science missing god?

[scifes]

You just need to go one step farther and realize there aren't any gods or spirits. From many to one to none. There is no scientific basis for any gods.

there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.
we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.

if one only believes in what is scientific, he's missing more than what he's gaining... god included.

no one outlook of reality of complete or perfect, whether it be a form of art, some animalistic instinct or pleasure, a philosophy, some religion, or science.

many people believe the world is music, they live by music, eat by it and breath through it, it is life, it is the world, it's their present and future, the reason they live for tomorrow. as much as for some others science is the world, it explains what we eat and how we live and die, science is life.

but who needs music? it's just there to pass some time and dance to, so that who lives by music is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest.
but for him, who needs science? all it does is make faster cars and smaller cellphones, people were living without those oneday, but not music.

what i'm saying is that one can indulge in a field deep enough to build his view of the universe solely on that field.
sciforums is a grouping point of one kind of those people.
any people who rely on one field are gaining what others don't, and missing what others have.

is god meant to be found in science?
how fatal is it for science freaks if he isn't?

 

[Stryder]

I thought para-quoting this from another thread would be on-topic here:

... Science attempts to take unknown's and "extreme data" entries out of mathematical equations, to balance the equation. (Balanced equations are what Science is about) Where as the fundamentalists insist on keeping "extreme data" entries like "there being a god" in the mathematics, there by unbalancing the equation so they can either suggest that 'science is faulted' or that 'men are too feeble-minded to be able to commit the feats of their "extreme data" entry' ("god" if you didn't guess).

 

[scifes]

"extreme data" is subjective to your life style.
quantum mechanics and the cat that dies when we close the box is "extreme data" to most people on earth.
yet QM exists, and some people believe in it. as a matter of fact, it DOES exist*, even though one with a purely religious outlook on life doesn't see it. one with a philosophical outlook on life doesn't see light as the cap of any speed. and one with a scientific outlook on life can't see and doesn't comprehend how one can live and die for the art of cooking.

science can make it's own scientific god, kinda like Einstein's, but it'll be as good as tasting psychology realized by a chef.

i'm saying, that the chef should study science for tasting mechanisms, as much as a scientist should use philosophy and religion to realize god.

a scientist looking for god in a mathematical expression is like a chef looking for tasting trends in a cookbook.

it's not that science is faulted if it doesn't reach god, it's faulted because it can't reach god.

 

[spidergoat]

No one suggests that numbers are real.

 

[Dywyddyr]

there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.
we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.

Wrong. We don't assume numbers "exist". No one's ever claimed they've isolated a number, or put one in the lab.

if one only believes in what is scientific, he's missing more than what he's gaining... god included.

Yeah?
How about "If one only believes in god he's missing more than what he's gaining..."?

but who needs music? it's just there to pass some time and dance to, so that who lives by music is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest.

That would be your opinion, surely.

sciforums is a grouping point of one kind of those people.

Which kind? Those who "build his view of the universe solely on that field"?
Really? Evidence please.

is god meant to be found in science?
how fatal is it for science freaks if he isn't?

even though one with a purely religious outlook on life doesn't see it. one with a philosophical outlook on life doesn't see light as the cap of any speed. and one with a scientific outlook on life can't see and doesn't comprehend how one can live and die for the art of cooking.

Every single one of those is a personal (and largely unfounded) assumption.

science can make it's own scientific god, kinda like Einstein's, but it'll be as good as tasting psychology realized by a chef.

Rubbish. Science doesn't require a god, much less desire to "make one".

i'm saying, that the chef should study science for tasting mechanisms, as much as a scientist should use philosophy and religion to realize god.

Also a personal opinion. And largely insupportable.

a scientist looking for god in a mathematical expression is like a chef looking for tasting trends in a cookbook.

it's not that science is faulted if it doesn't reach god, it's faulted because it can't reach god.

Can't reach god because...he doesn't exist?

 

[Hipparchia]

No one suggests that numbers are real.

so that wasn't really Post number 4 on this thread?

 

[scifes]

Wrong. We don't assume numbers "exist". No one's ever claimed they've isolated a number, or put one in the lab.

whatever, my point is clear.

Yeah?
How about "If one only believes in god he's missing more than what he's gaining..."?

good, gooood..now you're getting it.
to be politically correct: IF god exists, then what you gain from him is the only benefit that transcends death, that's why they say "everlasting mud is better then perishing gold", relating to religion and other fields or outlooks, but hey, if one could get them both, why not?

That would be your opinion, surely.

veeeeaary good.
would you say the same to one who says:

"but who needs god? it's just there to pass some time and pray to, so that who lives by god is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest."​

Which kind? Those who "build his view of the universe solely on that field"?
Really? Evidence please.

your request for evidence is evidence
:roflmao:

Every single one of those is a personal (and largely unfounded) assumption.

and so is your objection.

Rubbish. Science doesn't require a god, much less desire to "make one".

personal and largely unfounded assumption.
but you surly heard of einstien's god, for a straightforward example? the one who doesn't play cards?

Also a personal opinion. And largely insupportable.

you disagree?

