Science and God

[mikkel_the_dane]

If by "incorrect", you don't mean "that which doesn't match reality", then I have no idea what you mean by it.

Correct, you identified the problem. It is about different meanings and you have yours for certain words and I have different ones for certain words.
Now here is how it works according to you and your example of the Empire State build. I don't have the correct understanding, so now I am in effect jumping out of a tall building and all the rest. Now I am dead and write this to you as a ghost. Or not!
Your rules for how you understand reality, don't have to be exactly the same as mine. If all there was, was objective reality then I would be dead according to your rules. But I am not, so there is more to the everyday world than objective reality.
It is called subjectivity and yours and mine are for some aspects different. That is how I know that some of your rules of how to understand reality are subjective. It is a fact, that we can do it differently. You are reading about it right now.

You see, you can't understand how I can do it different, because you can't understand it. From there doesn't follow that I can't do it differently. It just means that you can't understand it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

[reposted below due to edits I didn't want to see missed]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wauw....

This is a new low. Even for you.
How on earth can you argue that post without blinking and pretend to being serious?

There we go with emotions again. So again:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

You use correspondence as a rule for truth. It is not the only rule fir truth. You can read it in the link. If you can't understand it, then it doesn't follow that nobody can understand it.
That even has a term: Cognitive relativism:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

You don't own the words and neither do I, I just know that it applies to both of us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where are correct and incorrect if you contrasts them against reality?

They are adjectives. "where is it" is not an appropriate question when "it" is an adjective.

If you contrast them against reality, then they are not in reality, because otherwise you couldn't contrast them against reality.

The statements about reality which are in need of evaluation in context of their potential accuracy, are what is being contrasted against reality.

You know... like a statement about what will happen when jumping from a skyscraper........

Are correct and incorrect in non-reality, un-reality or what ever? If that is so, then what is that, not reality, and where is that?

In all your ridiculous obfuscation and semantics drivel, you forgot to answer the question. Let me rephrase and perhaps you can then give it another go (although I'm quite certain you'll again try and dodge it with your usual trollish games):

If not by testing it against reality, how do you differentiate a correct statement about reality from an incorrect statement about reality?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Reposted from above due to edits I wished to ensure weren't missed

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

Starting over then.

• SETI's failure to find extraterrestrial signs of life does not mean that there is no extraterrestrial life; it only means that SETI didn't find it.
  
• SETI's failure to find signs of extraterrestrial intelligent life does not mean that there is no extraterrestrial intelligent life; it only means that SETI didn't find it.
• SETI searched only a small part of an immense galaxy as radio signal degradation issues prevented deep probing into deeper regions of the galaxy, so SETI's failure is laughably insignificant.
• The lack of intelligent life who was able and willing to send us a reply hardly means that there are no life-sustaining planets; but could possibly mean that the life sustaining planet had no intelligent life.
  
• The claim that the odds of a life-sustaining planet are high does not mean that the odds of a life-sustaining planet are high.
• Even if it were true that the odds are so outlandishly high yet we exist, that does not mean that God did it so it does not mean that science argues for God.

Therefore, the idea that science argues for God because of the odds of a life-sustaining planet and/or because we failed to find evidence of extraterrestrial life through the SETI program is an horribly, laughably poor and utterly, absolutely untrue statement, fallacious argument, illogical and irrational; and that regardless of how you define any of the words above.

To prove Prager's point, you would have to:

• Count how many planets there are in the universe;
• Count how many planets possess all necessary requirements for life;
• Count how many of these planets have life;
• Count how many of these planets have INTELLIGENT life;
  
• Establish Earth as an anomaly, if in fact it was;
• Establish mankind's existence as an intelligent life form as an anomaly, if in fact, it is;
  
• Demonstrate that this could not have occurred through naturalistic means;
• Demonstrate that under these conditions, mankind could not have existed through naturalistic means;
  
• Demonstrably prove the existence of the god responsible;
• Show some kind of correlation between that god and the planet's existence;
• Show some kind of correlation between that god and OUR existence.

So you and Prager U have a lot of work to do....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct, you identified the problem. It is about different meanings and you have yours for certain words and I have different ones for certain words.

The word "incorrect" has only one meaning.

