science missing god?

[Dywyddyr]

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"?

Also wrong.
The post I replied to was a flat statement. If that poster cannot be bothered back up his assertion (i.e. say why he thinks he's correct) then why should I bother to "give a handle"?
I'm doing exactly what Big Chiller did. Have you rebuked him?
Not that I can see...

 

[stateofmind]

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"?

Lol, "people would really appreciate it if you at least gave them a handle to whirl you with..." - I like that.

Talking to D makes about as much sense as trying to have a conversation with 2XL. If you don't hit "A", "B" or "C" then he'll just endlessly repeat the same pre-recorded message until his battery runs out.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.

Numbers don't objectively exist; therefore, the statement is kind of silly. Numbers are human abstractions of quantitative relationships in reality.

we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.

Well no. We *know* that the quantitative relationships that numbers represent exist. They are observably self-evident.

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

I don't think anyone has the stamina to believe in things exclusively that are scientific. If there is little or no risk to believing in something that might be wrong then so what? If however, there is immense risk in believing something that might be wrong then science is a good process to get it right.

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.

Correct; however, we *know* that certain outlooks are blatantly incorrect.

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.

Science is a process. Nothing more. If a person believes the world is music then they are quite incorrect; however, they probably don't value truth that highly to care about that. This is normal. Most people in the world value how they feel more than truth.

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.

If people of science value truth more than what "others have" then there is really no reason to care; however, as it often turns out, people of science tend to use others as psychological experiments to better understand why they believe the odd things that they do.

is god meant to be found in science?

Science already found God. It's a psychological phenomena rooted in the human behaviors of anthropomorphism and hierarchy.

how fatal is it for science freaks if he isn't?

It's technically irrelevant.

 

[Big Chiller]

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

Also incorrect.

I believe even great minds have said science is only a tool.

 

[stateofmind]

I believe even great minds have said science is only a tool.

Science is indeed a tool. And you know... it takes a tool to make a tool and I know a few tools that science tooled! If you catch my drift...

 

[scifes]

Also wrong.
The post I replied to was a flat statement. If that poster cannot be bothered back up his assertion (i.e. say why he thinks he's correct) then why should I bother to "give a handle"?
I'm doing exactly what Big Chiller did. Have you rebuked him?
Not that I can see...

two wrongs don't make a right D. it's as if baseless assertions aren't enough to add to them baseless objections..just take it as if it's an opinion and move on..

because his statement not only makes sense for me, i wouldn't know how to back it up if i wanted to. reason is a tool(philosophy), and so is science, but reason, being a general solution solving all problems, wouldn't be as good as specialized tools solving some particular problems.

how is that supposed to be backed up? especially in the face of no objection?

 

[Dywyddyr]

two wrongs don't make a right D.

I didn't claim that either.
I'm simply granting the same "courtesy" as is granted to everyone else by the original poster.

because his statement not only makes sense for me, i wouldn't know how to back it up if i wanted to. reason is a tool(philosophy), and so is science, but reason, being a general solution solving all problems, wouldn't be as good as specialized tools solving some particular problems.

You're close to the answer. Reason CANNOT be used for everything. That would be why we have other tools...

 

[scifes]

I didn't claim that either.
I'm simply granting the same "courtesy" as is granted to everyone else by the original poster.

is that "courtesy" wrong or right?
substitute your answer in your post.

You're close to the answer. Reason CANNOT be used for everything. That would be why we have other tools...

nope, reason CAN be used to solve anything, but after reason travels the long path to the solution it can hardly be called pure "reason". solving things using science is part of reason, it's as was said here, reason is the tool to make tools, maybe it can't directly solve it's grandtools problems, but other tools come from it to begin with.

without reason, science[or any other field] is useless. but without science reason can still work alone or by sprouting other "tools", so it can be said that reason can solve anything.

now back to the op;
if any field or outlook come from reason, then they are all reasonable to their respective holders. holders of other outlooks may see the reason in other outlooks and may not, artists believe science brought them means to better enjoy art, and scientists believe art is a colorful way to straighten a mood and shake things up a bit. but neither think the other explains the world.

pieces of reality are divided between the outlooks, so something can be in one outlook and hence not be seen by some of the other outlooks, i'm here wondering if god is such.

if he is such, then we have to retract our steps that we took from reason to science, and look for the steps made from reason to science and see where they end. and see if god is there or not.

tele-evaluating god from science might be like evaluating electrons from a art.

 

[Dywyddyr]

is that "courtesy" wrong or right?
substitute your answer in your post.

