god as a scientific concept

R

raherakthy

Registered Member
instead of attacking god
wy not think of god as a scientific concept and try understand the evolution of god
every postulate is rustic at its begginings it takes time to understand anything(except love dat is) so wy wy dub god as unscientific
 
Is there any available means of testing any hypotheses about God(s)?

I mean, sure, some have been postulated. But they don't seem to work very well under scrutiny. I guess God only works miracles when no one is around to see them.
 
forget god and "its" miracles
i reffered to god as ":it" in my thread
remember
im talkin as god as way of thought a tool of the mind
im talkin of god as thought itself
wat do ya ppl say to that dats ma q
 
The only scientific explanation of a "god" would be some near-omnipotent or wildy powerful alien being/species, ala Forerunners or Xel Naga...
 
Raherakthy, this is not a chat room. You are not sending text messages. Kindly use some semblance of ordinary English. You might get an intelligent response if you make your questions intelligible.
 
wat do ya ppl say to that dats ma q

English not your first language?
 
raherakthy said:
i see you are a rallien
stop attackin god ppl
hes after all human
Click to expand...
Please do us all a favor and shut up. Go, complete your english class this year, and then come back here next summer.
 
raher...,

For any speculative concept to be considered a candidate for scientific study several factors are required -

1. Some evidence to qualify for the entrance needs of a hypothesis.
2. Is the concept falsifiable. I.e. how would you test the hypothesis.

The term 'god' as it stands does not appear to represent anything other than an imaginative concept. If that concept can be significantly refined to something more precise and some evdience can be found then perhaps science could be applied. But for now this concept is far too vague for science to take any role.
 
Hapsburg,

Pretty much everyone is welcome here, it is their ideas that are important and not so much their ability with English.
 
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. As near as I can figure (and as cris noted), we'd have to modify the definition of god in order to make it a useful scientific concept. To be a useful notion IMO, it would follow from "the tao" in the sketch below:

tao.jpg


Given that MUST we try to relate to our environment in order to survive, we can note that the tao is anthropomorphized into "god".

So thusly, god is established as a scientific concept.
 
Last edited:
raherakthy: i see you are a rallien
stop attackin god ppl
hes after all human
*************
M*W: What boat did you just get off? Maybe if you stopped speaking in riddles we could understand you. Where did you get the idea that there is a god much less that he's human?
 
Cris said:
Hapsburg,

Pretty much everyone is welcome here, it is their ideas that are important and not so much their ability with English.
Click to expand...
Okay, maybe I was a little harsh, but still, if he's going to tell us something important, mayhaps he should use proper grammar so we can understand it better?
 
The instant a theist claims a real effect of god in the observable world, god becomes grist for the scientific mill. God is simply then an hypothesis for a causitive agent. You state that god caused thus and such (weather, healing, earthquakes, answering of general purpose prayers, etc...). The causes of these claims can be tested against our knowledge of nature. In no instance is any conclusion reached other than that the known phenomena of gravitation, thermodynamics, plate tectonics, and the "enumeration of favorable events" explain these things with great success. In addition, concluding that "god did it" leads to no predictable outcomes.

Therefore the hypothesis of god as a causitive agent in the universe is scientifically disproven, one phenomenon at a time. God as commonly understood and with the attributes given him by theists has been disproven, scientifically, time and again such that the overwhelming weight of evidence is in itself, proof. Unequivocally. Fear and culture are the sticky glue that binds this concept to us like gum stuck to the bottom of societies shoe. It needs to be scraped off.
 
Yeah but SL, the task is defining god as a scientific concept... not bitching about asshats who abuse whatever mental construct they can in order to justify their actions or ideas. ;)

(and I know you know I pretty much agree with you)

I'll take issue with your point "and it needs to be scraped off" to some extent. Like any complicated, integrated system... making changes can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, what if you are able to convince every single christian in the world they should dump god... and they do.. but are unable to understand a basis for morality or ethics without it? Much of god exists because it's "what people can understand or relate to". People who don't have minds which are prone to sophisticated reason or logic simply won't understand even remotely a basis for goodness without that to which they could formally relate...

chaos? anarchy?

is that desirable?

it's gotta be a slow change, it has to come naturally... and honestly given the current average human's ability to reason in a sophisticated manner, we cannot trust that god will die until we evolve ourselves into something new. it's okay. YOU have the capacity to understand this.... so understand it, and accept that "god is okay" if you aren't able or willing for it not to be.

and no, I'm not sayign that christians are stupid... I'm just using the example to make a point. we are ALL merely complicated apes, each with their own particular abilities and ability to create comprehensions. in some of those particular conceptual arrangements, "god" works whereas in others, it's exposed as the anthropomophic idea that it really is, regardless of what it really is to those who "believe".
 
Last edited:
wes,

Ok, ok. A slow, controlled scraping then. With those unable to cope put on an island somewhere. With big walls. And electric wires. And sharks in the water. Great Whites.

Anyway, I think you also know that all I want is for theists to stay the hell out of my life. That means government and the education of my children. They can believe whatever they want. The problem is that the god gene wants to propagate at all costs.
 
I would submit that god SHOULD propagate where it can, based upon the reasoning above. Basically, if you're susceptible to it... you are part of it. This is as it should be for the reasons stated.

This is for adults I mean.

IMO, it is REPREHENSIBLE to teach children of god as fact. In this case I wholly agree with you.

No?

And you completely ignored my nifty definition of god as a scientific concept, you bastard. IMO, this is how it should be taught in schools. ;)
 
wes,

I thought I said in another thread that your whole anthropofrm..zatn.. thingy was extremely cool! I agree that given the TAO set diagram you use, the conclusion would indeed put god on, at least, a manageable psychological basis if not wholly scientific. Err...I think?
 
You did. It seemed like a different spin on the idea, wasn't sure what you thought about it. Now that I look though, it's pretty much the same thing.. I added a little here that I felt like "scienced it up a bit", but meh. Not much.
 
Super,

The god concept is not a hypothesis according to the scientific definition. You are using this term too loosely. The god concept is merely a speculation.

And what do you mean by scientifically disproven? If you mean that the laws of physics are sufficient for explaining all known phenomena, then can you take that to claim that a god did not create the laws of physics? It is usually very unsafe to claim that science has disproven anything, that is not its purpose, but rather science is about establishing knowledge, and then most of what it discovers is considered theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top