God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.

That is only with specific claims about a specific god.

If you claim that it exists, then you cannot avoid demonstrating that claim is valid.

Which is done in philosophy. You can not classify something in science unverifiable. There is no falsifiability in the claim.

Philosophy is mind games. The end result of every philosophical debate is to instill a sense of doubt into everything. Nothing is verifiable by philosophy.

It has famously been used to try to instill doubt in even our very existence. Hence the quote “i think, therefor, i am.”

This is an opinion.

Can you prove you exist?

Don't mix up Ultimate (non-dualistic) reality with Relative (dualistic) Reality. For all I know there are more then two viewpoints - I think the failure of both science and religion in the 21st century to answer real world problems points to something else entirely.

I only brought that up to show the absurdity of most philosophical positions. I am pretty sure that I exist

Buddhist philosophers would disagree with your conclusion on an absolute level but would agree on the relative.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

And if not we are sure to construct a being that displays similar traits to our notion of god rather soon after the AI singularity comes to fruition.

Now if anything we manage to construct/constructs itself, learns exponentially, is omnipresent/omnipotent and devised a means of the manipulation of space-time, which in all lightly hood it would accomplish given its propensity to learn exponentially, it may very well travel back and, tamper with some primates thus create the human race.

Now if that did happen would it be because of science, religion, or a bit of both.

Ah..this is philosophy. Thank you for your contribution. I have spent a long time thinking about that very thing.

What is knowledge. Can we I set memories in an ape and force evolution rapidly?

Yes. I think we are close today to that very thing.

We could insert language and memories.

Could we bring back a 200kyo human and teach it math to build rockets if it were an infant?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

The question is can you prove it..

That is quite easy to prove. They clearly thought that natural disasters are caused by Angry gods. They thought illnesses were punishments from God. They thought that volcanoes could be appeased by sacrificing humans into them. They thought that wholesale slaughter would satiate the moon garage.So on and so on

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

The question is can you prove it..

That is quite easy to prove. They clearly thought that natural disasters are caused by Angry gods. They thought illnesses were punishments from God. So on and so on

Who did? Have you studied anthropology of religion? Or is that a generalization.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

The question is can you prove it..

That is quite easy to prove. They clearly thought that natural disasters are caused by Angry gods. They thought illnesses were punishments from God. So on and so on

Who did? Have you studied anthropology of religion? Or is that a generalization.

These are specific cases from cultures around the world. Remember that Christianity isn’t the only religion

There are plenty of examples of ancient religions attributing natural events to deities

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

The question is can you prove it..

That is quite easy to prove. They clearly thought that natural disasters are caused by Angry gods. They thought illnesses were punishments from God. So on and so on

Who did? Have you studied anthropology of religion? Or is that a generalization.

These are specific cases from cultures around the world. Remember that Christianity isn’t the only religion

Animism (from Latin anima, "breath, spirit, life")[1][2] is the religious belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork and perhaps even words—as animated and alive.

Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity,[1] or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god[2]. Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal anthropomorphic god[3] and instead characterize a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.[4]

Taoism (/ˈtaʊɪzəm/, also US: /ˈdaʊ-/), also known as Daoism, is a religious or philosophical tradition of Chinese origin which emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: Dào; literally: "the Way", also romanized as Dao). The Tao is a fundamental idea in most Chinese philosophical schools; in Taoism, however, it denotes the principle that is the source, pattern and substance of everything that exists

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.

...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.

It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...

Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.

No you are measuring the effects of Attraction/Aversion and extrapolating the underlying emotion. You cannot directly measure a persons sense of emotion.

There is the objective measurement then there is the subjective experience. Emotion is SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.

i can still predict with great accuracy a full range of emotions, which is good enough to convince me in most cases. Of course knowing that there is always a probability that my predictions are wrong, or that someone is beating the system. I wouldn’t use these techniques on someone in a court room, As the consequences would be too dire to rely on them. But if you think the authorities don’t use these techniques to predict when people are lying and then use their discoveries to manipulate them into confessing, well....idk why not. Lie detector machines have been used for a long time.