Can't reach god because...he doesn't exist?

nope, but because your brain can't see the world from an outlook other than the scientific one.

but to avoid your objection, let's say that you don't embrace or admit the outlooks where god can be seen, and a peek for the sake of saying you've peeked doesn't count.

 

[Dywyddyr]

whatever, my point is clear.

To you, possibly.

good, gooood..now you're getting it.
to be politically correct: IF god exists, then what you gain from him is the only benefit that transcends death, that's why they say "everlasting mud is better then perishing gold", relating to religion and other fields or outlooks, but hey, if one could get them both, why not?

Because there's the slight problem of no evidence for god. How can one bring oneself to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Wouldn't that be blatant hypocrisy?

veeeeaary good.
would you say the same to one who says:

"but who needs god? it's just there to pass some time and pray to, so that who lives by god is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest."​

We know music exists.

your request for evidence is evidence

Nope, your assumption is that, because I asked the question, I have no other aspects to my life.
Fail.

and so is your objection.

Nope, that was a demonstrable fact.

personal and largely unfounded assumption.

Wrong. Science has managed quite well so far without god. And also without the assumption of god.

but you surly heard of einstien's god, for a straightforward example? the one who doesn't play cards?

I have. I'm also aware of the actual context of his use of the word "god" (i.e. NOT as theists use it). And it was dice, not cards.

you disagree?

Completely. If a scientists "used" religion to find god then he wouldn't be a scientist any more.

nope, but because your brain can't see the world from an outlook other than the scientific one.

Wrong.
But keep making your unfounded assumptions, they're funny.

but to avoid your objection, let's say that you don't embrace or admit the outlooks where god can be seen, and a peek for the sake of saying you've peeked doesn't count.

Because those "outlooks" haven't been shown to have any validity, that I can see.

 

[spidergoat]

nope, but because your brain can't see the world from an outlook other than the scientific one.

Just because we know science is the most reliable method of finding things out doesn't mean that science is our whole world. Some practices like Buddhism, art, music, poetry, and film provide every opportunity for a creative dialogue about the world from an non-superstitious perspective.

 

[scifes]

To you, possibly.

i should've kept it at "whatever"

Because there's the slight problem of no evidence for god. How can one bring oneself to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Wouldn't that be blatant hypocrisy?

EXACTLY.
yes it would, but only from a certain and narrow view.
besides, as i said, even science is based on things which don't have evidence, like numbers. or even that our senses are correct, we have no evidence for that, because that evidence will be sensed by the senses themselves, so we can never be sure, philosophy undermines science actually, and is more precise at pinpointing truth, but because of that it's not as useful or as practical as science.

a philosopher can ask the point of adding numbers, when no evidence for them exist, just look at nihilists, they've gone to the extreme of skepticism, do they or do they not have the right to say that you believing that the screen in front of you exists is blatant hypocracy, because no evidence exists for it.
but there IS evidence, our SIGHT is evidence, but not from a certain philosophical outlook, from a scientific one yes.

so which outlook is correct? the philosophical one or the scientific one? that truly is choice, each to his criteria of how to live life. but even thought the nihilist remark that there is no evidence that the screen in front of you, is a truer one, people follow the "scientific" one of [observed/repeatable blah blah blah] evidence that the screen exists,and live on.

same can be said for god.

We know music exists.

run run run...

Nope, your assumption is that, because I asked the question, I have no other aspects to my life.
Fail.

i know that's what you assumed i assumed,that scientists can't see anything with a scope other than a scientific one.
but as i said, your jump to evidence to strangle your opponents is evidence of how much the evidence based outlook has seeped into your core.
hippies don't rely on evidence, it's based on love and trust and peace; "if ya say it man then i believe it"..politics don't rely much on evidence either, more propaganda..and so on.. but evidence EVIDENCE EVIDENCE can be paraphrased to science SCIENCE SCIENCCCCCE:xctd:

Nope, that was a demonstrable fact.

says you.

Wrong. Science has managed quite well so far without god. And also without the assumption of god.

have i ever said otherwise?
-checks back-
ok i did, what i meant was, science freaks who can't see the world but scientifically, have a god somewhere in their science,may it be chaos, the sun, or whatever.

I have. I'm also aware of the actual context of his use of the word "god" (i.e. NOT as theists use it). And it was dice, not cards.

bravo,my point; a god that is not a religious one, but born from a science drenched outlook.

Completely. If a scientists "used" religion to find god then he wouldn't be a scientist any more.

no he conjures one instead, one who doesn't play dice, or one who has a major role in science...

Wrong.
But keep making your unfounded assumptions, they're funny.

that's one part you need to work on

Because those "outlooks" haven't been shown to have any validity, that I can see.

nor have your outlook, that others can see.[nihilist]

and mind you, you don't evaluate the other outlooks through your current one, rather you look through them, you embrace them,you indulge in them,you give them a chance.

 

[scifes]

Just because we know science is the most reliable method of finding things out doesn't mean that science is our whole world.

a-it's not(the most reliable...)
b- if it was, why isn't it your whole world?
answer; because it's not.
otherwise, you'd be contradicting yourself badly.

