noticed that no one follows what you are claiming and advising? Only you get it? Have you not read any of the criticism of your posts, and why they are highly flawed? You don't even bother to respond with intellect and evidence.
I am not talking about concepts. God is actually Someone not a concept. Widen that view.You're incapable of explaining that is coherent.
No it doesn't. God concepts are broad and lack evidence, so this is inaccurate. You don't understand this.
Yes, I am confirming there is knowledge beyond that box of Beliefs you have chosen for yourself. By not being open to all possibilities,you have walled yourself from the Real Truth. Why and what is it about that box of beliefs you are living in that you like so well that you choose to be blind to anything else?No. I just have an active BS filter and recognize assumed conclusions when I see them.
What you are asking is not a proper way to search for answers, but rather an attempt at convincing oneselves of a pre-determined answer.
Hence: painting the bullseye around the arrow.
Projection
All you are doing is confirming my point.