The Science of God.

[MikeF]

........

In effect, I'm claiming that just as we can explain the physics of sight to a blind person (electromagnetic waves cause vibrations on the retina that are transformed into signals interpreted in the brain, etc., etc.,), so too we can explain the physics of God to a person who is "god-blind" in a manner that's not just interesting, or perhaps possible within the laws of physics, and or logic, but in a manner that can reveal to the true agnostic (free of metaphysical suppositions) that God not only exists in "actual reality" but that his presence there is absolutely as tangible, and provable, as the existence of the raw physical energy transformed into the experience of color.
John

Hi John,

I wanted to quickly touch base on this OP. Your approach is neither scientific, nor pseudoscientific. I feel it is important to highlight this for those reading along who may not have a science background.

We are dealing with human thought and perception in the ideas you express above. You are failing to address the fact that we human beings can hold false beliefs or draw erroneous conclusions from a set of data. Additionally, false and erroneous beliefs can be shared by groups of individuals. This fact should be obvious to everyone in light of the events on January 6th at the US Capitol. There was a common false belief shared by those who stormed the Capitol Building, that the 2020 US Presidential Election was stolen in some way.

It is critical when drawing conclusions related to human thought and perception, that we consider all the variables that may be involved. We must bring to bear our current understandings found in the behavioral sciences, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history. This is how science is done. Science has principles and standards that must be adhered to before we can characterize any analysis or conclusion as being scientific. What you have described above is not even close to being scientific.

Less for you, and more for those following along, I think it's important to note that in addition to establishing whether the proposed shared belief is a true belief or a false belief, you have not even precisely defined the belief that we are evaluating. Without the precise definition you cannot evaluate whether it is actually the exact same belief being shared by every member of the group. If it is not, then you must scientifically account for, describe, and reconcile any differences.

This is only a glimpse of how actual science is done. You are not yet in the ballpark.

 

[Thief]

We are dealing with human thought and perception in the ideas you express above. You are failing to address the fact that we human beings can hold false beliefs or draw erroneous conclusions from a set of data. Additionally, false and erroneous beliefs can be shared by groups of individuals. This fact should be obvious to everyone in light of the events on January 6th at the US Capitol. There was a common false belief shared by those who stormed the Capitol Building, that the 2020 US Presidential Election was stolen in some way.

you jumped a line drawn

you went from slighting people not well versed in science.....
to supporting that statement with a political event

 

[Thief]

there are four motivations driving your fellowman

assuming a God.......you perform because God wants you to
someone behind a pulpit will try to convince you of that

Social ideals/politics.....you perform for the sake of your fellowman
someone behind the podium will say....
I have the plan
I have a dream

military......the guy in charge will be wearing a mitlitary unfiorm of some kind
you will abide.....or be shot

last but not least......economy
there's money for the rich man.....a paycheck for you
and the time clock is over 'there'

America is an economically driven society

 

[MikeF]

you jumped a line drawn

you went from slighting people not well versed in science.....
to supporting that statement with a political event

I cited an example fresh in many peoples minds that we human beings can collectively share a false belief. It supports what I am saying, and uses an example that is not about religion, to show that it is not just about religion that we are talking, but rather, human behavior.

I do not believe I was slighting anyone. Not everyone is an expert in everything. I have had a range of experience with others on RF, from those with an incredible breadth of scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines, all the way to some who are actively antagonistic towards science. If someone does not have a science background or through interest engaged in self-study, then they may not have the tools necessary to discern if something being called scientific really is scientific.

I am not an expert in just about anything you care to mention. I am more than happy to lean on, and learn from the expertise of others. Of course, they would have to demonstrate that expertise in some way, and I'm not going to take there word for it. I find myself looking up a lot of words and concepts for some of the discussion I engage in. No shame in that. The more we know, the better we are at drawing sound conclusions.

 

[Thief]

I cited an example fresh in many peoples minds that we human beings can collectively share a false belief. It supports what I am saying, and uses an example that is not about religion, to show that it is not just about religion that we are talking, but rather, human behavior.

I do not believe I was slighting anyone. Not everyone is an expert in everything. I have had a range of experience with others on RF, from those with an incredible breadth of scientific knowledge in a variety of disciplines, all the way to some who are actively antagonistic towards science. If someone does not have a science background or through interest engaged in self-study, then they may not have the tools necessary to discern if something being called scientific really is scientific.