WTF has "right" or "wrong" got to do with it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'll ask again:

I'm doing exactly what Big Chiller did. Have you rebuked him?

nope, reason CAN be used to solve anything

Show this is true.
Does reason work in highly emotional situations?
If reason were able to solve anything then we wouldn't require other tools...

now back to the op;
if any field or outlook come from reason, then they are all reasonable to their respective holders. holders of other outlooks may see the reason in other outlooks and may not, artists believe science brought them means to better enjoy art, and scientists believe art is a colorful way to straighten a mood and shake things up a bit. but neither think the other explains the world.

Being "reasonable to their respective holders" does not mean that it actually is, in reality, reasonable. Or viable.

 

[scifes]

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.

which isn't fine?
it isn't fine scientifically..even philosophically it's fine. but does that mean it doesn't exist? is what isn't proved objectively, isn't repeatedly demonstratable to others, isn't science, is it non-existant?

one can say hallucinations exist only inside one's mind so what?
so, what exists only in one's mind, is it unreliable?

science smacks a definite NO on that question's forehead, other outlooks of life beg to differ, and they could be correct there.

and before we get too swept with things that can't be proven out of ones mind, i don't think that god can't be proven out of on's mind, but just for the sake of argument i'm discussing it.

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.

mothers beg to differ, so do soldiers and maybe even scientists; the brain does too many calculations for the conscious person to absorb, understand, and then demonstrate to others, you can feel you're being watched without knowing why or how. an expert engineer can look at a complex blueprint and get a gut feeling it's gonna go boom somewhere, he may say th blueprint is ok because he can't exactly point to where the problem is, but his brain caught the problem and registered it into the data he builds his conclusion upon. :shrug:

relying on the demonstratable is like a courtroom, like in the movie Law Abiding Citizen; "it's not what happened that matters there, it's what you can PROVE tht matters"...so is god one of the things lost on courtrooms? there are other ways to look for truth, journalism[a different outlook] can cover an event and unearth "facts" the courtroom didn't find or didn't accept. whether those things happened or not, is up to you.

Art needs no evidence, it just is what it is.

why can't god be the same?
imo the majority of the world reach god through the watchmaker's fallacy, which i don't even understand why it IS a fallacy, but it makes people comfortable and they follow it.
but why can't god, or religion, be like art, or like numbers?

Science was never meant to replace the subjective experience of living. Our subjective experience informs and stimulates science.

true, one can study science to learn of god's wonders.

Why don't you believers create a brand new science with God?

who said there isn't?

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".

angry little man..
all what a scientist needs to do is believe god did whatever isn't discovered yet, and that's it:shrug: it's no big deal... no contradiction at all.
whatever science finds--->god did it:shrug:

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?

emmm..yeah..

 

[scifes]

WTF has "right" or "wrong" got to do with it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'll ask again:

let's just drop it.

Show this is true.

i think i did.

Does reason work in highly emotional situations?

emotion in my books is a form of reason. one you are unaware of it's inner workings.

If reason were able to solve anything then we wouldn't require other tools...

lol, other tools from where? those other tools are born FROM reason, which is the whole point.

Being "reasonable to their respective holders" does not mean that it actually is, in reality, reasonable. Or viable.

true, it depends on which outlook you belong to.
but after testing from as much different outlooks as accurately as you can, you'll be closer to objective reality imo.

if god is not viable in science's reason, it could be in others' reason, like love or smoking.

 

[Dywyddyr]

an expert engineer can look at a complex blueprint and get a gut feeling it's gonna go boom somewhere, he may say th blueprint is ok because he can't exactly point to where the problem is, but his brain caught the problem and registered it into the data he builds his conclusion upon.

As an attempted refutation of

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.

this is a miserable fail.
The evidence IS actually there (in the "blueprint" [and I do wish you'd stop using that word]) but has not yet been consciously processed. In other words it's not an unsupported belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i think i did.

You may think you did, but in actuality you didn't.

emotion in my books is a form of reason. one you are unaware of it's inner workings.

Ah, you want to redefine "reason".

lol, other tools from where? those other tools are born FROM reason, which is the whole point.

This is a claim, merely. Yet to be shown as true.
For example:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97668&highlight=reason+fundamental

true, it depends on which outlook you belong to.
but after testing from as much different outlooks as accurately as you can, you'll be closer to objective reality imo.
if god is not viable in science's reason, it could be in others' reason, like love or smoking.

Again you keep coming back to "could be" and "depends" and "IMO".
Which perspectives (other than science) have been shown to give explanations of the world as consistently accurate as science (when they give any at all, that is)?
If there is another way of "reasoning" that could show god actually exists how come it hasn't done so?
After all, it's had several thousand years to make its point...

