Science can say nothing about existence of God

[McBell]

If nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts. Then nothing can be greater than the unified sum of all things. This is a working scientific definition of "God" I believe

when are the sum of the parts greater than the whole?

 

[Milton Platt]

Quick question: why is God not a falsifiable concept? And why is that held in high regard by yourself?

Well, yes..although you may claim a god specifically is not falsifiable, if he is said to inetract with the physical way that is at all noticeable (answering prayer, for example or healing people) those specific claims are falsifiable.. In fact, they have been falsified.
If the proposed god does not interact in any way with the natural world, then he may not be falsifiable....but he is also irrelevant.

 

[Milton Platt]

The One-True-God exists only , outside the dimensions, we could perceive or test.
He has bestowed existence to others as per His plans and others would cease to exist as per His plans.

Regards

Provide real hard evidence for your claims and stop preaching baloney

 

[Matthew Jordan]

when are the sum of the parts greater than the whole?

glad we agree

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So why do you claim non-duality to be a woolly syncretism. And if you have experienced it, why do you speak about it as imaginary. No one can say anything meaningful about non-duality...expressions like Samadhi are only concepts that are meant to represent a reality that is on the other side....

You keep claiming that samadhi is somehow inaccessible to atheists, that is just silly.

I didn't claim non-duality to be a woolly syncretism, I said that woolly syncretism is what you propose. But there is too much misrepresentation and false equivalence in your approach, and you see everything through your theist lens.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But it started as a hypothesis...an intuitive guess if you like...

The primary school understanding of "science" in which this mythical creature- The Scientific Method- somehow characterizes scientific inquiry is doubly problematic here: on the one hand, would-be stalwart defenders of "science" who aren't typically scientists (or are, but are simplifying so greatly as to distort) try to "correct" the idea that evolutionary theory is "just a theory" by describing "theory" as something that a "hypothesis" becomes after suitable testing. This is nonsense. In reality, theories can be extremely speculative and even completely unsupported by any empirical tests, such as with M-theory. Or they could be so unbelievably well-founded that entire sciences are built upon them and research in a wide variety of fields constantly confirm the core of the theory, such as with evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, this mythical, stepwise, procedural distortion of science (The Scientific Method) apparently motivates creationists and ID proponents to offer would-be critiques of evolutionary theory by pointing to the description of science in children's textbooks. Not all theories start out as hypotheses, not all hypotheses start out as guesses (or intuitive), and in the case of evolution the intuitive "guess" pre-dated Darwin, Darwin's work showed it to be false, and evolutionary theory has subsequently showed that both Darwin's approach and the original have problems and empirical support. Theories are frameworks. They are supported as they are extended (even altered). Evolutionary theory at its core is still very much Darwinian, but elements of Lamarckian theory have been established, the findings in genetics from Mendel beyond Watson & Crick have been incorporated, and even as particular conceptions of evolutionary theory have been falsified this has served to extend and support the entire theory more generally.

And if a theory is falsified at any point in time.....the theory is withdrawn.

Wrong. If this were true, the discovery of genes would have shown evolutionary theory to be wrong, because Darwin didn't say word 1 about genes. Or the discovery that species can adapt by altering the fitness of other species via symbiotic relationships and similar relationships/processes (e.g., bees and flowers, remora/sharks, even humans and plenty of species) would have forever banished this "survival of the fittest" mechanism for adaption. Only none of this happened. Because genetics (and epigenetics) turned out not only to be compatible with Darwinian evolution, it bettered it. Competition still drives adaption, but cooperation among species has been incorporated into evolutionary theory and exists alongside the classical Darwinian evolution of the survival of the fittest.
Theories aren't generally falsified, even those we know to be wrong (e.g., every theory in classical physics remains). Usually they are either retained as useful, adapted or updated, or they are extended. Falsification remains a very important tool in the sciences (while this notion that everything starts with a hypothesis that is then tested until it becomes "theory" continues to plague misunderstandings about scientific inquiry), but when subsequent work fails to confirm some previous finding this is almost never the falsification of any theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The primary school understanding of "science" in which this mythical creature- The Scientific Method- somehow characterizes scientific inquiry is doubly problematic here: on the one hand, would-be stalwart defenders of "science" who aren't typically scientists (or are, but are simplifying so greatly as to distort) try to "correct" the idea that evolutionary theory is "just a theory" by describing "theory" as something that a "hypothesis" becomes after suitable testing. This is nonsense. In reality, theories can be extremely speculative and even completely unsupported by any empirical tests, such as with M-theory. Or they could be so unbelievably well-founded that entire sciences are built upon them and research in a wide variety of fields constantly confirm the core of the theory, such as with evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, this mythical, stepwise, procedural distortion of science (The Scientific Method) apparently motivates creationists and ID proponents to offer would-be critiques of evolutionary theory by pointing to the description of science in children's textbooks. Not all theories start out as hypotheses, not all hypotheses start out as guesses (or intuitive), and in the case of evolution the intuitive "guess" pre-dated Darwin, Darwin's work showed it to be false, and evolutionary theory has subsequently showed that both Darwin's approach and the original have problems and empirical support. Theories are frameworks. They are supported as they are extended (even altered). Evolutionary theory at its core is still very much Darwinian, but elements of Lamarckian theory have been established, the findings in genetics from Mendel beyond Watson & Crick have been incorporated, and even as particular conceptions of evolutionary theory have been falsified this has served to extend and support the entire theory more generally.


