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

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

Perhaps you just are not aware of the advancements in algorithmic determination. You cannot fake it when these machines are imaging your face and your skin and taking physiological readings with multiple sensors. It takes a lot of training for a human to translate and identify the vast array of possible human quirks, but A.I. Will button this up in the next few years. Emotions are perfectly readable. It’s the translations and human error part that prevents authorities from using it to incriminate yourself. It may very well come to a neighborhood near you some day though.

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: 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.

I understand. I spent 6 months In India living with Jains in gujarat in my early twenties.

The point I am making are possible logical explanations. Not a devotion to a particular doctrine.

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.

Tons of things in science have been proven true before that at one time were considered in the same light as God. Stephen hawkings Black hole theory was never proven but accepted as fact for years with no real evidence. The Higgs was considered a dream and unobtainable at one time too. Point is Science if it cannot prove something exist right now it can later. NEVER say NEVER.

a reply to: luthier
So are you just saying that Theology has no place in science? Because I did read the OP, and it sounded like you were saying god had no place in science. Are you suggesting that we throw out unprovable theory and relegate it to phillosophy? If so, I whole heartedly agree and my sincerest appologies

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

Perhaps you just are not aware of the advancements in algorithmic determination. You cannot fake it when these machines are imaging your face and your skin and taking physiological readings with multiple sensors. It takes a lot of training for a human to translate and identify the vast array of possible human quirks, but A.I. Will button this up in the next few years. Emotions are perfectly readable. It’s the translations and human error part that prevents authorities from using it to incriminate yourself. It may very well come to a neighborhood near you some day though.

And I will again say - what is being measured (however the sophistication of the method) are Physical markers that. They may very well IMPLY certain emotions - but THEY DO NOT MEASURE EMOTION.

Where does emotions live? What does it look like? Can you point to an emotion?

Hey, this machine tells me I have an 11 of anxiety right now. A machine can read high blood pressure and heart rate and correlate them with subtle facial movement. But it is not measuring the emotion.

It is merely a sophisticated extrapolation of emotion from measured physical responses. It's not a direct measure.

God by definition as the creator of the Universe has everything to do with science, because science is therefore nothing more then the study of his construct...
In other words if God is real, your OP is just plain wrong...

God isn't science, what does that mean?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Stands to reason that if there are black holes/singularities in our universe, then there may also be some form of white holes that do the opposite of there cosmic cousins should multiverse theory hold and weight.

I agree with the OP.

Science is limited by empirical evidence; philosophy is not confined by any constraints.

Science gives us TV; philosophy gives us the show and characters on the TV.

a reply to: onthedownlow

Quite a few, as of yet, mathematical constructs and theorem still remain to be proven and/or discovered through.

Take Fermat's last theorem for instance, proof positive of such only being obtained in the last decade.

Mathematics and philosophy are two very different constructs and only synonymous really whilst philosophy follows logic which sometimes it tends to diverge from rather drastically.

Our natural sense of telling one from many, larger from smaller, numerous from scarce, bright from dark, close from distant, familiar from strange, similar from different and so on, however does not need mathematical axioms to function.

a reply to: Incandescent

Philosophy says "what if?".

Science provides repetitive results to support our philosophical arguments.

a reply to: andy06shake

The scientific method wouldn't exist without the philosophical method of enquiry.

What man can observe through the five senses and with technologial aid is just a small speck of creation, what we imagine through philosophy is limited to our current understanding of this small observable speck.

We can not prove the existance of God to others but we can find out what God really is once we venture/tap into the subconscious/unconscious part of our intelligence, people just can't relate because they have no idea what is hidden within themselves, both science and philosophy is currently limited by this.

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

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.

This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.

My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.

Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.

This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.

Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.

What is love?

We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.

The definition of Love is not subjective.
People just struggle with it because they can't seperate it from Lust or family/social attachments, as you have proven.

Keep looking for those flushed faces, Woodcarver!
Lol

Eh, I can certainly believe that God (however I interpret God) created science. I can believe that God uses evolution as a tool to create, and used evolution to originally create life on Earth. You can't prove me wrong, but I can't prove I'm right.

I'm going on faith, based on science. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Which of the 2000+ gods are we talking about?

We are here, there is an unknown force of creation, it is God.

a reply to: circuitsports

That could just as well be chance or nature that is responsible for our particular circumstance and existence.

Is God a force of nature?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: circuitsports

That could just as well be chance or nature that is responsible for our particular circumstance and existence.

Is God a force of nature?

What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life? How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?

originally posted by: circuitsports
We are here, there is an unknown force of creation, it is God.

The only creator is the universe.

The universe has eternally existed, and has no beginning.

The universe is a life form.

All life stems from the universe.

I guess one could consider the universe God.