I am not an expert in just about anything you care to mention. I am more than happy to lean on, and learn from the expertise of others. Of course, they would have to demonstrate that expertise in some way, and I'm not going to take there word for it. I find myself looking up a lot of words and concepts for some of the discussion I engage in. No shame in that. The more we know, the better we are at drawing sound conclusions.

a gov survey test went through the school where I attended
strict oversee......timed event

my score in science came back as ....superior

I believe in God because of science

shall we continue?

 

[MikeF]

a gov survey test went through the school where I attended
strict oversee......timed event

my score in science came back as ....superior

I believe in God because of science

shall we continue?

If you would like. You would need you to describe and define your entity in some way so that I know what it is that you are talking about. Then I guess explain why science has convinced you of this entity's existence. It would also be helpful to understand what you mean by science. Are you referring to a specific scientific discipline, say biology, physics, or paleontology, or is it our current understanding in a variety of science disciplines that supports your conclusion on the existence of this entity.

 

[John D. Brey]

Hi John,

I wanted to quickly touch base on this OP. Your approach is neither scientific, nor pseudoscientific. I feel it is important to highlight this for those reading along who may not have a science background.

We are dealing with human thought and perception in the ideas you express above. You are failing to address the fact that we human beings can hold false beliefs or draw erroneous conclusions from a set of data. Additionally, false and erroneous beliefs can be shared by groups of individuals. This fact should be obvious to everyone in light of the events on January 6th at the US Capitol. There was a common false belief shared by those who stormed the Capitol Building, that the 2020 US Presidential Election was stolen in some way.

It is critical when drawing conclusions related to human thought and perception, that we consider all the variables that may be involved. We must bring to bear our current understandings found in the behavioral sciences, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history. This is how science is done. Science has principles and standards that must be adhered to before we can characterize any analysis or conclusion as being scientific. What you have described above is not even close to being scientific.

Less for you, and more for those following along, I think it's important to note that in addition to establishing whether the proposed shared belief is a true belief or a false belief, you have not even precisely defined the belief that we are evaluating. Without the precise definition you cannot evaluate whether it is actually the exact same belief being shared by every member of the group. If it is not, then you must scientifically account for, describe, and reconcile any differences.

This is only a glimpse of how actual science is done. You are not yet in the ballpark.

I'm not sure how to take your statements above since my own statement, of which yours is a response, presented no scientific proposition for testing. It merely claimed that just as we can explain the physics of eyesight to a blind person, I propose we can explain the physics of God to a god-blind person.

I didn't yet attempt to prove my proposition with a testable theorem, or experiment, subject to verification. I merely stated that I believe I can, and may yet.



John

 

[Thief]

define your entity in some way so that I know what it is that you are talking about

Almighty
bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced
coupled to the power of creation.....

Almighty

and it stands to reason.....Someone has to be top of the line life form

Spirit First
substance as creation

 

[MikeF]

Almighty
bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced
coupled to the power of creation.....

Almighty

and it stands to reason.....Someone has to be top of the line life form

Spirit First
substance as creation

So the entity is bigger, but bigger than what exactly? How large are we talking?

And faster than what? A cheetah, a hawk, the speed of sound?

Stronger than what?

Intelligent I kind of get. Is the intelligence similar to human intelligence, only smarter? How much smarter?

Greatly experienced. What does that mean exactly? What kind of experiences are we talking about? Greatly experienced does not seem to imply omniscience. What are the limits of your entity's experience?

You state that it is obvious someone has to be top of the line life form. So your entity is a life form. Given the other descriptors you have used, is the entity a biological life form? If not, does it have a corporeal form? Is it made of matter?

I'm also not sure what it means for a life form to be top of the line, or why a top of the line life form is required?

You have not defined the phrase "Spirit First". I am unfamiliar with it and the significance of the capitalization.

You also need to elaborate on "substance as creation", defining what substance means to you, as well as creation. I'm sure it relates to your entity's power of creation. I must say I am looking forward to the scientific explanation of that power and how it works.

 

[Thief]

"Spirit First". I am unfamiliar with it and the significance of the capitalization.

a form of logic I use....regression

take all that you care to....and consider the item before it
keep going

Someone had to be First

 

[Thief]

I must say I am looking forward to the scientific explanation of that power and how it works.

we get to ask God....HOW He formed that primordial singularity
after we die

I more than suspect.....I AM!.....is synonymous to .....Let there be light!

