You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[PolyHedral]

You first have to accept the axiom that God exists then the Truth will find you.

I do accept the axiom that God exists, for the sake of argument. It's not your god, though. It's completely alien, inscrutable and ineffable compared to your god, because my god is not anthropomorphized to the Moon and back.

If you accept the axiom that God exists then it is likely that he will give us knowledge of how to live in this world. That knowledge would be superior to whatever knowledge we could concoct with our senses.

You are presenting a hypothetical: "...it is likely that..."
I am presenting reality: It is true that scientific medicine is the best tool ever devised to eradicate illness. It has presented results orders of magnitude better than all other methods combined.

 

[I-Ching]

We can also test and experiment on the axioms of God - the same as we can experiment on anything else.

God suggests that:
don't lie
don't be jealous
don't kill one another
be charitable
pray / read scriptures / go to church
etc. etc. etc. ...

only those who actually do the experiments can know the results of them... most people fail to do the experiment...

:yes:

The best experiment is to chant the Names of God.

 

[Tristesse]

To hear from a higher authority is well within the limits of our senses.

But thats my point. You're claiming the senses cannot attain perfect knowledge.

 

[I-Ching]

I do accept the axiom that God exists, for the sake of argument. It's not your god, though. It's completely alien, inscrutable and ineffable compared to your god, because my god is not anthropomorphized to the Moon and back.

In what scipture does your god describe himself as such?

You are presenting a hypothetical: "...it is likely that..."
I am presenting reality: It is true that scientific medicine is the best tool ever devised to eradicate illness. It has presented results orders of magnitude better than all other methods combined.

This is based on your version of history which is based on the imperfect senses of human beings.

 

[I-Ching]

But thats my point. You're claiming the senses cannot attain perfect knowledge.

By themselves they can not attain perfect knowledge because they are limited, but hearing from authority is well within their limits.

 

[I-Ching]

We can also test and experiment on the axioms of God -
don't kill one another

Especially don't kill animals

 

[Tristesse]

In what scipture does your god describe himself as such?


This is based on your version of history which is based on the imperfect senses of human beings.

Why does a god need scripture? Scripture is the poorest form of communication for a god. Language is constantly changing and scripture is often interpretted as whatever people want it to say.

 

[Tristesse]

By themselves they can not attain perfect knowledge because they are limited, but hearing from authority is well within their limits.

Exactly, so why do you trust your hearing? Is that not part of the senses you seem all to happy to oversimplify?

 

[I-Ching]

Why does a god need scripture? Scripture is the poorest form of communication for a god. Language is constantly changing and scripture is often interpretted as whatever people want it to say.

Yes. That is why you need a Guru. Just like you can't cure yourself with a medical textbook you need a doctor.

 

[PolyHedral]

In what scipture does your god describe himself as such?

Accelerando. Though that's a misleading answer: the God involved in that book does not describe Himself, because He does not consider the retarded monkeys the book focuses on. Just note the phrasing there, he does not not consider them worthy of his time, he does not consider them, period.

This is based on your version of history which is based on the imperfect senses of human beings.

...which would mean your version of history is equally flawed, giving you no argument. Books do not describe reality; Reality describes reality, and it is the reality that smallpox simply does not exist anymore.

 

[I-Ching]

Accelerando. Though that's a misleading answer: the God involved in that book does not describe Himself, because He does not consider the retarded monkeys the book focuses on. Just note the phrasing there, he does not not consider them worthy of his time, he does not consider them, period.

God is by definition benevolent so your God doesn't qualify.

...which would mean your version of history is equally flawed, giving you no argument. Books do not describe reality; Reality describes reality, and it is the reality that smallpox simply does not exist anymore.

It is not my version it is the Vedic version and therefore perfect. Even the Wiki
agrees
"Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[42] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu goddess. This ancient inoculation procedure featured in the BBC documentary - What the Ancients Did for Us." So I guess you'll have to come up with an example better than that.

 

[Tristesse]

God is by definition benevolent so your God doesn't qualify.


It is not my version it is the Vedic version and therefore perfect. Even the Wiki
agrees
"Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[42] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu goddess. This ancient inoculation procedure featured in the BBC documentary - What the Ancients Did for Us." So I guess you'll have to come up with an example better than that.

No, you may define your god as benevolent, but not everyone's god is defined as benevolent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our observation is limited (watch the lecture)

I'll pass on sitting thru a lecture.

thermo is based upon axioms as everything else is. The laws of thermo are not set in stone... the laws change based on scaling effects (micro vs macroscopic views)

I'm familiar with these laws already. You're trying to argue that they're based upon faith, but this is not true. They are based upon many
observations which have been consistent throughout history. They do not change depending upon scale, but they have different expressions.
I doubt that we want to get into the details of statistical mechanics & emergent properties.

take emergence:
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

getting something from nothing goes against the laws of thermo - thermo is not proven, is only a postulate that sort of works some of the time for some length scales.

Getting something from nothing is not an observed phenomenon. One reason is that the nature of "nothing" ain't so simple on extremely small scales.
I urge caution against taking complex scientific concepts & distilling them into lay simple terms, which you then use to argue against scientific consensus.
Even Bedau's opinion here is mere philosophical musing, & hardly a statement of any kind of fact. I wouldn't deduce anything from it.
Are you a scientist or engineer?