But my point is still completely not only VALID but TRUE.

A thought experiment made up of equal parts Asimov & Herbert. Think Star Trek's data

Imagine a robot, programed to mimic the physiology of human emotion and do so in all the right circumstances. You would measure the robot's object actions, her pulse would rise, her breathing would shallow, facial expressions would scream fear, but the emotion would not be there, just the actions. There is no feeling just the appearance of feeling.

I suspect that psychopaths would not report feeling the emotion they were mimicing in order to 'fit in' to society.

Our ability to intuit the emotions of others through body language is often predictive because of evolution but it's objective measurement is something of a 'self-fulfilling' prophecy.

We are mapping on to 'the results' what we believe to be, and often is, the experience of the subject.

But to say you are measuring emotion is false.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I have brought up all this already. When someone is unwilling to understand or even try what do you do?

Personally I point out they aren't qualified to have a meaningful opinion in a topic they aren't willing to try and understand.

Call it an ad hom I disagree.

a reply to: luthier

"Can we I set memories in an ape and force evolution rapidly?"

I imagine it would be a doddle if you could manipulate space-time to try

After all biology and genetics would not seem to pose to much of an obstacle to and omnipotent time travelling invisible omnipresent entity on a mission.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.

This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

Massive Texts? Really?

Mankind created god(s) in his or nature's image way before written language.

Logic, as stated earlier, can be very correct but useless if the premises upon which we build our argument are false which I find often the case in Abrahamic commentaries.

Yes. Aquinas alone would be several pages.

I am well aware thank you. My point was that 'Massive Tomes' do not a sound argument make.

God is not a scientific topic.

It's philosophy.

It's metaphysics.

It's theology.

Not science.

If you don't find those topics interesting that is perfectly OK.

God is not provable.

Design possibly someday. Or refuted.

Life that needs to be verified to live in is not worth living.

Sometimes topics are good to think about and to feel.

Sometimes not.

Everyone is different

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

If God exist he speaks mathematics.

Same language as science.

.... and the language of religion.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

"Can we I set memories in an ape and force evolution rapidly?"

I imagine it would be a doddle if you could manipulate space-time to try

After all biology and genetics would not seem to pose to much of an obstacle to and omnipotent time travelling invisible omnipresent entity on a mission.

Is that the only definition of a "creator" ?

We can force evolution and genetically engineer currently. Allegedly we can insert memories.

That right there is enough to make humans.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.

This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

Massive Texts? Really?

Mankind created god(s) in his or nature's image way before written language.

Logic, as stated earlier, can be very correct but useless if the premises upon which we build our argument are false which I find often the case in Abrahamic commentaries.

Yes. Aquinas alone would be several pages.

I am well aware thank you. My point was that 'Massive Tomes' do not a sound argument make.

OK, do they make unsound arguments?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

If God exist he speaks mathematics.

Same language as science.

If God exists he is a mathematician.

And I would say Mathematics is an emergent property of evolution.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. Perhaps you should study some philosophy or refresh.

No this is a personal attack.

I don't think it is. You would need to show what I am responding to. Saying someone is not qualified to make the argument based on their claims is not an ad honinem.

You are correct in particular, I was responding to a couple of your responses and am unwilling to search them out and so beg your indulgence.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Kind of my point.

Religion and science do indeed share some similarities.

Divergent in other areas all the same one requiring faith and the other observable repetition.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Mathematics already exists. It's knowledge and vernacular could be emergent.

originally posted by: luthier
God is not a scientific topic.

It's philosophy.

It's metaphysics.

It's theology.

Not science.

If you don't find those topics interesting that is perfectly OK.

God is not provable.

Design possibly someday. Or refuted.

Life that needs to be verified to live in is not worth living.

Sometimes topics are good to think about and to feel.

Sometimes not.

Everyone is different

Let's argue "the Design maybe" - sounds like fun.

a reply to: luthier

"Is that the only definition of a "creator" ?"

Omnipotent and omnipresent!

What other tools would any creator require?

By the very definition of the terminology of the words anything would be possible.