Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

[paddoboy]

"Soldiers of God" is not a unique ideological subset of Christians, like he seemed to be implying. And since his description didn't fit Christians in general, it only made sense to assume he was talking about some ideologically unique subset. But sure, I probably should have just chalked it up to a hasty generalization or straw man. And no doubt, you'll continue to prove your intellectual dishonesty and deny that as well.

Actually, you just proved your own.....Intellectual dishonesty that is, and most certainly not the first time.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You're the one wasting your own time. Even when I don't respond to you.

Am not. Respond to me? You can't help yourself, we both know it..even under threat of being crushed you respond ..must be very exciting for you.
You go on and on and all we get is for your reasons that you believe in God but under that authority you claim title to the champion of unsupported rants...but I like you because you are so funny...I know you must be putting a front and trolling rational folk by presenting questionable morality..I can't believe you actually believe most of the positions you present...
Have a good day I must go things to do people to see.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

You're the one wasting your own time. Even when I don't respond to you.

You're the one that sees the need to preach your fire and brimstone, while trying to promote a hazy picture of reasonability, on a science forum. How many scientists or those like me adhering to scientism [shock horror] have any need to go to any creationist or ID forum, telling them of their mythical stupidity and beliefs?
You need to accept the undeniable fact, that while the gaps in scientific knowledge grow ever smaller, as we gather knowledge, the gaps in the mythical rhetoric of theists and theism never narrow and instead increase.

 

[paddoboy]

Am not. Respond to me? You can't help yourself, we both know it..even under threat of being crushed you respond ..must be very exciting for you.

He is supposedly, or has a diploma or such in Psychology I think it is. So perhaps he sees himself [No, actually he certainly sees himself ] as superior and using us as fodder?
As a great Philosopher once said, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know". [We can substitute psychology for philosophy in that quote .

 

[Vociferous]

Obviously you are not familiar with David Bohm and "Wholeness and the Implicate order". Actually David Bohm was very interested in the spiritual world. Read some of his stuff.

Thanks for proving what I said:

"No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen."​

And no doubt, you'll continue to prove your intellectual dishonesty and deny that as well.

Actually, you just proved your own.....Intellectual dishonesty that is, and most certainly not the first time.

Thanks for proving my point.

Am not. Respond to me? You can't help yourself, we both know it..

And yet: http://sciforums.com/threads/defini...-to-rule-them-all.163061/page-29#post-3641357

 

[Write4U]

Straw man. He said "may have never considered", not "incapable of visualizing".

And I responded by asking why it should be a logical assumption that an atheist might not even have considered the god concept. Atheists are quite capable of considering abstract ideas. I can just as well accuse you of not understanding the "god concept'. Just because you do believe in god does not mean you understand the concept.

No, you just argued the supremacy of your own subjective beliefs.

At least my hypothesis is scientifically defensible. Yours is not, as you have admitted yourself.

Outright lie, as no one said "It's a belief and not subject to examination". You're desperately making up bs now.

From "Are we made in God's image"

W4U said; ↑ So you do admit that "good" science is true? Yet you persist in touting the ignorance of refuted "faith in a god/creator".

Vociferous said: If you understood anything about science, you'd know that it can't refute beliefs.

And? I readily admit that theism is, at best, a hypothesis. Because, unlike you, I do know the difference and have repeatedly demonstrated it on the forum.

Thanks for acknowledging that my interpretation of what you said was correct.

The OP doesn't ask for a "scientifically acceptable" definition. You're complete inability to accept anything, that doesn't fit with your materialist ideology and blind faith in scientism, does imply that you are incapable of understanding such concepts though.

Oh, on a science forum one can just ignore the "scientific method"? How convenient, religious people need not bother with science.

Because you're lying about anyone claiming it's not subject to examination. Every reasonable person sees that I have repeatedly told you that you are justified to question theism and that there is no evidence that makes it compelling.

So, you admit that your version of "definition of God" is "not compelling". OK, I agree... see we can agree on things.

No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen.

LMAO, you do know how to "turn a phrase", but please do try to stay in this reality .

Our understanding of God is a subjective experience. Glad you've finally accepted that. But our understanding of reality is a subjective experience as well. Neither deny that there may be an objective something that we subjectively experience.

Sure, but all objective knowledge rests on evidence, not wishful thinking and fantasy.

That's why we can agree on a lot of reality and on, at least, the broad attributes of God (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.).

No they don't. You are engaged in wishful thinking.

People have gone to war, mostly for territory, and used God as justification. That is human nature, not specific to theism.

