Science and God

[TagliatelliMonster]

He made an implicit rule. Objective reality is all there is

Quote me where I apparantly said that.

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.

No, that's what you are pretending, for some strange reason.
Or rather, that's what you compulsively try to make everything about.

Everybody here understands what is meant when the word "incorrect" is used to describe a statement concerning physical reality. It's a mystery to me why you require that everything is spelled out for you - and even then you still argue with silly semantics and grammatical slide of hand.

So over the years I have been told that I can't be serious about this.

Over the years ha....
You know, when time and again people, independently from one another, come to the same conclusion after conversing with you.... perhaps you should think about that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct.

You say "correct", but it directly contradicts what I was responding to:

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

==> your own words.

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.

1. nobody said that objective reality is all there is

2. nothing in that quote addresses anything in the post you are responding to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I know there is only one correct meaning of truth and that is yours.

Again not at all what I said and a complete dodge of what is actually being said.

That is my point

Your point is a semantic strawmen which by itself is even just a useless tautology?

There is no one correct meaning of truth

"correct"?

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.

That's nice. And irrelevant to the points being discussed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Quote me where I apparantly said that.



No, that's what you are pretending, for some strange reason.
Or rather, that's what you compulsively try to make everything about.

Everybody here understands what is meant when the word "incorrect" is used to describe a statement concerning physical reality. It's a mystery to me why you require that everything is spelled out for you - and even then you still argue with silly semantics and grammatical slide of hand.



Over the years ha....
You know, when time and again people, independently from one another, come to the same conclusion after conversing with you.... perhaps you should think about that.

You got it right. It is about context.
So here it is for context. For all of humanity as parts of the world, there is no one context and you can do all you like to limit the context to objective reality. But that you limit it, is something you do and not a part of objective reality.

Here is what is going on: You want to frame the context about being correct about objective reality. I then break your context by point out, that you wanted to frame it, is not a part of objective reality.
That objective reality matters to you, is for the bold part not a part of objective reality. That is how I break your context. I look at why you use a given context and not another. You frame it because you want the rest of us to accept your frame. I don't accept your frame.

That is relativism. Just as truth have several meanings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That's nice. And irrelevant to the points being discussed.

See the post above about framing. You don't control the framing of the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
1. nobody said that objective reality is all there is
...

Then stop making religion only about the objective reality.

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

religion | Definition & List of Religions

Just accept that some people believe they hold Truth over reality and then keep it simple. I can do it differently that you. That is the falsification of Truth.
And that has nothing to do with religion.
Some people understand the world differently than you and it might be that you don't understand that. Now if you then know, that these humans don't understand it at all or are not truthful or what ever I would like to know, how you know that. Yes, there are cases of lying, but not always, unless you can prove that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You got it right. It is about context.
So here it is for context. For all of humanity as parts of the world, there is no one context and you can do all you like to limit the context to objective reality. But that you limit it, is something you do and not a part of objective reality.

Again with the obfuscation and the worplays.
The point under discussion was not "all of humanity as parts of the world". The context was just a single statement about a single specific thing.

Here is what is going on: You want to frame the context about being correct about objective reality. I then break your context by point out, that you wanted to frame it, is not a part of objective reality.
That objective reality matters to you, is for the bold part not a part of objective reality. That is how I break your context. I look at why you use a given context and not another. You frame it because you want the rest of us to accept your frame. I don't accept your frame.

That is relativism. Just as truth have several meanings.

Here is what is really going on: you are completely incapable of focusing on the point at hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See the post above about framing. You don't control the framing of the world.

We aren't discussing the world. I'm just trying to keep the goalposts from moving.

You can call that "framing" if you want.
I just call it staying on topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then stop making religion only about the objective reality.

I don't even know what that sentence is supposed to mean.

religion | Definition & List of Religions

Just accept that some people believe they hold Truth over reality and then keep it simple. I can do it differently that you. That is the falsification of Truth.
And that has nothing to do with religion.
Some people understand the world differently than you and it might be that you don't understand that. Now if you then know, that these humans don't understand it at all or are not truthful or what ever I would like to know, how you know that. Yes, there are cases of lying, but not always, unless you can prove that.

None of this is on topic. Same old obfuscating semantic drivel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again with the obfuscation and the worplays.
The point under discussion was not "all of humanity as parts of the world". The context was just a single statement about a single specific thing.





Here is what is really going on: you are completely incapable of focusing on the point at hand.

The point at hand is how do science and religion relate to humans. And that you can't do science only as human and that you can't do religion only as human.
The one is objective in its methodology and the other subjective and you do both. You just do your subjective as non-religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We aren't discussing the world. I'm just trying to keep the goalposts from moving.

You can call that "framing" if you want.
I just call it staying on topic.

Yes, science and God are human behaviors and I use that context. Human behavior and its relationship to other part of the world. You know the overall context and topic. How we ought to live as humans. That is what this is always about and how I ought not to believe in God and how you not being religious is better. Or some variations of that. I get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point at hand is how do science and religion relate to humans. And that you can't do science only as human and that you can't do religion only as human.
The one is objective in its methodology and the other subjective and you do both. You just do your subjective as non-religious.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up conversations?

Because that isn't at all, not even remotely, what we were talking about before you steered it into oblivion again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, science and God are human behaviors and I use that context

They aren't.
One is a method of inquiry, the other is a religious deity.
Neither are behaviours.

Human behavior and its relationship to other part of the world. You know the overall context and topic. How we ought to live as humans. That is what this is always about and how I ought not to believe in God and how you not being religious is better. Or some variations of that. I get it.

Clearly, you don't get it at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you sure you aren't mixing up conversations?

Because that isn't at all, not even remotely, what we were talking about before you steered it into oblivion again.

We were talking about objective reality and how that is not all of the world. Just like science is not all of the world nor religion.
Is it a fact that some people don't understand science? Yes.
What is next?
Nothing, because that depends on your or my contexts.
You really shouldn't have reminded mine of contexts.
The words "objective reality" have no context of their own. They are always in relationship to one or more humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They aren't.
One is a method of inquiry, the other is a religious deity.
Neither are behaviours.

And both require humans and humans to behave in a certain way for the words to work.
A method of inquiry requires a human to do it, hence behavior.
God requires a human to believe in that or at least use the word, hence behavior.

Google: Behavior (American English) or behaviour (Commonwealth English) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment ...

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not 100% certain of 'logical absolutes'. Could you give me examples?

I'm not 100% certain that I can.......

 

[Milton Platt]

The joke about uncertainty is that, if I am uncertain, I am certain of that and then I do something else, if able to do so.

You might be convinced, but you can't be certain in the absolute sense. But I'm not certain about that LOL

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might be convinced, but you can't be certain in the absolute sense. But I'm not certain about that LOL

Yes, that is the joke. That you can't be certain in the absolute sense, is absolute.