Some practices like Buddhism, art, music, poetry, and film provide every opportunity for a creative dialogue about the world from an non-superstitious perspective.

a- either the dialogue is important as much as "finding out things"(i.e science), in which case science isn't everything, it is missing.

b-or the dialogue is complementing what science couldn't "find out", in which case science is also missing stuff. and is not a perfect way to determine things.

both lead to my point. validating everything with the scientific method is false, and incomplete, if not downright wrong.

 

[spidergoat]

Art is a subjective experience. I never denied that one can have religious experiences that cannot be quantified by science. It's just that those experiences cannot be shown to have any connection to the reality outside one's mind. That is why I use the word "reliable". Of course science must realize it's limitations, but that does not make room to hold firm beliefs (faith) in things that cannot be proven or even supported by evidence. Art needs no evidence, it just is what it is. Science was never meant to replace the subjective experience of living. Our subjective experience informs and stimulates science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

a-it's not(the most reliable...)

Name something that's more reliable, or even as reliable at explaining the world.

b- if it was, why isn't it your whole world?
answer; because it's not.
otherwise, you'd be contradicting yourself badly.

Wrong again.
Where does science come into my enjoyment of comedy films, Guinness or music? How does it apply to my emotions?

a- either the dialogue is important as much as "finding out things"(i.e science), in which case science isn't everything, it is missing.

b-or the dialogue is complementing what science couldn't "find out", in which case science is also missing stuff. and is not a perfect way to determine things.

Really? What, exactly do you "find out" from them?

yes it would, but only from a certain and narrow view.
besides, as i said, even science is based on things which don't have evidence, like numbers. or even that our senses are correct, we have no evidence for that, because that evidence will be sensed by the senses themselves, so we can never be sure, philosophy undermines science actually, and is more precise at pinpointing truth, but because of that it's not as useful or as practical as science.

All you've done here is display that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

i know that's what you assumed i assumed,that scientists can't see anything with a scope other than a scientific one.

So tell me what you DID mean.

ok i did, what i meant was, science freaks who can't see the world but scientifically, have a god somewhere in their science,may it be chaos, the sun, or whatever.

No they don't.

bravo,my point; a god that is not a religious one, but born from a science drenched outlook.

Really? Example please.

no he conjures one instead, one who doesn't play dice, or one who has a major role in science...

No, he used the term is very loose sense, to encompass nature.

that's one part you need to work on

I need to work on your sense of humour?

and mind you, you don't evaluate the other outlooks through your current one, rather you look through them, you embrace them,you indulge in them,you give them a chance.

And you assume I don't?

 

[Michael]

Numbers are a language.
Science is a process.
Gods are fiction.

Can you live life without numbers? Sure. Can you live life without Science. Sure. Can you live life without Gods? You are.

 

[Lori_7]

there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.
we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.

if one only believes in what is scientific, he's missing more than what he's gaining... god included.

no one outlook of reality of complete or perfect, whether it be a form of art, some animalistic instinct or pleasure, a philosophy, some religion, or science.

many people believe the world is music, they live by music, eat by it and breath through it, it is life, it is the world, it's their present and future, the reason they live for tomorrow. as much as for some others science is the world, it explains what we eat and how we live and die, science is life.

but who needs music? it's just there to pass some time and dance to, so that who lives by music is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest.
but for him, who needs science? all it does is make faster cars and smaller cellphones, people were living without those oneday, but not music.

what i'm saying is that one can indulge in a field deep enough to build his view of the universe solely on that field.
sciforums is a grouping point of one kind of those people.
any people who rely on one field are gaining what others don't, and missing what others have.

is god meant to be found in science?
how fatal is it for science freaks if he isn't?

some of the world's most renowned scientists have believed in god. i've heard a few scientists say that they started out in their profession an atheist, and the more they developed in their field and study, the more they saw intelligence and design, and it freaked them out, and now they believe in god.

i don't think there's any profession, or philosophy, or interest that could impede god. i think it's a personal struggle within everyone individually.

 

[Big Chiller]

there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.
we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.

No scientific basis is needed for numbers they are just used to represent quantity.

 

[baftan]

Why don't you believers create a brand new science with God? This would end your misery maybe. Because even it is repeated million times you will not understand what science is all about. You don't bother yourself to check out what science deals with, so just create another science that has a God in it. You can even create new set of rules and methods and sell it as "scientific".

Mind you, if it doesn't fit the requirements of existing scientific criteria, your new invention will still be branded as "pseudo-science". But why should you care, you can ignore the existing one. What stops you?

 

[Big Chiller]

Science is but a tool, a tool cannot be used for everything, reason can.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science is but a tool, a tool cannot be used for everything, reason can.

Also incorrect.

 

[scifes]

Also incorrect.

for the ten thousandth time, post number 19 is useless, you added nothing, except that you disagree, people would really appreciate it if you at least gave them a handle to whirl you with... but that? what is he supposed to do with "also incorrect"? say "yes mister D, as you wish sir"?