No, millions of people have died with God as the justification. That's why they are called "holy wars", like the Crusades. Are you telling me that was about territory? Learn some history.

The European wars of religion were a series of Christian religious wars which were waged in Europe during the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. ... The conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which devastated Germany and killed one-third of its population, a mortality rate twice that of World War I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

Now if you say agency is a human quality, great. We agree that humans have free wil

No, scientists do not agree to that at all. You just keep making stuff up.

But of course on a Theist site you can get away with that. On a site like Sciforums, one is expected to produce "evidence" . I think we can all agree on THAT.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: ↑ Obviously you are not familiar with David Bohm and "Wholeness and the Implicate order". Actually David Bohm was very interested in the spiritual world. Read some of his stuff.

Thanks for proving what I said: "No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen.

Oh I see, there are no alternate solutions to your hypothesis? None? Your truth is TRUTH and let no one dare to argue with your Truth.
Well......boohoo.....you're making me cry.....

You are accusing David Bohm of believing in pseudo-religious nonsense?

The more we know about your religious background, the more it becomes obvious that you really haven't read much about spiritual matters at all. Your library is lacking in pertinent literature.
David Bohm was a giant in both physics and meta-physics (as well as psychology), as compared to your subjective pseudo-knowledge of a god which you cannot even define with any kind of logical coherence.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He is supposedly, or has a diploma or such in Psychology I think it is. So perhaps he sees himself [No, actually he certainly sees himself ] as superior and using us as fodder?
As a great Philosopher once said, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know". [We can substitute psychology for philosophy in that quote .

I feel priveledged to chat with the guy, clearly well educated, well read and able to manage critism. I can respect those qualities and certainly would probably employ him if I was still in business to head customer relations and staff management.

But he shows us so little of himself and although I get glimpses of the man they are few and far between.

In truth we could ask where would we be without such a cirppy chap to chat with.

I do say it is all a waste of time but that is just me feeling guilty that I really should be moving my other projects forward. But it is so good to come here for a rest and a break...
I have decided to get the 16 inch scope which requires much more effort and so I feel my energy should not be used here..but I have rationalized it is good to have some contact with the outside world so why not here..you supply all the news I need to know about outside my specific research and folk like Mr V give opportunity to maintain idle chat...certainly better than I get in the real world.

Don't tell him but there are many posts where I can see his point and actually agree...As you know about me I like to find areas of agreement and commonality which fits my shy personality and usual humble position.

And above all he is a gentleman, I give him so many opportunities to be cruel and unkind and frankly I am impressed he resists the opportunities I provide on most occasions but burrs up enough to suggest he can not always resist the urge.

I think the key is to remember that it is just a bit of fun.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And yet

That is in the past..I have moved on..evolved you might say.

I do sincerely appreciate talking to you so please forgive me for being perhaps more flipant than you care to tolerate.

I say my time spent here is productive ..it's just that I feel guilty just chatting away on matters of little consequence.

I actually agree with your message behind belief and also can see that the critisms of scientism is in some cases valid but given the context I find these observations are made I need to defend the home side..I guess you are probably similar in dealing with negative comments re religion as I would be surprised if you fail to see the negatives that most of us here often point to.

I am seeing a guy today to make me a park ..isn't that nice...there will be plenty of room for camp sites so if you need a place to pitch your tent when in Australia just let me know.

Have a great day.


Alex

 

[Write4U]

"Soldiers of God" is not a unique ideological subset of Christians, like he seemed to be implying. And since his description didn't fit Christians in general, it only made sense to assume he was talking about some ideologically unique subset. But sure, I probably should have just chalked it up to a hasty generalization or straw man. And no doubt, you'll continue to prove your intellectual dishonesty and deny that as well.

"Slip-sliding away". But no, you don't get off that easy.
"Soldiers of God" are not a unique ideological subset of Christians, they are a unique subset of all religions that tolerate violence in the "name of God". In fact one might say it is a "common denominator" in service of the Lord God.

 

[Vociferous]

And I responded by asking why it should be a logical assumption that an atheist might not even have considered the god concept. Atheists are quite capable of considering abstract ideas. I can just as well accuse you of not understanding the "god concept'. Just because you do believe in god does not mean you understand the concept.

Quit lying:

What makes you think that atheists are incapable of visualizing the God concept from a theistic POV? The hubris of assuming that "knowledge of God" is a privileged status is a priori prejudicial .
http://sciforums.com/threads/defini...-to-rule-them-all.163061/page-29#post-3641413​

He never said you were incapable and you didn't reply with anything about considering.
How do you think such blatant lying helps you at all? Everyone can read what you replied for themselves and clearly see that you're lying.