 

[MikeF]

I'm not sure how to take your statements above since my own statement, of which yours is a response, presented no scientific proposition for testing. It merely claimed that just as we can explain the physics of eyesight to a blind person, I propose we can explain the physics of God to a god-blind person.

I didn't yet attempt to prove my proposition with a testable theorem, or experiment, subject to verification. I merely stated that I believe I can, and may yet.



John

.......
In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself.

......
This is where I mentioned color-blindness in the other thread. The exact same "actual reality" exists for a color-blind person, or animal, as exists for a color-experiencing person or persons. The difference is not in the objective "actual reality," but in the mechanics of subjective interpretation or experience. I'm implying that similarly, the "actual reality," which exists in a true physical sense outside the experiencing person (whether they experience it or not), contains not only the raw "actual reality" that becomes color in some but not others, but also the raw "actual reality" of God, which some people experience, while others don't.

I was addressing what appeared to me to be a presupposition of your thesis described in two threads that just as there is a shared and equivalent perception of the visual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, there is a shared perception of an entity you have labeled "God", and that some cannot perceive this entity you claim to be real, in a way similar to a color blind person not being able to distinguish some bands of the visual light spectrum. However, scientifically you cannot even make the statement that some are unable to perceive the entity, unless its existence where already scientifically established, which it is not. You have the cart before the horse. People cannot be blind to something that doesn't exist.

Perhaps your final thesis will scientifically establish the existence of your entity, that it is this entity that is being observed by multiple observers, and scientifically account for why some can perceive it and others can't. But based on what you have said so far, there seems to be a lot of assumption that the entity is already there and established and you only need to show why some can't perceive it. We shall see if your thesis can address the variable I have highlighted.

 

[MikeF]

a form of logic I use....regression

take all that you care to....and consider the item before it
keep going

Someone had to be First

Did someone have to be first, or could it be something?

 

[Thief]

People cannot be blind to something that doesn't exist.

dark matter.....dark energy

seen by eye?

seen by mind?

 

[Thief]

Did someone have to be first, or could it be something?

substance is not self creating
not 'self' motivated

Spirit First

 

[MikeF]

we get to ask God....HOW He formed that primordial singularity
after we die

I more than suspect.....I AM!.....is synonymous to .....Let there be light!

So how do we scientifically know this strong and fast corporeal top of the line being exists?

 

[Thief]

corporeal

nay

 

[John D. Brey]

I was addressing what appeared to me to be a presupposition of your thesis described in two threads that just as there is a shared and equivalent perception of the visual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, there is a shared perception of an entity you have labeled "God", and that some cannot perceive this entity you claim to be real, in a way similar to a color blind person not being able to distinguish some bands of the visual light spectrum. However, scientifically you cannot even make the statement that some are unable to perceive the entity, unless its existence where already scientifically established, which it is not. You have the cart before the horse. People cannot be blind to something that doesn't exist.

Right. I get what you're saying.

But when I claimed that God is a real physical thing in the objective world prior to passing through the medium of the experiencing subject, say like an electromagnetic vibration experienced as color once it passes through the medium of the experiencing subject, I was merely presenting that possibility as the very hypothesis that I believe I can prove using the scientific method.

In other words, you seem to be confusing my hypothesis with the scientific proof I've not even yet begun to present.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Perhaps your final thesis will scientifically establish the existence of your entity, that it is this entity that is being observed by multiple observers, and scientifically account for why some can perceive it and others can't. But based on what you have said so far, there seems to be a lot of assumption that the entity is already there and established and you only need to show why some can't perceive it. We shall see if your thesis can address the variable I have highlighted.

I think we're on the same sheet of music. I've only presented an abstract hypothesis about something I think I can prove using the scientific method. I've proven nothing yet. I've only presented a context for what I intend to show should the opportunity arise.



John

 

[MikeF]

I think we're on the same sheet of music. I've only presented an abstract hypothesis about something I think I can prove using the scientific method. I've proven nothing yet. I've only presented a context for what I intend to show should the opportunity arise.



John

Then I look forward to the fully formed thesis that adheres to scientific principles and standards.