 

[PolyHedral]

God is by definition benevolent so your God doesn't qualify.

Not all defined entities exist. Besides, He probably would be benevolent to someone He could speak to.

It is not my version it is the Vedic version and therefore perfect. Even the Wiki
agrees
"Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[42] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu goddess. This ancient inoculation procedure featured in the BBC documentary - What the Ancients Did for Us." So I guess you'll have to come up with an example better than that.

How about all of these?

 

[Koldo]

Let me give an analogy to further illustrate my point:
There are six blind men trying to understand what is an elephant. Each man is feeling a different part of the animal and saying that an elephant is like this or like that. Due to their limited senses their perceptions are obvious inaccurate.

A man with full vision sees the elephant and tells the blind men what an elephant is and then they know.

So the six blind men are like scientists trying to understand reality through their limited senses and obviously making mistakes. This the ascending process of knowledge.

A far easier way for the blind men to learn is to ask a man who can see. This the descending process and this only way that we can have perfect knowledge.

And how can the blind men know there is someone with full vision among them?
It can't be through their senses, and you just said that humans make mistakes and cheat.

1)The three point check system guru, sadhu(holy man), sastra scripture
2)By following the process prescribed in the scripture you can experience for yourself.
3) same as 1

How can you trust the guru, sadhu and sastra scripture?
You have just said that 'we cheat' and 'we make mistakes', why wouldn't this also apply to the guru, sadhu and the sastra scripture?
You are applying a double standard.

You have to accept the existence of the original person of vision. That original person naturally wants you to have knowledge and therefore sends his representatives in form of Guru, sadhu and sastra.

How did you come to this conclusion?

If you accept that there is a God there must real Guru's, Holy Men and Scriptures.

This argument is non-sequitur.

 

[idav]

Yes. That is why you need a Guru. Just like you can't cure yourself with a medical textbook you need a doctor.

How is it that a guru has senses that are not faulty? Can a guru correct some of the faulty science doctors use?

 

[Acim]

Hey, I'm only 18 pages behind...

It's all we got. Even if there is a higher authority. This authority doesn't regularly speak to everyone and correct our mistakes. You are also assuming this higher authority knows all and doesn't make mistakes

I observe / believe / experience the higher authority speaking regularly. And correction of mistakes is precisely what I understand the Authority to be up to, though at a level where the error was actually made, not where we (in the illusion) may place it. (Hint, hint, outside of ourselves)

While I'll agree science is flawed, there is nothing better on this earth currently that explains things as accurately and unbiased.

Opinion and a lie. Scientific materialism has an undeniable bias.

 

[Acim]

I'm interested; What do you think are the limitations of science?

Too many to name.

Main ones that come to mind (often) for me are:

- can we use scientific method to back up our claims about science?

i.e. - science is the best explanation / tool that we have, (or variation) it is all we got

i.e. - scientific method must consist of a, b, c, d, and e, but not x, y, and z, for those would be akin to psuedo science. Can we use science to determine what the method is?

i.e. - the physical world exists objectively

...these are just a few.

Good luck!

Added: While the ones below may (or may not) be variations of what is above, I'm still curious if pro-science people can use science to back up this claim:

the scientific method is still vastly superior to simply pulling **** out of your ***.

The ultimate reality is quantum gravity, which is not exposed to our senses.

Well, considering the senses are all we have, we have to rely on them.

we do overcome our senses as we use machines to observe and measure the universe

Science created the medicine and technology you use, including the computer you're sitting at.

the laws of thermodynamics were based entirely upon observation.

I am presenting reality: It is true that scientific medicine is the best tool ever devised to eradicate illness. It has presented results orders of magnitude better than all other methods combined.

Reality describes reality

 

[Acim]

How do you know this higher authority is a higher authority?

Discernment.

If we consider (1) and (3), how can we even possibly know that this higher authority really exists?

1 and 3, could be understood as "physical self." From within (Reason), it is both plausible and empirical to understand Self as not 'made' by the physical. This may lead to reasonable interpretation that the physical self (ego) is 'lower authority,' and Reasoned / Trusting Self (non-physical) is higher authority.

If we consider (2) and (4), how can we trust in any representative of any higher authority?

Experience from inner Guide(s). Our own experience, we both learn to trust It, and accept (to some degree) as Reasonable. Plus (yes there is a plus) from the experience of perceived others, or what could be called outer gurus. Maybe deemed credibility / integrity of others. We learn to trust in same way, though we may (or may not) accept as Reasonable in same way we do what is deemed "own self."

 

[idav]

Too many to name.

Main ones that come to mind (often) for me are:

- can we use scientific method to back up our claims about science?

i.e. - science is the best explanation / tool that we have, (or variation) it is all we got

i.e. - scientific method must consist of a, b, c, d, and e, but not x, y, and z, for those would be akin to psuedo science. Can we use science to determine what the method is?

i.e. - the physical world exists objectively

...these are just a few.

Good luck!

Added: While the ones below may (or may not) be variations of what is above, I'm still curious if pro-science people can use science to back up this claim:

Actually math is a great tool going hand in hand with science. One wouldn't be much without the other.

Science IS the method. If you don't use that method then it is psuedo.

Existence is a pretty decent assumption. It's really all we have to go by without making up alternate realities or what not. If it makes you fell any better we are observing and recording the universe we are able to percieve even if it is a virtual matrix.