At least my hypothesis is scientifically defensible. Yours is not, as you have admitted yourself.

And? If science where the whole of human knowledge, that might mean something.

Outright lie, as no one said "It's a belief and not subject to examination". You're desperately making up bs now.

From "Are we made in God's image"

Vociferous said: If you understood anything about science, you'd know that it can't refute beliefs.​

Please, learn to comprehend simple English already. "Can't refute" does not mean "can't examine". English lesson time:

re·fute
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

ex·am·ine
inspect (someone or something) in detail to determine their nature or condition; investigate thoroughly.​

So maybe not bs, just the stunning depth of your ignorance.

Oh, on a science forum one can just ignore the "scientific method"? How convenient, religious people need not bother with science.

That's more of an argument for getting rid of the religion subforum than anything else. You'd have to get rid of the politics subforum too. Or are you deluded enough to think that the scientific method can be applied to politics?

So, you admit that your version of "definition of God" is "not compelling". OK, I agree... see we can agree on things.

I've done so repeatedly, over pages and pages in many threads. It's no secret, and the fact that you're just now cluing in on it shows how much of a straw man you've been arguing.

No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen.

LMAO, you do know how to "turn a phrase", but please do try to stay in this reality .

I don't know what else to call someone who seeks "a "definition of God" which objectively assigns a "mathematical" essence to the dynamical universal pattern as a perfectly scientifically supportable alternative to "spiritualism"". Why is an atheist concerned with alternatives to what they deem myth and fantasy? I certainly don't go around looking for or proposing alternative to unicorns or goblins. maybe because I don't see unicorns and goblins as gaps needing to be filled.

Sure, but all objective knowledge rests on evidence, not wishful thinking and fantasy.

Wishful thinking and fantasy are not the only alternatives to objective knowledge. Every scientific hypothesis lacks objective knowledge. Are those wishful thinking and fantasy too? Of course not, because that's an ignorant dichotomy.

No they don't. You are engaged in wishful thinking.

That's a bare assertion, devoid of reality. But go ahead. Try to show me the religion that claims its God is not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc..

No, millions of people have died with God as the justification. That's why they are called "holy wars", like the Crusades. Are you telling me that was about territory? Learn some history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

Now compare that list to this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe​

It's not even close.
Again:

In 5 millennia worth of wars - 1,763 total - only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature. Furthermore, if you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, that number is cut down to a little more than 3%.
https://www.str.org/w/debunking-the-religious-wars-myth​

Now if you say agency is a human quality, great. We agree that humans have free will.

No, scientists do not agree to that at all. You just keep making stuff up.

I never said scientists agree with that. Learn to read. You're the one who said they were "human qualities":

agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.

And God has all those human qualities?

If you don't like it, quit posting ignorant twaddle.

Thanks for proving what I said: "No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen.

Oh I see, there are no alternate solutions to your hypothesis? None? Your truth is TRUTH and let no one dare to argue with your Truth.

Man, you're really getting desperate to lie so much.
Or maybe your reading comprehension has failed you again. I said "That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality", not that there were none. Again, I certainly don't feel any need to propose alternatives to unicorns and goblins, because nothing like them exists. You'd think an atheist would feel the same about God and spirituality.

You are accusing David Bohm of believing in pseudo-religious nonsense?

It certainly ain't science, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. But go ahead, tell us how ontology (you know, metaphysics) can be answered by science.

The more we know about your religious background, the more it becomes obvious that you really haven't read much about spiritual matters at all. Your library is lacking in pertinent literature.
David Bohm was a giant in both physics and meta-physics (as well as psychology), as compared to your subjective pseudo-knowledge of a god which you cannot even define with any kind of logical coherence.

So you do know that Bohm's implicit order is metaphysics. Good for you. Now, how does science answer metaphysical questions? Metaphysics is not "scientifically defensible". So by your own claims, metaphysics is no better than theism. See how ignorantly contradictory your beliefs are?

"Slip-sliding away". But no, you don't get off that easy.
"Soldiers of God" are not a unique ideological subset of Christians, they are a unique subset of all religions that tolerate violence in the "name of God". In fact one might say it is a "common denominator" in service of the Lord God.

More ignorant twaddle. Like I said, must be hasty generalization.

 

[paddoboy]

More ignorant twaddle. Like I said, must be hasty generalization.

Desperation denial times as usual!
That and willful ignorance.