Wrong. If this were true, the discovery of genes would have shown evolutionary theory to be wrong, because Darwin didn't say word 1 about genes. Or the discovery that species can adapt by altering the fitness of other species via symbiotic relationships and similar relationships/processes (e.g., bees and flowers, remora/sharks, even humans and plenty of species) would have forever banished this "survival of the fittest" mechanism for adaption. Only none of this happened. Because genetics (and epigenetics) turned out not only to be compatible with Darwinian evolution, it bettered it. Competition still drives adaption, but cooperation among species has been incorporated into evolutionary theory and exists alongside the classical Darwinian evolution of the survival of the fittest.
Theories aren't generally falsified, even those we know to be wrong (e.g., every theory in classical physics remains). Usually they are either retained as useful, adapted or updated, or they are extended. Falsification remains a very important tool in the sciences (while this notion that everything starts with a hypothesis that is then tested until it becomes "theory" continues to plague misunderstandings about scientific inquiry), but when subsequent work fails to confirm some previous finding this is almost never the falsification of any theory.

So are you are implying Feynman's understanding is in error....that Darwin bypassed the intuitive phase and the theory of evolution was born without the need for any scientific review of a hypothesis?

I was referring to any new theory proposed in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed and accepted as being correct or at least plausible at a given time... As for evolutionary theory...there are still lots of unknowns as to the genesis of awareness and life force... Science is not able to show that life came from non-life...or awareness arose from unawareness...

 

[Milton Platt]

So are you are implying Feynman's understanding is in error....that Darwin bypassed the intuitive phase and the theory of evolution was born without the need for any scientific review of a hypothesis?

I was referring to any new theory proposed in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed and accepted as being correct or at least plausible at a given time... As for evolutionary theory...there are still lots of unknowns as to the genesis of awareness and life force...atheists are not able to show that life came from non-life...or awareness arose from unawareness...

Just wanted to point out that you are conflating atheism with biology. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It is biology and other scientific disiplines which support the theory of abiogenesis. True, most atheists accept these theories, as most arrived at their positions through consideration of evidence and critical thinking, but they aren't in the business of figuring these things out. They just have accepted the evidence.

And by the way, theists cannot demonstrate that a creator produced life, either.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just wanted to point out that you are conflating atheism with biology. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It is biology and other scientific disiplines which support the theory of abiogenesis. True, most atheists accept these theories, as most arrived at their positions through consideration of evidence and critical thinking, but they aren't in the business of figuring these things out. They just have accepted the evidence.

And by the way, theists cannot demonstrate that a creator produced life, either.

Sorry..you were responding to a soon to be corrected comment....I had edited my post 9 minutes before you posted to reflect that I was referring to science rather than atheism...

 

[Milton Platt]

Sorry..you were responding to a soon to be corrected comment....I had edited my post 9 minutes before you posted to reflect that I was referring to science rather than atheism...

No problem. I tend to edit the heck out of my posts sometimes.

 

[McBell]

glad we agree

The spoiler tag did not work...

The answer is when repacking a vacation suitcase.

 

[gnostic]

I was referring to any new theory proposed in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed and accepted as being correct or at least plausible at a given time... As for evolutionary theory...there are still lots of unknowns as to the genesis of awareness and life force..

That's because evolution is not about genesis of awareness or life force.

The evolution in biology is about biodiversity, not about the first life.

If you want to talk about the origin of first life, then you should focus on abiogenesis, not evolution.

