The Science of God.

[John D. Brey]

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

Noam Chomsky once said that he'll believe in scientific-materialism the moment someone gives him scientific evidence that solid matter exists in the universe. Elon Musk, when asked whether he believed we might exist in a computer simulation said that the odds that we live in base reality are a billion-to-one.

Both statements bolster theories related to Bishop George Berkeley's own evidence for the existence of God. In league with Chomsky and Musk, Berkeley presented cogent arguments for the fact that all alleged solid material is in truth merely information, idea, or mind. According to Berkeley there's two kinds of ideas or minds, God's, and ours; and they interact to create the perception of reality that's the combination of the two: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

That's all old hat. What's new comes from the brilliant work of the philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper. Popper added a necessary key to moving beyond Berkeley's incomplete scientific proof of the existence of God. With the help of Karl Popper, we can, if not complete Berkeley's life-work on providing scientific evidence for the existence of God, at least take a giant step in that direction.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

That's all old hat. What's new comes from the brilliant work of the philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper. Popper added a necessary key to moving beyond Berkeley's incomplete scientific proof of the existence of God. With the help of Karl Popper, we can, if not complete Berkeley's life-work on providing scientific evidence for the existence of God, at least take a giant step in that direction.

Popper helps clarify or even modify Berkeley's evidence for the existence of God when he makes one of his most fundamental propositions concerning the source of the modern scientific endeavor. Popper dumbfounded his audience when he claimed that not only is religious mythology the source of the modern scientific endeavor, but that the dogmatic pronouncements of religion and myth present the very ideas or concepts that lead to scientific growth and advancement.

In the thread become essay, Popper's "Systematic Observations," the groundwork for new evidence for the existence of God in the work of Popper was established by sniffing out precisely what moved Popper to claim that religious myth and dogma were, far from being antithetical to the modern scientific enterprise (as the typical science-minded person might suppose), instead the very source, the life-blood, of scientific enterprise.

That's obviously a pretty remarkable proposition coming from someone who spent his entire life studying the history and development of the scientific-method; someone with close friendships to the likes of Albert Einstein, who, the latter, mostly agreed, and spoke in league with Popper's presentation of the genesis and mechanisms for the growth of the scientific endeavor.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

That's obviously a pretty remarkable proposition coming from someone who spent his entire life studying the history and development of the scientific-method; someone with close friendships to the likes of Albert Einstein, who, the latter, mostly agreed, and spoke in league with Popper's presentation of the genesis and mechanisms for the growth of the scientific endeavor.

What's absolutely key to this thread, in the theories of Popper ---concerning the birth and growth of science ----requires understanding in a precise manner what it is about religious myth and dogma that makes Popper believe that it's the very genesis, source, and life-blood of the modern scientific endeavor? He intuits something profound regarding the genesis of science in the thinking of the religious high priests and their dogmas. But he never seems able to put his finger on precisely what it is about the thoughts of the religious myth-makers that's a necessary requirement for the establishment and growth of modern scientific thinking.

We on the other hand shall since that understanding is key to new evidence for the existence of God.



John

 

[ratiocinator]

Noam Chomsky once said that he'll believe in scientific-materialism the moment someone gives him scientific evidence that solid matter exists in the universe. Elon Musk, when asked whether he believed we might exist in a computer simulation said that the odds that we live in base reality are a billion-to-one.

Both statements bolster theories related to Bishop George Berkeley's own evidence for the existence of God. In league with Chomsky and Musk, Berkeley presented cogent arguments for the fact that all alleged solid material is in truth merely information, idea, or mind. According to Berkeley there's two kinds of ideas or minds, God's, and ours; and they interact to create the perception of reality that's the combination of the two: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

That's all old hat. What's new comes from the brilliant work of the philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper. Popper added a necessary key to moving beyond Berkeley's incomplete scientific proof of the existence of God. With the help of Karl Popper, we can, if not complete Berkeley's life-work on providing scientific evidence for the existence of God, at least take a giant step in that direction.

It frankly doesn't matter a jot if the 'real world' is real or not, whether it contains 'solid matter' (whatever you think that means) or not, whether it's a simulation or some kind of shared delusion or not. The fact is that it is qualitatively different to the other things in our minds and it is unavoidable. In other words, if it isn't real it might as well be.

What we can also say is that it behaves with enough reliability for us to do science. Moving to Popper, that means producing testable and falsifiable hypotheses about it. As soon as you can produce a testable and falsifiable god hypothesis, I will think there might be some reason to take it seriously. Questioning the reality of the 'real world' gets you nowhere towards that end.

Perhaps you could post some actual reasoning or evidence, rather than just name-dropping?

 

[MikeF]

It frankly doesn't matter a jot if the 'real world' is real or not, whether it contains 'solid matter' (whatever you think that means) or not, whether it's a simulation or some kind of shared delusion or not. The fact is that it is qualitatively different to the other things in our minds and it is unavoidable. In other words, if it isn't real it might as well be.

What we can also say is that it behaves with enough reliability for us to do science. Moving to Popper, that means producing testable and falsifiable hypotheses about it. As soon as you can produce a testable and falsifiable god hypothesis, I will think there might be some reason to take it seriously. Questioning the reality of the 'real world' gets you nowhere towards that end.

Perhaps you could post some actual reasoning or evidence, rather than just name-dropping?

I was not sure how I was going to address John's three long posts in a clear and concise way. I no longer need try. Very nice response.