 

[scifes]

an expert engineer can look at a complex blueprint and get a gut feeling it's gonna go boom somewhere, he may say th blueprint is ok because he can't exactly point to where the problem is, but his brain caught the problem and registered it into the data he builds his conclusion upon.

As an attempted refutation of

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.

this is a miserable fail.
The evidence IS actually there (in the "blueprint" [and I do wish you'd stop using that word*]) but has not yet been consciously processed. In other words it's not an unsupported belief.

PRECISELY! EXACTLY! BULLSEYE!:bravo:
AND YET, IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY REJECTED; look, the gut feeling COULD be based on nothing, maybe a bad lunch, and maybe on something true..but REGARDLESS, scientifically it is NOT accepted.

now, trust, trust isn't based on what is demonstratable, and it might go by that gut feeling of the fellow engineer and make the project chief cancel or postpone the project, and save the day.

so exactly as you said:

The evidence IS actually there in the "blueprint" but has not yet been consciously processed. In other words it's not an unsupported belief.

you can replace "consciously" with "scientifically".
maybe for god the evidence IS there, but it could be a philosophical one or an artistic one or a gut one, or there could be none at all; the belief in might not be unfounded after all, even if it is scientifically unfounded.



*omg..an engineer...staring at a "complex" "blueprint"..."gut" feelings...sure something'll go "boom" somewhere...lol no wonder you don't want me to use it again..

 

[scifes]

You may think you did, but in actuality you didn't.

you may think that in actuality i didn't, but in actuality i did.
that game can be played by two

Ah, you want to redefine "reason".

ok then, emotion is a form of logic, not reason.
it's still not illogical.

This is a claim, merely. Yet to be shown as true.
For example:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97668&highlight=reason+fundamental

nice thread, but still, what're you getting at?
reason is formal logic, then what?
how about we drop this? i don't see it much relevant.

Again you keep coming back to "could be" and "depends" and "IMO".

i wanna be as accurate as possible, which is to know you'll never be as accurate as you claim.

Which perspectives (other than science) have been shown to give explanations of the world as consistently accurate as science (when they give any at all, that is)?

i have two answers, you can choose one;
1-philosophy.[as i displayed with my nihilist example, which you just ignored].
2-none, so what? who told you all people want consistency and accuracy? are you missing the whole thread? some people would follow a lie after knowing it is a lie, some perspectives don't require that accuracy to begin with, it is fine with large margins:shrug: and i gave many examples before.
happiness can be reached through more than consistency and accuracy, wake up. if you don't, let the others sleep.

If there is another way of "reasoning" that could show god actually exists how come it hasn't done so?

you livin on mars?
how many people walk the earth? how many of them believe in god? how many of those have no reasoning?
:crazy:
that's the point of this thread!
they have their reasoning too, and their's is no less because it's different than yours!

After all, it's had several thousand years to make its point...

that's why there are no religions around?
that's why religion does NOT predate science?
sigh..

 

[Dywyddyr]

PRECISELY! EXACTLY! BULLSEYE!:bravo:
AND YET, IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY REJECTED

Wrong. It has been scientifically validated.

look, the gut feeling COULD be based on nothing, maybe a bad lunch, and maybe on something true..but REGARDLESS, scientifically it is NOT accepted.

See above.

you can replace "consciously" with "scientifically".
maybe for god the evidence IS there, but it could be a philosophical one or an artistic one or a gut one, or there could be none at all; the belief in might not be unfounded after all, even if it is scientifically unfounded.

I'll reiterate this, slowly, so that you can understand.
The engineer gets a "gut feeling". There actually IS evidence. The engineer will not halt the project UNTIL he can show others what is wrong and how. In other words, even though he has processed the information unconsciously to arrive at the "gut feeling" he will consciously go through the process required to find the evidence that triggered the feeling, and THEN halt the project. Or, having gone through the process and NOT having found anything he'l say "Meh, must have been indigestion, we'l go ahead".

*omg..an engineer...staring at a "complex" "blueprint"..."gut" feelings...sure something'll go "boom" somewhere...lol no wonder you don't want me to use it again..

And again you misunderstand. It's the term "blueprint" I object to. No worthwhile engineer (in the UK at least) uses the word. It's the stuff of second-rate spy novels rather than real-world engineers. Drawings, not blueprint.

 

[scifes]

i always knew you were a sore loser

Wrong. It has been scientifically validated.

aha, and the conclusion was??????????

I'll reiterate this, slowly, so that you can understand.

trust me, i understand, you're the one here who didn't.