You are doing the same thing as Christian creationists do, relying on misinformation...but if you not being dishonest, then you should do a little research (and educate yourself) on abiogenesis, instead of evolution, because you are focusing on the wrong scientific field.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So are you are implying Feynman's understanding is in error

No, I'm saying that you don't understand Feynman any more than you do evolutionary theory or the so-called scientific method. Even in your little clip, intended to be a simplification for educational purposes (not for practicing scientists) we find qualifications such as "in general" and moreover that the discussion isn't about The Scientific Method but specific to ONE science (physics) and ONE aspect of that science (new "laws", not theories). In fact, in your little clip (your attempt to fallaciously appeal to authority), we find no mention of the scientific mention or even of theory. Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of scientific inquiry and evolutionary theory by appealing to a minute of one part of one presentation of Feynman's simplifications is all the more obviously intellectually bereft and dishonest because he doesn't actually refer to theories or even the scientific method. He describes a process for deriving physical laws.
But yes, he's completely wrong. What's more, he knows what he is saying is wrong.
My father was a physics major at Cornell, and as a gift his mother later bought him the 3 volumes Lectures on Physics by Feynman. So I grew up reading Feynman, including e.g., "Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to...Even the experts do not understand it...We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience."
(California Institute of Technology, 1965; emphasis added).
He also notes (in the first volume) of the different problems faced by different scientists outside of physics, from the biologists and chemists to the psychologist. He thus clearly recognizes that there is no one way in which the sciences progress, nor is there any falsification process that is as clear as he simplifies in the tiny portion of a lecture you offer (in fact, he refers in these lectures to the several century procedure of testing whether or not light was a wave or a particle, the falsification and confirmation of both, and the final conclusion: neither is true).

...that Darwin bypassed the intuitive phase and the theory of evolution was born without the need for any scientific review of a hypothesis?

Your little clip stated nothing about Darwin or the scientific method. It was mainly quote-mining YouTube (apparently, you didn't have the wherewithal to bother even to quote-mine Feynman, but relied on the editing of media by others).

I was referring to any new theory proposed in a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed and accepted as being correct or at least plausible at a given time

Then you don't understand how theory, peer-review, or the sciences more generally work. There is almost NEVER any theory proposed in any scientific paper. Special relativity was proposed in a single paper, but even this wasn't proposed as a theory. It was developed from electromagnetism and required theory in order for its development (the constancy of light, which was already developed via classical electromagnetic theory). Feynman's work, even the Nobel prize-winning discoveries in quantum field theory, were developed out of theory (specifically, quantum mechanics, classical field theory, and relativistic physics). This simplistic notion that "theory" is simply what happens after some hypothesis is tested is nonsense, and Feynman is hardly the first to say so (still less the last).

... As for evolutionary theory...there are still lots of unknowns as to the genesis of awareness and life force

We know almost nothing about gravity. It is explained one way according to the second most successful theory of all time (general relativity), and cannot be explained that way in the most successful physical theory of all time (quantum theory). Yet, somehow, when you drop things they still fall. It is entirely possible (indeed, it is the norm) for scientific theories to be incomplete, inadequate, or even flawed yet still to know what portions of them are closer to fact than mere observational confirmation. There are VASTLY more unknowns in modern medicine, but I have never found someone who refused antibacterial lotions or medicines because our ability to model whole cells is basically nonexistent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You keep claiming that samadhi is somehow inaccessible to atheists, that is just silly.

I didn't claim non-duality to be a woolly syncretism, I said that woolly syncretism is what you propose. But there is too much misrepresentation and false equivalence in your approach, and you see everything through your theist lens.

But I consistently say that the reality represented by the concept of non-duality is the same reality as the that represented by concepts such as Tao...Brahman...Nirvana.... If you reject this...please explain your reason....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I'm saying that you don't understand Feynman any more than you do evolutionary theory or the so-called scientific method. Even in your little clip, intended to be a simplification for educational purposes (not for practicing scientists) we find qualifications such as "in general" and moreover that the discussion isn't about The Scientific Method but specific to ONE science (physics) and ONE aspect of that science (new "laws", not theories). In fact, in your little clip (your attempt to fallaciously appeal to authority), we find no mention of the scientific mention or even of theory. Your attempt to mischaracterize the nature of scientific inquiry and evolutionary theory by appealing to a minute of one part of one presentation of Feynman's simplifications is all the more obviously intellectually bereft and dishonest because he doesn't actually refer to theories or even the scientific method. He describes a process for deriving physical laws.
But yes, he's completely wrong. What's more, he knows what he is saying is wrong.
My father was a physics major at Cornell, and as a gift his mother later bought him the 3 volumes Lectures on Physics by Feynman. So I grew up reading Feynman, including e.g., "Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to...Even the experts do not understand it...We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience."
(California Institute of Technology, 1965; emphasis added).
He also notes (in the first volume) of the different problems faced by different scientists outside of physics, from the biologists and chemists to the psychologist. He thus clearly recognizes that there is no one way in which the sciences progress, nor is there any falsification process that is as clear as he simplifies in the tiny portion of a lecture you offer (in fact, he refers in these lectures to the several century procedure of testing whether or not light was a wave or a particle, the falsification and confirmation of both, and the final conclusion: neither is true).