Now here is how it works according to you and your example of the Empire State build. I don't have the correct understanding, so now I am in effect jumping out of a tall building and all the rest. Now I am dead and write this to you as a ghost.

No, you're just dead. Dead people don't write posts.
Because your beliefs were incorrect. You believed they were correct, but you were wrong. This incorrect belief resulted in a bad decision wich ended in death. Because objective reality doesn't care about what you believe.

Because "correct" means that which matches objective reality and "incorrect" means that which doesn't match objective reality.

Believing you can walk away unharmed by jumping from the empire state building, is a belief that does not match objective reality. So it is an incorrect belief.

Again, it's what "incorrect" means.

Your rules for how you understand reality, don't have to be exactly the same as mine. If all there was, was objective reality then I would be dead according to your rules.

If you would jump from the empire state building without technology aiding for a soft landing, you will die every single time. These aren't "my rules". These are the rules of gravity. The rules of objective reality. Your beliefs are irrelevant. So are mine.

Reality doesn't conform to your beliefs. Your beliefs about reality are either correct or incorrect.
Believing you'll walk away unharmed from jumping from a skyscraper, is an incorrect belief.


Give it up already.

But I am not, so there is more to the everyday world than objective reality.

You are not, because you didn't take the jump. If you would take the jump, you'ld be dead. Guaranteed.

It is called subjectivity and yours and mine are for some aspects different.

That you'll die as a direct result of taking the jump, is not a subjective opinion.
It is an objective fact.

That is how I know that some of your rules of how to understand reality are subjective. It is a fact, that we can do it differently.

Sure, you can believe that you'll walk away unharmed from the jump.
But you won't. You can believe you will with every fiber in your body and be utterly convinced of that. But you'ld just be incorrect.

You see, you can't understand how I can do it different, because you can't understand it. From there doesn't follow that I can't do it differently. It just means that you can't understand it.

You can prove me wrong by jumping from a skyscraper and surviving.
Good luck with that.



ps: please don't try to prove me wrong. You will not be succesfull.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They are adjectives. "where is it" is not an appropriate question when "it" is an adjective.
...

Not what they are, where they are and how do you know of them? Are they just magical words? If not, how do they connect to objective reality? Can you see them, touch as feel, manhandle them, what do they smell like, taste like, are they tangible and so? How do you calibrate a scientific instrument to measure them? Where can I find the international measurement standard for them? What scientific law/theory cover them? What are their dimensions, weight, color and so no?
They are a part of objective reality, right? They are properties of things or things themselves? Or they are physical processes, right? Where can I read the science about them and their physical properties?

Well, they are in your head, in your mind. They are mental, not physical and do not correspond to objective reality, because they have no objective properties and are not things themselves.
So you use words, which don't correspond to objective reality.

See, that wasn't that hard, right? Be skeptical of the words you use and not closeminded, you might learn something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The word "incorrect" has only one meaning.
...

Definition of INCORRECT

1 obsolete : not corrected or chastened
2a: INACCURATE, FAULTY an incorrect transcription
b: not true : WRONG incorrect answers
3: UNBECOMING, IMPROPER incorrect behavior

I count more that one.
And back to truth we are:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

I count 5 different versions of truth if you include Tarski's Semantic Theory.
So there is not only one meaning of truth. There are at least 4.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Now here is how it works according to you and your example of the Empire State build. I don't have the correct understanding, so now I am in effect jumping out of a tall building and all the rest. Now I am dead and write this to you as a ghost. Or not!
Your rules for how you understand reality, don't have to be exactly the same as mine. If all there was, was objective reality then I would be dead according to your rules. But I am not, so there is more to the everyday world than objective reality.

I have to bite my tongue with this drivol to keep myself from breaking TOS. Are you seriously suggesting that he believes that someone who doesn't have the correct understanding of reality drops over dead? Is that what you actually, seriously, honestly believe that he is saying!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

[GALLERY=media, 7576]SpockLaughing by NewGuyOnTheBlock posted Jul 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not what they are, where they are and how do you know of them? Are they just magical words? If not, how do they connect to objective reality? Can you see them, touch as feel, manhandle them, what do they smell like, taste like, are they tangible and so? How do you calibrate a scientific instrument to measure them? Where can I find the international measurement standard for them? What scientific law/theory cover them? What are their dimensions, weight, color and so no?
They are a part of objective reality, right? They are properties of things or things themselves? Or they are physical processes, right? Where can I read the science about them and their physical properties?

