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

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

a reply to: andy06shake

How about just the deist god or a pandeist god?

What about just some science students making a quantum computer simulation.

Or pantheism?

a reply to: luthier

"Or pantheism?"

So rationalism versus empiricism?

Dont matter really if you are omnipotent and lonely simply build other gods.

originally posted by: luthier

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?

They contribute to a sound argument as can logic, statistics, facts (verifiable please) and antidotal evidence. But as always things come down to checking your sources and presentation.

The formal definition is:

An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true.

An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument, An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.Mar 1, 2018

www.google.com...

But logic alone is insufficient for a truly sound argument - one could say a necessary but insufficient attribute for soundness.

Rhetoric is also a large part - but what is most important is the premises that you base your argument upon.

Avoiding informal logical fallacies is important. And these FORMS help us clarify our reasoning but can also obscure reality /truth for the unwary.

A SOUND argument requires that the premises be true.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

I'll have to do some homework - but am game.

Off the top of my head - I think they can all be explained by emergence in the relevant system (or system as a whole). Emgerence doesn't require either design or creator - it's just a property of entropy.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

I'll have to do some homework - but am game.

Thank you. Appreciate your humble candor in the debate.

However my original intent was to discuss god is not science and that's OK.

Personally I am a Spinoza's god guy.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Is entropy real in the cosmological sense? Or just a small anthropic observation of reality?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

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?

They contribute to a sound argument as can logic, statistics, facts (verifiable please) and antidotal evidence. But as always things come down to checking your sources and presentation.

The formal definition is:

An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true.

An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument, An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.Mar 1, 2018

www.google.com...

But logic alone is insufficient for a truly sound argument - one could say a necessary but insufficient attribute for soundness.

Rhetoric is also a large part - but what is most important is the premises that you base your argument upon.

Avoiding informal logical fallacies is important. And these FORMS help us clarify our reasoning but can also obscure reality /truth for the unwary.

A SOUND argument requires that the premises be true.

This is true. As far as I know Aquinas ways have not been considered to be completely falicious. Some may be easy to prove falcious than others. A prime mover and a necessary being are pretty potent concepts. The rebuttal is no better than the claim. Yet.

a reply to: luthier

Entropy is a property of any closed system.

Is reality/our universe a closed system?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: FyreByrd

Is entropy real in the cosmological sense? Or just a small anthropic observation of reality?

Yes. To the best of our current knowledge.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.Nov 5, 2016

But it opens a whole can of whoop ass.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

I'll have to do some homework - but am game.

Thank you. Appreciate your humble candor in the debate.

However my original intent was to discuss god is not science and that's OK.

Personally I am a Spinoza's god guy.

LOL - I've been so many theories guy over the years. My constant friend General Systems Theory.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

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?

They contribute to a sound argument as can logic, statistics, facts (verifiable please) and antidotal evidence. But as always things come down to checking your sources and presentation.

The formal definition is:

An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true.

An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument, An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.Mar 1, 2018

www.google.com...

But logic alone is insufficient for a truly sound argument - one could say a necessary but insufficient attribute for soundness.

Rhetoric is also a large part - but what is most important is the premises that you base your argument upon.

Avoiding informal logical fallacies is important. And these FORMS help us clarify our reasoning but can also obscure reality /truth for the unwary.

A SOUND argument requires that the premises be true.

This is true. As far as I know Aquinas ways have not been considered to be completely falicious. Some may be easy to prove falcious than others. A prime mover and a necessary being are pretty potent concepts. The rebuttal is no better than the claim. Yet.

But it does require the belief in a beginning and therefore an end. We have trouble conceiving, and forgive my religious turn of phrase, World without beginning or end. It requires stepping, or attempting to, outside our conditioned paradigm.

Think Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or Ted Chiang's "Stories of your Life" (ARRIVAL) and how learning a truly new language, completely outside conditioned experience changes the character's perceptions of reality and even their conditioned limitations.

Try meditating on 'infinity' - it will blow your mind.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

Entropy is a property of any closed system.

Is reality/our universe a closed system?

Ultimately I think it has to be and that's the contradiction. Because we see continual evolution in the face of continuing disorder there much be inputs. So perhaps there is no truly closed system.

Awesome question.

Atum-Atom

en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

I don't see why not. But I would ask isn't life in our 'verse ruled by probability?

I read an article about 20 years ago, I think in Scientific American about probabilities and the example it used and the name of the article was "XXXXXX's brains" or something like that - I've never been able to find the article again. The idea was that even though a probability was 'effectively' zero, it was still possible. The article said that the possibility of a day with multiple random brains - yes brains - falling from the sky was possible. It made a big impression.

Personally I prefer String Theory though it's largely out of fashion - it appeals to my sense of elegance.

But as you say, this isn't the thread.

a reply to: luthier

I find it laughable that you can so easily dismiss intelligent design, i'm sure the same way you find it laughable that I can dismiss evolution. Science can make intelligent guesses on evolution, they can postulate on theory, and they can say there is no God, but there is no getting around the very short time period that we have written history. They can not physically get data or evidence that existed before written history with 100% accuracy... sure they can postulate, but scientists have been wrong many times. You can not tell me that without a doubt the current theory is even mostly accurate, only that it is as far as we know. I find your OP arrogant at best and I can tell with no doubt that science has limited it's growth and accuracy through arrogance and exclusion.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

OK. Where do we start. My thought is we find a multiverse can produce random life by probability.

However I am still stuck at infinite regress.

I don't see why not. But I would ask isn't life in our 'verse ruled by probability?

I read an article about 20 years ago, I think in Scientific American about probabilities and the example it used and the name of the article was "XXXXXX's brains" or something like that - I've never been able to find the article again. The idea was that even though a probability was 'effectively' zero, it was still possible. The article said that the possibility of a day with multiple random brains - yes brains - falling from the sky was possible. It made a big impression.

Personally I prefer String Theory though it's largely out of fashion - it appeals to my sense of elegance.

But as you say, this isn't the thread.

String theory is not out of fashion in actual physics or computers.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: luthier

I find it laughable that you can so easily dismiss intelligent design, i'm sure the same way you find it laughable that I can dismiss evolution. Science can make intelligent guesses on evolution, they can postulate on theory, and they can say there is no God, but there is no getting around the very short time period that we have written history. They can not physically get data or evidence that existed before written history with 100% accuracy... sure they can postulate, but scientists have been wrong many times. You can not tell me that without a doubt the current theory is even mostly accurate, only that it is as far as we know. I find your OP arrogant at best and I can tell with no doubt that science has limited it's growth and accuracy through arrogance and exclusion.

I never stated anything like you are implying. I find the teleological argument pretty solid. I just don't believe it enough to make a claim.

Apparently you missed my point and never read any of my arguments. I love philosophy.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

Entropy is a property of any closed system.

Is reality/our universe a closed system?

I don't think so but it's an opinion.

Quantum Entanglement comes to mind.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: FyreByrd

Is entropy real in the cosmological sense? Or just a small anthropic observation of reality?

Yes. To the best of our current knowledge.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.Nov 5, 2016

But it opens a whole can of whoop ass.

Yeah like creation of the universe.