Your little clip stated nothing about Darwin or the scientific method. It was mainly quote-mining YouTube (apparently, you didn't have the wherewithal to bother even to quote-mine Feynman, but relied on the editing of media by others).


Then you don't understand how theory, peer-review, or the sciences more generally work. There is almost NEVER any theory proposed in any scientific paper. Special relativity was proposed in a single paper, but even this wasn't proposed as a theory. It was developed from electromagnetism and required theory in order for its development (the constancy of light, which was already developed via classical electromagnetic theory). Feynman's work, even the Nobel prize-winning discoveries in quantum field theory, were developed out of theory (specifically, quantum mechanics, classical field theory, and relativistic physics). This simplistic notion that "theory" is simply what happens after some hypothesis is tested is nonsense, and Feynman is hardly the first to say so (still less the last).


We know almost nothing about gravity. It is explained one way according to the second most successful theory of all time (general relativity), and cannot be explained that way in the most successful physical theory of all time (quantum theory). Yet, somehow, when you drop things they still fall. It is entirely possible (indeed, it is the norm) for scientific theories to be incomplete, inadequate, or even flawed yet still to know what portions of them are closer to fact than mere observational confirmation. There are VASTLY more unknowns in modern medicine, but I have never found someone who refused antibacterial lotions or medicines because our ability to model whole cells is basically nonexistent.

Ok...so you believe you are right and Richard Feynman is wrong....I can live with that... but I am sure most scientists would not...why don't you put it to the test and ask them...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok...so you believe you are right and Richard Feynman is wrong

No, I believe your pathetic little attempt to misinterpret Feynman is OBVIOUSLY contradicted by anybody whose actually STUDIED Feynman's works or lectures (rather than a minute of one part of one lecture taken out of context). I believe this because unlike you I've actually read his works, not just watched a minute of one youtube video. And to indicate this, I've quoted one of his most famous lecture series, to show how completely you've tried to force what he said to fit your own context, not his.

...I can live with that... but I am sure most scientists would not...why don't you put it to the test and ask them...

I have. My field is complex systems (in particular, neuroscience). But academia doesn't pay that well, so most of my income comes from private consult work. I am a research consultant. What you suggest I ask of other scientists is quite literally what they pay me to inform them concerning. You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and this would be clear to some of my undergrad students (the ones who pay attention). Your misrepresentation of Feynman's perspective would be obvious to anybody familiar with his work, and your misunderstanding of his methods and those of scientists more generally even more so.
Try again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I believe your pathetic little attempt to misinterpret Feynman is OBVIOUSLY contradicted by anybody whose actually STUDIED Feynman's works or lectures (rather than a minute of one part of one lecture taken out of context). I believe this because unlike you I've actually read his works, not just watched a minute of one youtube video. And to indicate this, I've quoted one of his most famous lecture series, to show how completely you've tried to force what he said to fit your own context, not his.

I have. My field is complex systems (in particular, neuroscience). But academia doesn't pay that well, so most of my income comes from private consult work. I am a research consultant. What you suggest I ask of other scientists is quite literally what they pay me to inform them concerning. You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and this would be clear to some of my undergrad students (the ones who pay attention). Your misrepresentation of Feynman's perspective would be obvious to anybody familiar with his work, and your misunderstanding of his methods and those of scientists more generally even more so.
Try again.

So how do you think your neuroscience skills helps you to understand the reality and context of religious teachings?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So how do you think your neuroscience skills helps you to understand the reality and context of religious teachings?

I don't (I think my degree in ancient Greek and Latin does, as well as other skills, information, and education here, but that isn't really relevant). The question is why you would misconstrue Feynman in a fallacious appeal to authority in an attempt to mischaracterize evolutionary theory during your utterly inaccurate description of the process of scientific inquiry so as to....? What? What part of any of this is a challenge to evolution (or anything, as all that you have asserted has thus far rested upon taking a minute of Feynman's career out of context)?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But I consistently say that the reality represented by the concept of non-duality is the same reality as the that represented by concepts such as Tao...Brahman...Nirvana....

So do you now accept that this "reality" is accessible to non-theists as well as theists, and that in fact such experiences are nothing to with belief in God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't (I think my degree in ancient Greek and Latin does, as well as other skills, information, and education here, but that isn't really relevant). The question is why you would misconstrue Feynman in a fallacious appeal to authority in an attempt to mischaracterize evolutionary theory during your utterly inaccurate description of the process of scientific inquiry so as to....? What? What part of any of this is a challenge to evolution (or anything, as all that you have asserted has thus far rested upon taking a minute of Feynman's career out of context)?

You need to go back and reread the thread....my posting of the Feynman clip was not directly in the context of evolution...if you doubt me...please go back to my original post and quote me precisely and provide context and post # number if possible..