What does science think will disprove God?And what do Christians think will prove God?

[MikeF]

IMO

• Philosophy is different to science. Philosophy sits separately. Let me try and explain quickly, although I expect you to try and change philosophy altogether. Science is defined by philosophy, but science works inside a philosophical framework. The scientific method is philosophical discourse, not proven inside a lab. So the scientific framework, is philosophy.

• I never said its inerrant, so that's a strawman.

• That too is a strawman.

When I asked whether you considered your concept of philosophy to be inerrant and immune to human failing, I am not making a strawman argument, I am simply asking for information. And it is now my understanding that you do not consider philosophy inerrant and immune to human failing.

The words 'philosophy' and 'science' are simply labels. The term philosophy, from the Greek philosophia "love of widsom", at its core simply means the study of fundamental questions about how the world works and why. The labels do not matter. What matters is that during the Enlightenment period, a sub-category of philosophy began to acknowledge that the human observer of the world was not a reliable observer. When this sub-category of philosophy began to create principles and standards to compensate and mitigate for the errors caused by the unreliable, imperfect human investigator, that branch of philosophy began to make great strides in answering the questions it set before itself.

Therefore, if all philosophy (questions about how the world works and why) is conducted by human beings, and human beings are fallible and imperfect, should not all philosophy be conducted in such a manner as to mitigate and compensate for the imperfect human investigator? The answer is yes.

If you are investigating questions about how the world works and why and making a concerted effort to mitigate human error, then that is science. If you are investigating those same questions and expressly avoiding any attempt to mitigate human error, you are disingenuous in your pursuits.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But as I said, if they're recognized by physics, then they're part of materialism by my definition. The absence of a consensus, or the existence of minority opinions, reflects the fact that there are no absolute statements about reality, since our understanding of it changes with time. Or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.
While what you say is correct, I think there still remains a deep divide between those who explore reality to see what reality can tell the as-impartial-as-possible observer about itself, and those who wish to attribute supernatural features to reality.

What you are acknowledging here is that symbolism and metaphor form part of the foundation of your world view. As they do for all of us, though we often do not see it.

In your case, you say that recognition by physics - by which you presumably mean the current prevailing orthodoxy amongst physicists, where such exists - is your source of validation. Which is perhaps as good a method of validating reality as any other, but certainly not the only method. And one may adopt more than one approach to the investigation of the world, in order to form the broadest perspective or most revealing paradigm.

 

[firedragon]

When I asked whether you considered your concept of philosophy to be inerrant and immune to human failing, I am not making a strawman argument, I am simply asking for information. And it is now my understanding that you do not consider philosophy inerrant and immune to human failing.

Thats another strawman.

The words 'philosophy' and 'science' are simply labels.

I told you that you will attempt at changing philosophy. You will even try to change all definitions.

Therefore, if all philosophy (questions about how the world works and why) is conducted by human beings, and human beings are fallible and imperfect, should not all philosophy be conducted in such a manner as to mitigate and compensate for the imperfect human investigator? The answer is yes.

Everything is like that.

If you are investigating questions about how the world works and why and making a concerted effort to mitigate human error, then that is science. If you are investigating those same questions and expressly avoiding any attempt to mitigate human error, you are disingenuous in your pursuits.

So who is avoiding any attempt to mitigate human error? Strawman???

So any more strawman attempts?

 

[Audie]

What you are acknowledging here is that symbolism and metaphor form part of the foundation of your world view. As they do for all of us, though we often do not see it.

In your case, you say that recognition by physics - by which you presumably mean the current prevailing orthodoxy amongst physicists, where such exists - is your source of validation. Which is perhaps as good a method of validating reality as any other, but certainly not the only method. And one may adopt more than one approach to the investigation of the world, in order to form the broadest perspective or most revealing paradigm.

Depends on which approaches you use.

Magical thinking is lousy.
Some few others could be mentioned.

What do you consider to be good ones.

 

[Nakosis]

If science follows naturalism, how would evidence for a supernatural be presented?

Thats an oxymoron.

That certainly seems to be the case so far.
However, I'm not going to assume that God is an unnatural process.

 

[firedragon]

That certainly seems to be the case so far.
However, I'm not going to assume that God is an unnatural process.

You should make the distinction between supernatural and unnatural.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

If you mean to say that god(s) is/are detectable, then please share the objective way in which that can be done.

One comes to God through prayer and meditation, generally. Or rather, when we practice these disciplines selflessly, in the right spirit, God comes to us.

Though in truth, we are never far away from the sunlight of the spirit. The problem is the ego - it’s generally that which eclipses the light.

 

[Nakosis]

You should make the distinction between supernatural and unnatural.

That's no fun.

Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural. Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural. Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural.
As adjectives the difference between unnatural and supernatural is that unnatural is not natural; supernatural or artificial while supernatural is above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by god or some force beyond that which humans are born with in roman catholic theology, is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.
As a noun supernatural is (countable) a supernatural being.

 

[firedragon]

That's no fun.

Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural. Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural. Unnatural is a synonym of supernatural.
As adjectives the difference between unnatural and supernatural is that unnatural is not natural; supernatural or artificial while supernatural is above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by god or some force beyond that which humans are born with in roman catholic theology, is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.
As a noun supernatural is (countable) a supernatural being.

You got it right. If one does not know the difference between unnatural and supernatural, I dont know how these discussions could be made. Its like kindergarten.

Cheers.

 

[viole]

That depends on what version of science you use. I have another version of science.

I bet. My creationist friend has his own version, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Whether there would be a natural world to explain, without a Unifying Creative Force, is another matter, and one generally considered to fall outside the remit of science (although demarcation has never been entirely clear).

Well, if the natural world would need an explanation, then it is not clear why the creative force would not.

So, again, that would,d be superfluous.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

One comes to God through prayer and meditation, generally. Or rather, when we practice these disciplines selflessly, in the right spirit, God comes to us.

Though in truth, we are never far away from the sunlight of the spirit. The problem is the ego - it’s generally that which eclipses the light.

We dont suppose youve done a good
analysis of how profoundly your own ego
keeps you from seeing past your eyelids?

 

[Audie]

Well, if the natural world would need an explanation, then it is not clear why the creative force would not.

So, again, that would,d be superfluous.

Ciao

- viole

Did you study fencing?

 

[viole]

Did you study fencing?

Nope, Why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Nope, Why?

Ciao

- viole

Your posting style.

Quick, pointed, and right through the heart.

Sure bears multiple paragtaphs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Depends on which approaches you use.

Magical thinking is lousy.
Some few others could be mentioned.

What do you consider to be good ones.

Not quite sure what you mean by magical thinking. If you are referring to mythology, I would argue that a lot of wisdom is contained in myth, when you know how to read with an open and enquiring mind.

Mythology from the lexicons of Homer, The Bible, The Bhagavad Gita and I’m sure countless other sources, contain rich veins of psychological, philosophical and spiritual insight, but you have to know how to mine them.

More than this, I consider artists and poets to be every bit as much the true visionaries of this world, as are physicists and chemists. The likes of Dante Alighieri, John Milton*, William Blake, Keats and Shelley*, Tolstoy and Mikhael Bulgakov have contributed as much to offer in terms of opening our eyes to the world, as have Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr etc.

Sorry that list looks a little Anglo centric. You can add Matsuo Basho, Ryokan and Hokusai to the list of poets and artists. And any number of ancient Chinese philosophers. Both Confucian and Taoist thinking strikes me as having been both more subtle and more selfless than that of Socrates and Aristotle, for example. Though my knowledge here is shallow.

*If you want help interpreting Biblical mythology, read Milton. For Greek, read Keats and Shelley (read those two great rivals in tandem, as they should be read).

 

[RestlessSoul]

We dont suppose youve done a good
analysis of how profoundly your own ego
keeps you from seeing past your eyelids?

You can suppose anything you like. If such supposition comforts you, I’m happy to have been of service.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Thats another strawman.

Well, I don't see it as such, since I didn't think an argument was being made. Just looking to find common ground, a point of consensus.

I told you that you will attempt at changing philosophy. You will even try to change all definitions.

Not trying to change philosophy, just trying to clarify what is being referred to when that generic term is used.

"MikeF said: ↑
Therefore, if all philosophy (questions about how the world works and why) is conducted by human beings, and human beings are fallible and imperfect, should not all philosophy be conducted in such a manner as to mitigate and compensate for the imperfect human investigator? The answer is yes."​

Everything is like that.

Excellent. See, we are finding common ground, points we agree on.

So who is avoiding any attempt to mitigate human error?

I would say that you are by suggesting that the only way to prove the existence of 'God' is through philosophical argument. Absent the observation of a physical phenomenon in some way, there is no way for philosophical arguments to distinguish between what might be true and what is purely imagined. And if there is physical evidence, then it would presumably fit under your definition of science. So to my mind, the only reason to carve out a philosophy separate from science is to give a sense of legitimacy to the imaginary not afforded in science.

 

[firedragon]

Not trying to change philosophy, just trying to clarify what is being referred to when that generic term is used.

Exactly that. Philosophy.

I would say that you are by suggesting that the only way to prove the existence of 'God' is through philosophical argument.

That does not mean "avoiding mitigation of human error". You are building a strawman by telling me about something I claimed I never did.

 

[viole]

What does science think will disprove God?

No interest from science to deal with such stuff.

And what do Christians think will prove God?

The resurrection? if not, why are they Christians?

Ciao

- viole