 

[Yazata]

What makes you think that atheists are incapable of visualizing the God concept from a theistic POV?

It's not about "visualizing". The whole point of the kind of theology that I mentioned in my last post is that God can't be visualized. Or conceptualized for that matter. God can only be known from 'his' "energies", his effects here in the material world. There's a long tradition of what we might call 'agnostic theism' in the Christian and other religious traditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

But the problem is more profound than questions of theology. If you believe that you are capable of understanding the "theistic POV", then you would have to know what that "POV" is. And there will be many of them since not all theists conceive of God the same way. Some of their ideas will be crude and childish. Others will be surprisingly sophisticated. Atheists need to know about the stronger varieties, since they can't always expect to reduce their opponents to caricatures.

The hubris of assuming that "knowledge of God" is a privileged status is a priori prejudicial .

I never suggested that. I don't think that Vociferous did either. (Jan Ardena used to, but that was Jan.)

I believe I argued against the idea and showed it wanting.

Maybe, I didn't see it.

But here's a question, if JamesR asked theists to explain what they mean when they use the word 'God', how is your (or his) attacking every thing the theists say even relevant? Shouldn't it be the atheist's responsibility in this thread to try to understand these concepts as best they can? Isn't the ostensible purpose of this thread to better understand what theists mean when they speak of 'God'?

They have no more obligation to please atheists (an impossible task) than the atheists are obligated to accept everything the theists say.

No, they must produce ideas that are scientifically acceptable

Why?

Well, shiver my timbers, if a belief is not subject to examination what are we doing asking the question?

Must all examination be scientific examination? I get the strong impression that you (and Paddoboy) believe that all truth can only be scientific truth, that all justification can only be scientific justification and the boundaries of reality must somehow be coextensive with the boundaries of what contemporary science addresses. That's a strong metaphysical naturalism that will be very hard to justify.

It's a bit ironic coming from you of all people, with all of your Tegmarkian mathematical mysticism, your implicate order talk, your microtubules and all that. Most of that stuff is more metaphysical than it's scientific.

In effect, I have given a "definition of God" which objectively assigns a "mathematical" essence to the dynamical universal pattern as a perfectly scientifically supportable alternative to "spiritualism", which to me sounds like a purely subjective experience and therefore not subject to examination at all.

Like I said.

Why not be satisfied with your idea and let other people express their own ideas here in this thread that explicitly invited them to do that? If you want to criticize one or another of the God-ideas expressed here, start a new thread devoted to your criticism. Let them participate if they want to.

There is not One God. There are as many humanly conceived gods as there are theists.

Monotheism believes that there is one God, one ultimate principle to reality we might say. (I don't know if it's true, or even how to find out.) But sure, theists have historically had no end of ways of conceiving of this ultimate principle.

Of course one can say the same thing about science. Science seems to conceive of one objective reality. Yet most of the subject matter of science has been conceived many different ways throughout history. The heavens are literally the abode of the gods. The heavens are filled with crystalline spheres. The heavens are an almost infinite expanse of space-time inhabited by stars and galaxies. The Earth is at the center of the universe. There is no center of the universe. If an object is pushed, it will move until the impetus imparted to it is exhausted, when it stops. If an object is pushed, it will continue forever in a straight line unless some other force acts on it. Life is the result of some mysterious life force that animates living things. Life is the result of countless highly choreographed chemical reactions acting in concert to perform life functions. And on and on and on... The fact remains that nobody will understand the scientific conception(s) of the physical world unless they learn some science and learn what science has to say.

Which isn't necessarily the last word on physical space-time-matter reality, even if it's the best we happen to have at the moment. It's all a work-in-progress and humanity is trying to lift itself by its bootstraps.

God is a subjective experience.

So is ethics, right and wrong. So is truth one might argue, something difficult to define (perhaps impossible in scientific terms), applicable only to propositions which in turn are dependent on ideas and on meaning, which are probably at least in part subjective.

Atheists do not go to war because God tells them it's a good idea. Theists do.

Atheists go to war because of their ideas of right and wrong, and because of the political theories (like Marxism or Naziism) that they embrace in hopes of making the world a better place by their own subjective lights. It's why so many of them have been out rioting in the streets in the last few weeks.

It's arguably the human condition.

 

[Write4U]

So you do know that Bohm's implicit order is metaphysics. Good for you. Now, how does science answer metaphysical questions? Metaphysics is not "scientifically defensible". So by your own claims, metaphysics is no better than theism. See how ignorantly contradictory your beliefs are?

Of course metaphysics are defensible.