Well, they are in your head, in your mind. They are mental, not physical and do not correspond to objective reality, because they have no objective properties and are not things themselves.
So you use words, which don't correspond to objective reality.

See, that wasn't that hard, right? Be skeptical of the words you use and not closeminded, you might learn something.

You are insisting that we apply our "objective reality" to semantics ....

Then insist that atheists believe only in objective reality?
Then fault is for it!?

Man, this is GOOD!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have to bite my tongue with this drivol to keep myself from breaking TOS. Are you seriously suggesting that he believes that someone who doesn't have the correct understanding of reality drops over dead? Is that what you actually, seriously, honestly believe that he is saying!?!?!?!?!?!?

No, it is called a reductio ad absurdum.

Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

He made an implicit rule. Objective reality is all there is and here is what happens if you go against objective reality.

We are "fighting" over ,who "owns" the correct understanding of the words, with which we judge each others behavior and if that can be done only with reference to only objective reality.
Since I am a limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist, I don't "play nice" according to some humans, because they can't understand, how I can do it differently.
So over the years I have been told that I can't be serious about this. I can't be serious, because they don't understand, how I understand it differently. What they don't understand, is that they are using projecting, when they claim, I am not serious and what not.

Here is a simple example. For these claims in math, 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 6+6=C and 2+2=5 there are different understandings of whether they are true or not and what true means. Some people will claim based on their own individual understand, that there is only one. They don't account for different cognition. To them there is only one correct cognition for what reality really is including this example.
And I do limited relativism and point out that we humans in effect are different products of nature, nurture and culture. They don't like that and that has nothing to do with religion or not. That is psychology in the end.

Not that psychology is everything, but you can't remove it, when you are dealing with other humans and you have your version and I have mine and in some aspects, they are different.

So I am not "funny" to be around for some humans, because I challenge how they understand reality. They don't like that, because there is to them only one way to do for reality as such in the correct manner. And that has nothing to do with religion and yet it does. Now if you want to do science and religion as 2 different human behaviors and where they overlap and where they differ, we can do that.
But be warned, I am so post.modern, though I am religious, that you might not what to do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are insisting that we apply our "objective reality" to semantics ....

Then insist that atheists believe only in objective reality?
Then fault is for it!?

Man, this is GOOD!
View attachment 31469

You are using emotions.
"Objective reality" and indeed objective reality are words. Now how they work and connect to what ever reality really is, that is the fun part.
Example: The words "elephant" and "no". When I think of an elephant, the elephant is not in my head. When I think of a no, the no is in my head.
The word "elephant" has an objective referent, the word "no" doesn't. So "no" is not in objective reality, yet we use that word without problems.
So what does all versions of "truth" have in common?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it is called a reductio ad absurdum.

Except you haven't followed somebody's proposition logically to an absurd conclusion, you've just taken a totally different proposition and incoherently waffled off on your own tangent to an absurd conclusion.

So I am not "funny" to be around for some humans, because I challenge how they understand reality.

I haven't found what you say at all challenging - just incoherent. I suggest slowing down a bit, paying more attention to what is being said to you, thinking more, and choosing what you write more carefully, rather than the disjointed sort of "stream of consciousness" that you seem to be doing at the moment.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No, it is called a reductio ad absurdum.

In this case, it is a complete misrepresentation of his stand; so not it is not reductio ad absurdum; it is strawman.

He made an implicit rule. Objective reality is all there is and here is what happens if you go against objective reality.

"Believing" against objective reality is different than "going against objective reality"; the latter which implies behavior. When one acts against objective reality, the results are undesirable. Since you like psychology so much, we can both agree that we act upon what we believe. If you believe a given thing that is opposed to objective reality strongly enough, you will act on that belief, and with undesirable outcomes.

We are "fighting" over ,who "owns" the correct understanding of the words, with which we judge each others behavior and if that can be done only with reference to only objective reality.

Well, that's a problem all by itself. Language is abstract; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The objective should be to agree on a definition so that communication and the exchange of ideas is furthered. No one "owns" words.

Since I am a limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist, I don't "play nice" according to some humans, because they can't understand, how I can do it differently.

