Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Thief]

Whatever you mean to describe, it sure isn't science.

and at the point of the singularity....science can only step aside.
how about that choice?

 

[Shad]

and you simply want to be stubborn

God first....then substance......

No it is what the word means. Not my problem you do not understand English nor how to use a dictionary.

Empty assertions backed by nothing can be dismissed

 

[Thief]

No it is what the word means. Not my problem you do not understand English nor how to use a dictionary.

Empty assertions backed by nothing can be dismissed

so can a stance that refuses to choose......
get of the fence.....

 

[Shad]

so can a stance that refuses to choose......
get of the fence.....

I am under no obligation to take any stance since no stance has any evidence backing it's views. I am not obligated to take a stance just because you have chosen to follow an assumption based on your faith rather than evidence.

 

[Thief]

I am under no obligation to take any stance since no stance has any evidence backing it's views. I am not obligated to take a stance just because you have chosen to follow an assumption based on your faith rather than evidence.

not really wanting to participate.....are you?

 

[Shad]

not really wanting to participate.....are you?

No, I am just calling assumptions based on no evidence exactly what they are be it God or String theory. Just because you are interested in a game of guess does not mean everyone is obligated to play as well.

 

[leibowde84]

at the point of singularity.
you can't avoid the choice by spreading it over large areas.....
Spirit first?...or substance?

Our understanding of the singularity (if that was actually even the case) is far too undeveloped to make any kind of valid choice. That's my point.

 

[leibowde84]

not really wanting to participate.....are you?

His position that we are all currently far too ignorant scientifically is participating. Just because YOU demand a choice, doesn't mean that making a choice is necessary or even reasonable. I agree that making a choice with such limited information is presumptuous to say the least.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Joy is an emotion, while "God" is a concept, a belief.

Some people argue that they believe in God because they have experienced God (God's presence, joy, love, etc). The evidence for them is a subjective experience. Joy is also a subjective experience. Neither one can be exactly measured in science. You can measure chemicals, nerve signals, and other physical effects, but joy describes the feeling, not the biochemical or physical reactions even if they're the underlying components. No one can point to a specific nerve in our brain that act as the "joy" nerve. Neither can we point to an exact amount of "joy" particles. The feeling is the emergent property of those reactions, into the abstract concept of a subjective emotion, called joy. People who experience "God" are having an experience or emotion as well, but another kind of emotion.

 

[Ouroboros]

Reality is obscured further by all those additional conceivings like "God", "Reality", "Cosmic Consciousness". Get rid of them! It's like you want to see the clear light of day and yet you keep darkening the tint on your glasses.

You think "Reality" is an obscure concept? Reality doesn't exist?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

People who experience "God" are having an experience or emotion as well, but another kind of emotion.

So they are experiencing an emotion which attribute to "God", most likely because they believe in "God" before they experience said emotion.

Meanwhile a non-theist can experience a very similar emotion and not attribute it to "God".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You think "Reality" is an obscure concept? Reality doesn't exist?

The more beliefs you have about "reality" the less likely you are to actually experience it.

 

[Ouroboros]

So they are experiencing an emotion which attribute to "God", most likely because they believe in "God" before they experience said emotion.

Sure.

Meanwhile a non-theist can experience a very similar emotion and not attribute it to "God".

Agree.

My point was that while the feeling is true, the interpretation is personal. How we label what we feel is subjective. Also, that it's not something that we can measure any more than we can measure other feelings, even if they're are actual.

 

[Ouroboros]

The more beliefs you have about "reality" the less likely you are to actually experience it.

I don't understand how you can consider that reality doesn't exist? Theoretical physics contains a lot of beliefs about reality, as far as I can understand. Superstrings, super symmetry, branes, and many other things haven't been proven to be actual or real, yet there's huge amounts of research going on. Science reaches out from where it's at by having beliefs about what it consider reality. But I think I agree that when you reach farther out, there's less experience to what it is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't understand how you can consider that reality doesn't exist?

That wasn't what I said. I said "The more beliefs you have about "reality" the less likely you are to actually experience it." Bearing in mind that we are only capable of directly experiencing a tiny fraction of what is "out there".

To put it another way, subjectivity increases with belief.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I agree that making a choice with such limited information is presumptuous to say the least.

Indeed. I think it's partly to do with uncertainty being quite uncomfortable, people want to arrive at an "answer".

 

[Ouroboros]

That wasn't what I said. I said "The more beliefs you have about "reality" the less likely you are to actually experience it." Bearing in mind that we are only capable of directly experiencing a tiny fraction of what is "out there".

To put it another way, subjectivity increases with belief.

I see. So it's not that reality doesn't exist, but that your experience of it is always different levels of subjective. The problem though that I see with that is that we have basically zero experience of the real reality. Our physical world, on the classical level is composed of a quantum world that we can't experience. In a sense, the quantum world is the "ultimate reality" as far as we can know and prove right now, but we can't experience it. Perhaps the super-symmetry or superstring theory or such will become even more of the "ultimate reality" when (or if) we can prove it to be true, but even that one, we can't experience. So nothing that we experience of the world is really real, so which experience is closer or farther away from a true experience of reality when we can't really compare? Does my question make sense? If not, I'll try to change it up a little.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So it's not that reality doesn't exist, but that your experience of it is always different levels of subjective.

Yes, degrees of subjectivity. Obviously our experience is very limited, our senses only have a limited range. We don't have direct access to the quantum world, our world is governed by Newtonian mechanics and stuff feels solid.
In any case I find the word "reality" very problematic. Talking about "our" reality might be more sensible.

 

[McBell]

well duh.....
science will take you right up to the singularity.....there it stops.
no more equations, photos, fingerprints or repeatable experiments.

at the 'point'.....you're on your own.....choose
Spirit first?....or substance?

So you lied?

Interesting that you still push your false dichotomy.

Are you ever going to define "spirit" in a meaningful and or useful way?

I am not holding my breath.....

 

[McBell]

and you simply want to be stubborn

God first....then substance......

Empty retorts....
You have gotten to be a master of them..