What is metaphysics in simple terms?
Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy. It concerns existence and the nature of things that exist. Altogether it is a theory of reality. ... The metaphysical idea that no mind-independent reality exists or can be known is idealism. These are two main battlegrounds of metaphysics.

Ontology is the part of metaphysics which discusses what exists: the categories of being. Apart from ontology, metaphysics concerns the nature of, and relations among, the things that exist.

The metaphysical idea that reality exists independently of one's mind and yet can be known is called realism.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

It is religion that cannot be defended. Science was invented to discover truth which can be demonstrated.

 

[Write4U]

It's not about "visualizing". The whole point of the kind of theology that I mentioned in my last post is that God can't be visualized. Or conceptualized for that matter. God can only be known from 'his' "energies", his effects here in the material world. There's a long tradition of what we might call 'agnostic theism' in the Christian and other religious traditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

But the problem is more profound than questions of theology. If you believe that you are capable of understanding the "theistic POV", then you would have to know what that "POV" is.

I do? Do Theists know their POV? I am still waiting for a persuasive definition of God.

And there will be many of them since not all theists conceive of God the same way. Some of their ideas will be crude and childish. Others will be surprisingly sophisticated. Atheists need to know about the stronger varieties, since they can't always expect to reduce their opponents to caricatures.

You mean like David Bohm? I recommended reading his work.

And here are some "images" (visualizations) of God. No one seems to take issue with those 'products of the imagination" or complain about those points of view.
https://pixabay.com/images/search/god/

W4U said; The hubris of assuming that "knowledge of God" is a privileged status is a priori prejudicial

.

I never suggested that. I don't think that Vociferous did either. (Jan Ardena used to, but that was Jan.)

I never suggested you do. You are a most agreeable debater and I hope you noticed that I agree (like) with you on a lot of issues.
OTOH, Vociferous speaks from a lofty dias. He "knows" he has the secret path to God and lets you know it.

W4U said: I believe I argued against the idea and showed it wanting.

Maybe, I didn't see it.

I used Vociferous' argument that abiogenesis is flawed because there is no evidence of "intermediate species" fossil remains.
My counter argument is that I find the concept of God flawed because there are no fossil remains of Adam and Eve either. I would accept that as proof of God.

But here's a question, if JamesR asked theists to explain what they mean when they use the word 'God', how is your (or his) attacking every thing the theists say even relevant? Shouldn't it be the atheist's responsibility in this thread to try to understand these concepts as best they can? Isn't the ostensible purpose of this thread to better understand what theists mean when they speak of 'God'?

But listen to what you are saying here.
If I understand but disagree with what they are saying, I should indulge the religious woo?

This is a religious sub-forum, not philosophy. I am an atheist, but not from ignorance. Anyone who assumes that is prejudiced. That is why I recommended Bohm, he was a deep metaphysical philosopher and could prove he knew what he was talking about.

They have no more obligation to please atheists (an impossible task) than the atheists are obligated to accept everything the theists say.

You are right and Vociferous has done his best to piss me off. That is his modus operandus. I also have no obligation to please theists and reserve the right to use the same tactics as Vociferous.

W4U said: No, they must produce ideas that are scientifically acceptable

Why?

Because this is a science forum. But note, in this sentence I did not demand proof. I merely required scientific adherence to logic and what science does know about metaphysics. Anytime it is suggested that God replaces science, I feel "obligated" to protest.

Must all examination be scientific examination? I get the strong impression that you (and Paddoboy) believe that all truth can only be scientific truth, that all justification can only be scientific justification and the boundaries of reality must somehow be coextensive with the boundaries of what contemporary science addresses. That's a strong metaphysical naturalism that will be very hard to justify.

Not all examination needs to be scientific examination. It just cannot argue against scientific evidence.

It's a bit ironic coming from you of all people, with all of your Tegmarkian mathematical mysticism, your implicate order talk, your microtubules and all that. Most of that stuff is more metaphysical than it's scientific.

Thank you. I told you I can go there. But actually all that is not metaphysical and Tegmark's mathematical universe has not been debunked at all. It's actually pretty persuasive, if you really think about it....

W4U said: In effect, I have given a "definition of God" which objectively assigns a "mathematical" essence to the dynamical universal pattern as a perfectly scientifically supportable alternative to "spiritualism", which to me sounds like a purely subjective experience and therefore not subject to examination at all

Like I said.
Why not be satisfied with your idea and let other people express their own ideas here in this thread that explicitly invited them to do that? If you want to criticize one or another of the God-ideas expressed here, start a new thread devoted to your criticism. Let them participate if they want to.