The engineer gets a "gut feeling". There actually IS evidence. The engineer will not halt the project UNTIL he can show others what is wrong and how. In other words, even though he has processed the information unconsciously to arrive at the "gut feeling" he will consciously go through the process required to find the evidence that triggered the feeling, and THEN halt the project. Or, having gone through the process and NOT having found anything he'l say "Meh, must have been indigestion, we'l go ahead".

ok there mister; how about this:
the CEO of your company flashes the dRAwinG in front of you for a minute, tells you how hard and for how long they've been working on it, and tells you he'll be submitting it in the next 5 minutes, as soon as you lay your eyes on the paper your heart starts racing and a feeling of forbidding falls on you, you ask the CEO if he's sure this is checked, he says it's double checked, you either sign and approve and it goes or you sign disapproval and cost your company a 500 grand, a tenth of its losses if the drawing was indeed faulted, you tell your CEO of your gut feeling...
...WHAT WILL HIS SCIENTIFIC ANSWER TO YOU BE D?

And again you misunderstand. It's the term "blueprint" I object to. No worthwhile engineer (in the UK at least) uses the word. It's the stuff of second-rate spy novels rather than real-world engineers. Drawings, not blueprint.

oh so you didn't mean this:

2. blueprint

It is when a gentleman, of sorts, convinces a lady to undergo sexual intercourse in a private location of his choosing and then during intercourse have multiple of the gentleman's friends run out of a closet ready to ejaculate and then spray the lady like soap in a car-wash.
When my daughter came home last night she ran right to the shower screaming, "BLUEPRINT".

 

[Dywyddyr]

aha, and the conclusion was??????????

Er, I stated the conclusion: the information (that actually existed) was processed unconsciously.

trust me, i understand, you're the one here who didn't.

So why was your reply directly contrary to what I'd said?

ok there mister; how about this:
blah blah blah...WHAT WILL HIS SCIENTIFIC ANSWER TO YOU BE D?

What is your point?
I have already explained what happens.
In such a circumstance it will come down to how much the CEO trusts the engineer's experience.
If it's a new guy then the CEO will likely inore him, if it's a guy with 30+ years the the CEO will ask him to have a look and come back if he finds an error.

oh so you didn't mean this:

Nope. Never, ever come across that before.

 

[Dywyddyr]

ok then, emotion is a form of logic, not reason.
it's still not illogical.

Emotion, by defintion, is illogical.

nice thread, but still, what're you getting at?
reason is formal logic, then what?

The point is that reason and logic are separate things, and what can be arrived by logic may not be arrived by reason, and vice versa.

i have two answers, you can choose one;
1-philosophy.[as i displayed with my nihilist example, which you just ignored].

Philosophy is a good as science at explaning the world? hardly.

2-none, so what? who told you all people want consistency and accuracy? are you missing the whole thread? some people would follow a lie after knowing it is a lie, some perspectives don't require that accuracy to begin with, it is fine with large margins:shrug: and i gave many examples before.

Ah, so you aren't looking for valid explanations, just comforting ones. Okay.

you livin on mars?
how many people walk the earth? how many of them believe in god? how many of those have no reasoning?

Oh wait!

some people would follow a lie after knowing it is a lie

Just because people BELIVE in god does not mena that the process by which they arrived at that belief is valid (excpet to themselves).

they have their reasoning too, and their's is no less because it's different than yours!

Is it not?
I agree. So long as you're looking for comfort rather reality.

 

[scifes]

Er, I stated the conclusion: the information (that actually existed) was processed unconsciously.

"er", no, you're playing with words;
does the scientific method accept statements based on information that actually existed and was processed unconsciously?

So why was your reply directly contrary to what I'd said?

because you didn't understand:bugeye:

What is your point?

that some things elude the scientific method and are caught up by other methods, hence making those other methods sometimes more consistent and accurate:blbl:

I have already explained what happens.
In such a circumstance it will come down to how much the CEO trusts the engineer's experience.

good thing the CEO didn't follow the scientific method then?
alas, good thing he didn't follow the philosophical method either and actually accepted the appeal to authority or wisdom..eh?
so much for accuracy and consistency..

If it's a new guy then the CEO will likely inore him, if it's a guy with 30+ years the the CEO will ask him to have a look and come back if he finds an error.

there may not BE time for him to go back and do things perfectly, in the same way one may not have time to go back and explain his gut feeling that tells him there is a god around.

Nope. Never, ever come across that before.

lol, first time i see it too, but once i was talking to a friend of mine about a game where you have to steal the blue prints and he was like "aha! blue prints?! *wink wink*"