That's because, when we are talking about how the world works, there is no other way to "do it differently". Everything succumbs to the descriptive laws of science, regardless of whether or not you are a "limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist".

So over the years I have been told that I can't be serious about this. I can't be serious, because they don't understand, how I understand it differently. What they don't understand, is that they are using projecting, when they claim, I am not serious and what not.

Certain things, it doesn't matter "how" you understand them or "if" you do. Some things simply are because that is the way that the universe works. Gravity doesn't care if you understand or accept it; it will accelerate you to earth at a given rate without giving two whims about your cognition.

Here is a simple example. For these claims in math, 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 6+6=C and 2+2=5 there are different understandings of whether they are true or not and what true means. Some people will claim based on their own individual understand, that there is only one. They don't account for different cognition. To them there is only one correct cognition for what reality really is including this example.

Then there is no communication because there are no definitions to any word. Any word means whatever we want it to mean. You may believe that you are using higher logic and reasoning, but what you are really doing is trolling and employing meaningless sophistry.

And I do limited relativism and point out that we humans in effect are different products of nature, nurture and culture. They don't like that and that has nothing to do with religion or not. That is psychology in the end.

Physics, chemistry, etc. doesn't care about your psychology.

Not that psychology is everything, but you can't remove it, when you are dealing with other humans and you have your version and I have mine and in some aspects, they are different.

Psychology is the study of human behavior. To infuse psychology into mathematics (for example) or any other unrelated topic is misusing and misrepresenting both disciplines.

So I am not "funny" to be around for some humans, because I challenge how they understand reality. They don't like that, because there is to them only one way to do for reality as such in the correct manner. And that has nothing to do with religion and yet it does. Now if you want to do science and religion as 2 different human behaviors and where they overlap and where they differ, we can do that.
But be warned, I am so post.modern, though I am religious, that you might not what to do it.

Wasn't that the whole point of this thread?

You are using emotions.
"Objective reality" and indeed objective reality are words. Now how they work and connect to what ever reality really is, that is the fun part.
Example: The words "elephant" and "no". When I think of an elephant, the elephant is not in my head. When I think of a no, the no is in my head.
The word "elephant" has an objective referent, the word "no" doesn't. So "no" is not in objective reality, yet we use that word without problems.
So what does all versions of "truth" have in common?

The topic of this thread is "Science and God" with the claim that science proves god because we broke the odds as presented by Prager U for actually being here so God did it because SETI proved that we are alone in the universe; all of which are fallacious claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Definition of INCORRECT


I count more that one.
And back to truth we are:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

I count 5 different versions of truth if you include Tarski's Semantic Theory.
So there is not only one meaning of truth. There are at least 4.

Keep pretending you don't know which definition applies in the context I am speaking, eventhough I explicitly said it a couple dozen times by now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this case, it is a complete misrepresentation of his stand; so not it is not reductio ad absurdum; it is strawman.

Fair enough, you have a point, Now I am going to cut to the meat

"Believing" against objective reality is different than "going against objective reality"; the latter which implies behavior. When one acts against objective reality, the results are undesirable. Since you like psychology so much, we can both agree that we act upon what we believe. If you believe a given thing that is opposed to objective reality strongly enough, you will act on that belief, and with undesirable outcomes.
...
Well, that's a problem all by itself. Language is abstract; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The objective should be to agree on a definition so that communication and the exchange of ideas is furthered. No one "owns" words.
...
That's because, when we are talking about how the world works, there is no other way to "do it differently". Everything succumbs to the descriptive laws of science, regardless of whether or not you are a "limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativist".

The world is not objective reality. Now I have gone against the world and yet I am not dead. You are confusing different as aspects of the everyday world.

Certain things, it doesn't matter "how" you understand them or "if" you do. Some things simply are because that is the way that the universe works. Gravity doesn't care if you understand or accept it; it will accelerate you to earth at a given rate without giving two whims about your cognition.

Correct

Then there is no communication because there are no definitions to any word. Any word means whatever we want it to mean. You may believe that you are using higher logic and reasoning, but what you are really doing is trolling and employing meaningless sophistry.

But go back to the world is not objective reality and there you have it, You and I don't mean the same with the word "world". I do get objective reality, objective reality is just not the world, it is a part of the world.

Physics, chemistry, etc. doesn't care about your psychology.