I remember starting a separate thread where I expressed my idea about microtubules. Remember what happened there? It was a "shooting gallery".

Moreover, the suggestion of starting a debate in a new thread is really pretty silly. Everybody that wanted to disagree with an idea expressed by others should start a new thread? How would that work?

Monotheism believes that there is one God, one ultimate principle to reality we might say. (I don't know if it's true, or even how to find out.) But sure, theists have historically had no end of ways of conceiving of this ultimate principle.

I undertand the Concept and its varieties. I disagree with the concept of a non-created motivated sentience which can work "miracles". I can agree with the concept of a mathematically self-forming dynamic universal pattern in the form of a :
Our observable universe expanded from one tiny homogenous region within that primordial hot mess
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200117-what-if-the-universe-has-no-end

Of course one can say the same thing about science. Science seems to conceive of one objective reality. Yet most of the subject matter of science has been conceived many different ways throughout history. The heavens are literally the abode of the gods. The heavens are filled with crystalline spheres. The heavens are an almost infinite expanse of space-time inhabited by stars and galaxies. The Earth is at the center of the universe. There is no center of the universe. If an object is pushed, it will move until the impetus imparted to it is exhausted, when it stops. If an object is pushed, it will continue forever in a straight line unless some other force acts on it. Life is the result of some mysterious life force that animates living things. Life is the result of countless highly choreographed chemical reactions acting in concert to perform life functions. And on and on and on... The fact remains that nobody will understand the scientific conception(s) of the physical world unless they learn some science and learn what science has to say.

I totally agree with that!

Which isn't necessarily the last word on physical space-time-matter reality, even if it's the best we happen to have at the moment. It's all a work-in-progress and humanity is trying to lift itself by its bootstraps.

Again I agree completely with that.

So is ethics, right and wrong. So is truth one might argue, something difficult to define (perhaps impossible in scientific terms), applicable only to propositions which in turn are dependent on ideas and on meaning, which are probably at least in part subjective.

I agree, is "relativity not based on the notion of relative perspectives of reality, from the POV of the observer.

This is why I address the metaphysical idea of mathematics in "relative values" and "mathematical functions".
Clear, concise, and practical for unlocking the various "faces" of the universe (multi-verse?)
But when the assumption gets into metaphysical notions of "Conscious Intent" or "Motivated Agency", I seek more evidence for such "unneccesary potentials". The Universe does not need to be "intelligent", it can more plausibly be considered as mathematically "quasi-intelligent".

Maybe we then we can build more observatories instead of churches on tax-free land.

Atheists go to war because of their ideas of right and wrong, and because of the political theories (like Marxism or Naziism) that they embrace in hopes of making the world a better place by their own subjective lights. It's why so many of them have been out rioting in the streets in the last few weeks.
It's arguably the human condition.

Again I am in total agreement with you.

I have stipulated that most religions have beneficial moral messages in their Scripture, but recognition of those morals are not unique to teachings of that religion, but to the secular world at large. Territorial respect for someone else's habitat and property starts very early on in the animal world. Morals are "survival skills".

And that is why I should like to see religions try to keep up with science, so that any scientific conflict with scripture can be used to "revise" the Scripture, not the science.......

 

[Vociferous]

So you do know that Bohm's implicit order is metaphysics. Good for you. Now, how does science answer metaphysical questions? Metaphysics is not "scientifically defensible". So by your own claims, metaphysics is no better than theism. See how ignorantly contradictory your beliefs are?

Of course metaphysics are defensible.

Again, please learn to read. "Scientifically defensible", not just "defensible".
Secondly, metaphysics is composed of many competing ideas, like realism and idealism, where each is defensible but neither can be supported as a certainty.

What is metaphysics in simple terms?
Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy. It concerns existence and the nature of things that exist. Altogether it is a theory of reality. ... The metaphysical idea that no mind-independent reality exists or can be known is idealism. These are two main battlegrounds of metaphysics.

Ontology is the part of metaphysics which discusses what exists: the categories of being. Apart from ontology, metaphysics concerns the nature of, and relations among, the things that exist.

The metaphysical idea that reality exists independently of one's mind and yet can be known is called realism.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics​

It's cute how you cite the "simple" wiki.

Since you initially omit the part about realism, I can only assume you believe in idealism, in which all reality is essentially subjective. If so, your entire argument against religion is completely moot. If you espouse idealism, then you must allow that one person's subjective reality may be just as real as your own. The ontology of being and existence cannot be determined by science, so I also don't see how citing that helps you at all. Wait, then you cite realism, as if you're not even aware that it is contrary to idealism.

It really looks like you have no comprehension of anything you're citing here. Seems you just erroneously and naively think that the words you've emphasized support your argument when, in fact, they do not. It really looks like a child playing at philosophy. Too bad the "simple" wiki didn't seem to be simple enough for ya.

It is religion that cannot be defended. Science was invented to discover truth which can be demonstrated.

LOL! You've defending nothing, much less actually defined whatever your metaphysical stance may be.
Nothing in metaphysics can be demonstrated. If it could be, we wouldn't call it metaphysics, we'd call it science.
Again, just like the science you tout, you talking about metaphysics is just displaying your ignorance. Luckily, Dunning-Kruger is watching over you like a guardian angel.

I do? Do Theists know their POV? I am still waiting for a persuasive definition of God.

Of course we do, and it's you demanding answers that would be persuasive to you that precludes you from learning what our POVs are. You're so needlessly defensive when no one is attacking your beliefs.

You mean like David Bohm? I recommended reading his work.

And here are some "images" (visualizations) of God. No one seems to take issue with those 'products of the imagination" or complain about those points of view.
https://pixabay.com/images/search/god/

Wow, the sheer speed at which what Yaz said going right over your head is dizzying.

. I never suggested you do. You are a most agreeable debater and I hope you noticed that I agree (like) with you on a lot of issues.
OTOH, Vociferous speaks from a lofty dias. He "knows" he has the secret path to God and lets you know it.

At this point, I'm not sure if that's a lie, straw man, or just plain o' ignorance. I'm leaning toward the latter.

I used Vociferous' argument that abiogenesis is flawed because there is no evidence of "intermediate species" fossil remains.
My counter argument is that I find the concept of God flawed because there are no fossil remains of Adam and Eve either. I would accept that as proof of God.

Whether you realize it or not, that's just a lie. I never argued anything about fossils in relation to abiogenesis. Mainly because abiogenesis has nothing to do with the evolution of living organisms. And I've already told you that I agree with the Jews, that Adam and Eve are figurative, not literal. So you demanding something I don't even believe exists is just stupid.

But listen to what you are saying here.
If I understand but disagree with what they are saying, I should indulge the religious woo?

No, you should try to learn as much as you can. That way when you go to refute theistic claims, maybe you'd be better at it. Instead, you're stuck with a bunch of ignorant straw men that never address what the theist actually believes. It's so easy for me to refute your nonsense because I've spent so much time dealing with atheists, on their own terms. But it requires you be secure enough in your own beliefs that you don't feel threatened and get defensive.

This is a religious sub-forum, not philosophy. I am an atheist, but not from ignorance. Anyone who assumes that is prejudiced. That is why I recommended Bohm, he was a deep metaphysical philosopher and could prove he knew what he was talking about.

No one has said, nor implied, that you're an atheist from ignorance (but your perception is telling). I've actually said there's no compelling reason for you to be anything but an atheist. Your ignorance of the science you spout has nothing to do with your atheism.

No, Bohm couldn't prove any metaphysics. That's not how that works.

You are right and Vociferous has done his best to piss me off. That is his modus operandus. I also have no obligation to please theists and reserve the right to use the same tactics as Vociferous.

Not my intent, but telling all the same.

Because this is a science forum. But note, in this sentence I did not demand proof. I merely required scientific adherence to logic and what science does know about metaphysics. Anytime it is suggested that God replaces science, I feel "obligated" to protest.

"what science does know about metaphysics" proves that you don't know much about either. I mean seriously. I can't remember reading a more cocked-up sentence lately.
No one has even suggested replacing science with God, so you seem to be protesting your own fevered imagination.

Not all examination needs to be scientific examination. It just cannot argue against scientific evidence.

No one has. You just clearly don't understand what qualifies as scientific evidence.

I remember starting a separate thread where I expressed my idea about microtubules. Remember what happened there? It was a "shooting gallery".

Because your scientific comprehension is laughable.

I agree, is "relativity not based on the notion of relative perspectives of reality, from the POV of the observer.

This is why I address the metaphysical idea of mathematics in "relative values" and "mathematical functions".
Clear, concise, and practical for unlocking the various "faces" of the universe (multi-verse?)
But when the assumption gets into metaphysical notions of "Conscious Intent" or "Motivated Agency", I seek more evidence for such "unneccesary potentials". The Universe does not need to be "intelligent", it can more plausibly be considered as mathematically "quasi-intelligent".