But you do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up

Psychology is the study of human behavior. To infuse psychology into mathematics (for example) or any other unrelated topic is misusing and misrepresenting both disciplines.

Which age to teach which kind of math is related to psychology. Then there is dyscalculia. Not all humans have the same understanding of math and some have trouble learning it. Sometimes that is related to psychology.

...
The topic of this thread is "Science and God" with the claim that science proves god because we broke the odds as presented by Prager U for actually being here so God did it because SETI proved that we are alone in the universe; all of which are fallacious claims.

No, it always end up being about the incorrect way to understand objective reality or what ever.

I noticed that you and TagliatelliMonster didn't agree on an aspect of evidence. That is the point. The point is that words are fuzzy at the edges and really funny when you look closer.
So if some says that the moon is made of green cheese, I might check what is at play and let it be.
Now for some fundie religious humans, who claim Objective Authority from God, I simply point that I believe in another God and it involves faith to claim if there are souls, Heaven and Hell and who goes where.

Now for you with non-religion, science, evidence, objective reality, reason and logic I am not that nice, because you claim knowledge and not faith in the end.
So let us look at the claim for above that the world is objective reality. That is not the case, because the world have several meanings and not just one.
E.g. the physical, natural or human world and I use the world to cover all these and not just objective reality.

So you can play with words like the world and objective reality all you like and then I do it differently and yet we are both parts of the world, otherwise we couldn't be doing this.

PS Can you read German?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct, you identified the problem.

Yes, it's the same problem I have identified after the first time your "responded" with your obfuscating shenannigans.

And that problem is that you seem to think that everyone can make up their own definition of words.
They can off course, but it makes communication impossible.

It is about different meanings and you have yours for certain words and I have different ones for certain words.

No. The various meanings are determined by the context in which the word is used. Not by personal opinion.

"This is a light room" means that the room is illuminated. As in, not dark.
"This is a light feather" means that feather doesn't weigh much, as in has low physical mass.
"This is light reading" means that its simple literature. As in not complex, filled with symbolism or jargon, dificult to understand, etc.

The meaning of the world "light" is not a matter of opinion. Nore is it a matter of personal philosophy.
The applicable definition of the word is determined by the context sentence in which it is used. Not by who utters the phrase.

It's called language.

Now here is how it works according to you and your example of the Empire State build. I don't have the correct understanding, so now I am in effect jumping out of a tall building and all the rest. Now I am dead and write this to you as a ghost. Or not!
Your rules for how you understand reality, don't have to be exactly the same as mine. If all there was, was objective reality then I would be dead according to your rules. But I am not, so there is more to the everyday world than objective reality.
It is called subjectivity and yours and mine are for some aspects different. That is how I know that some of your rules of how to understand reality are subjective. It is a fact, that we can do it differently. You are reading about it right now.

There's nothing subjective about what will be the inevitable result of jumping from a skyscraper.
The statement "I will remain unharmed and manage a soft landing" was, is and will be incorrect. (do you still need help determining which definition of "incorrect" applies here? )

No matter if you believe otherwise.

You see, you can't understand how I can do it different, because you can't understand it.

You can't do it differently. There's nothing you can do which would make the statement correct.
The statement is incorrect. No matter what you believe, do, think, say,...


I no longer believe you are sincere.

I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence if I would think otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Keep pretending you don't know which definition applies in the context I am speaking, eventhough I explicitly said it a couple dozen times by now.

Yes, I know there is only one correct meaning of truth and that is yours. Never mind that there are other ones.
That is my point. There is no one correct meaning of truth. I use others than yours and if you can't understand that, then it means, that you can't understand it. Not that I can't do it.
I use a combination of correspondence, coherence, pragmatism, semantics and deflation depending on contexts. I even use some aspects of sociology and so on on truth. I am post-modern; truth is a narrative about the world, for which objective reality is a part of the world and not the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
No. The various meanings are determined by the context in which the word is used. Not by personal opinion.
...

Correct. The world could be in part objective reality, physical, natural or the human world. So if I say the world, I mean all of those combined and I mean it when I say that the world is not the objective reality. And the fact that I can do that, is the evidence for the fact that the world is more that the objective reality.

It is that simple. If there was only the objective reality, then I couldn't write that the world is more than just objective reality.