Completely unscientific gibberish.

And that is why I should like to see religions try to keep up with science, so that any scientific conflict with scripture can be used to "revise" the Scripture, not the science.......

Since there is no conflict between science and scripture, no one is trying to revise the former with the latter.

 

[Michael 345]

God can only be known from 'his' "energies"

As I understand this TYPE of knowing has always, as far as my knowledge goes, been put forward as personal and with the proviso you must BELIEVE first otherwise the KNOWING will not materialise

??? Who
Life is the result of some mysterious life force that animates living things.

Life is a PROCESS, not a force

• Force -
• physical strength, power, or effect
• power or violence used on a person or things
• strength or power that is not physical

Miriam-Webster

The proscess is a combination of physical reactions of a chemical and electrical events

??? Who

So is ethics, right and wrong. So is truth one might argue, something difficult to define (perhaps impossible in scientific terms), applicable only to propositions which in turn are dependent on ideas and on meaning, which are probably at least in part subjective.

These are CONCEPTS (ideas) with no physical presence hence do not exist in the physical world and are impossible (to) and immune from comparison measurements

 

[paddoboy]

Since there is no conflict between science and scripture, no one is trying to revise the former with the latter.

No conflict??You jest of course.
Let me educate you again....Religion/scripture tells us that the universe was created by a magical sky daddy, and that he/she/it then sometime later created man and woman. Of course then a few smart arse psychologists seeing the overwhelming evidence for the more scientific version, decided that to maintain their already questionable credibility, they need to recognise this science, at least up to where they reach the unknown aspects....then we'll do the next smart arse thing and shove in our sky daddy of the gaps!! That's fix them!!!

Then we have our christian and other denominational friends and creationists, with regard to covid 19 that see the need to pray to their respective sky daddies, while of course paying heed to the advice from our doctors, medical staff, epidemiologists, immunologists, and other experts to help them...well most anyway, other then those fucking crazy Trump supporters.
In essence, there is plenty of differences and conflict between science and religion.It can be summed up with two words...reason [science] and Faith[religion]

 

[Write4U]

It's cute how you cite the "simple" wiki.

Hard to argue with,

Since you initially omit the part about realism, I can only assume you believe in idealism, in which all reality is essentially subjective

Well, you're wrong in that assumption, being that I did not omit it as you so cleverly inserted and insidiously suggest.
I am a realist.

Realist, Noun. realist (plural realists) (philosophy) An advocate of realism; one who believes that matter, objects etc. Have real existence beyond our perception of them. One who believes in seeing things the way they really are, as opposed to how they would like them to be.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/realist

OTOH, the way matter and objects are expressed are local value densities arranged in self-forming mathematically related physical patterns. Hence they do not need a Sentient Designer, just the Fibonacci Sequence......

When is a Theist ever going to answer this question: Is God an Intelligent and Motivated Causal Agent, or not?
A simple question.

If so, how and what does he do about that? Just some general knowledge, some greater wisdom, other than what we can find in Wiki.

W4U said; It is religion that cannot be defended. Science was invented to discover truth which can be demonstrated or inferred (Implicate)

LOL! You've defending nothing, much less actually defined whatever your metaphysical stance may be.

Correct, you are the defendant here. Defend your claim, if you can.

Nothing in metaphysics can be demonstrated.

Science demonstrated the Higgs boson, from the metaphysical Higgs field. Whereas, I have never seen a Divine miracle in "response" to prayer.

If it could be, we wouldn't call it metaphysics, we'd call it science.

Or we can and do call it Theoretical Sciences, just as you tout Theoretical Concepts such as fundamental Agency defined as God. But alas, the only Agency we can compare all that to is human Agency and that makes us "little gods" carrying "little angels" on our shoulders. Tralalalala......

If humans are supposed to be an example of the divine agencies of wisdom and motivation, look around you and see the devastation man suffers unto Gaia, and the womb he sprang from.

Again, just like the science you tout, you talking about metaphysics is just displaying your ignorance. Luckily, Dunning-Kruger is watching over you like a guardian angel.

Angel on my shoulder?

Gods and Angels now? The metaphysical plot thickens! What's the definition of an Angel?

Pray tell.......

 

[(Q)]

Nope. Still pure nonsense. Just like the science you pretend to understand, you don't comprehend this either. You're just playing word games in lieu of comprehension. Too bad you can't tell the difference.

You gotta love it when Creationists accuse everyone else, including the entire scientific community that they don't comprehend the science and evidence for the origins of life. Classic pot/kettle.