Apologies for joining late DSeid and all. Has anyone posited that Science is not trusted because it denies the most accurate and obvious scientific definition of God?
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
Which would be…?
I can’t. No scientist can. No credible scientist claims to be able to. Other than to say that I have no evidence that it is an illusion, and in the absence of evidence think that it is likely that the world is not an illusion. Though absence of evidence is not…
But, it is very, very low on the list of possible hypotheses.
So, what is the point?
The point is that, when you have a statement within a system that you operate as if it’s true, and on which you predicate many other statements, but that you cannot prove within the system, that’s called an axiom.
Daniel
God (def): The force of existence.
rwj
Alpine,
Well then, welcome back!
Not at all rambling. I’ve heard it called “God-of-the-gaps”.
True enough we humans do not like not knowing, we do not like doubt. We are uncomfortable with it. And at its essence science not about knowing; it is all about managing degrees of doubt, of not knowing. Both New Age mysticism and religious literalism are about certainty. Perhaps that is a large part of it. These are rapidly changing uncertain and insecure times. Should it surprise us that in such uncertain times people cling to that which offers certainty and recoil from that which offers doubt?
Fiveyear, I am sure you are right about Lekatt. It is merely amusing to have read all of his links and the article cited in those links as providing evidence of NDEs, and then be told I am only reading articles by “skeptics.” This is ignorance beyond our help. But can we get to others before they reach that point of self-imposed willfull and terminal ignorance? Heck, I’ll put on my public health hat. Ignorance to that level is a terminal state and is spreading throughout our society. How does it spread? What conditions foster its spread? How do you interupt its transmission and prevent new cases? How can you treat early cases before they are too far gone? Do we have the tools to immunize the population against it and to eliminate its root causes?
rwj, more please. A bit too short hand. Remember “scientific” implies observable.
So that is the “most accurate and obvious scientific definition of God”?
And “science denies” it?
I’m with DSeid, it needs elaboration.
Last I checked, science-as-we-know-it operated on the basis that existence, well, exists. Anyway for the large segment of population that claims to distrust whatever-they-think-is-science, a “god” that does nothing but signal the quantum state for “being” as opposed to “not-being” would be yet another nefarious, malicious blasphemy from the Evil closed-minded-skeptical Scientists.
First, please speak whether you see this definition of God as accurate. It helps if I know where to start, which tongue to speak.
God (def): The force of existence.
In my experience, the ways of God can be observed and understood and predicted by those that seek.
I Am
r~
Your confusion is well founded. I was trying to say “some scientists and people using science as rational deny this definition.”
Please forgive
I Am
r~
Can you expand on how some can predict God’s actions?
There will always be extremists. There will always be evil scientists. If we trust that people will understand, they are more likely to trust us.
I Am
r~
[/QUOTE]
Hold a glass at arms length. Predict what will happen if you let go. How accurate was your prediction?
r~
Existence bless you!
Well, existence damn it, this is pointless!
In existence we trust.
Existence is great, existence is good, let us thank existence for this food.
One nation, under existence…
It’s in existence’s hands now.
Existence said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Every night I pray that existence will see fit to cure my cancer.
No. No, no, no. The definition you offered of God has very, very little to do with the way most people use the word God. You might as well define “apples” as “the force of existence.”
Daniel
God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.
– Paul Tillich
The question was whether (as far as it goes) this definition is accurate. I believe you will find that most that use the word God, credit God for existence.
Science or religion can be used either to unify of divide. It is your choice how you use your words.
r~
Well off we go … If a hijack it is to be, then I’ll ramble along with it!
Can’t say I agree with the definition or even understand it.
I am a theist. Okay, a soft theist, but a theist nevertheless. I believe that there are absolute moral values, things that are Good and Bad, not just good and bad, and, to me, this implies some kind of theism. But I do not believe in God as anything that is understandable with our poor minds. If God exists then God is to me as I am to a bateriium, only I may be giving myself too much credit, for I actually need bacteria to exist and I doubt that God needs me. I think it arrogant to even attempt to define God. There is much is that is forever unknowable and to me that is where God resides.
To me the critical Torah story is when Abraham asked to see God’s face and was told that no human may see God’s face and live. Instead he was shielded behind a rock and allowed to see God’s wake as He passed. Not being a literalist, I take this story’s message to heart: even Abraham could not understand God directly; let us suffice ourselves with developing a relationship with God by understanding what he has left in His wake - the world, the universe, each other. Appreciate the beauty of that, how it all can create itself without the need of an active intelligent designer, the elegance of it all, and by doing so begin to know God. Please note - I do not per se believe that God gives a shit about me or us. I am not so arrogant as to believe that we were what He was after or that He was after anything. Goals are biological things and I presume that God is on a different level beyond my comprehension. He is beyond direct study or observation. These beliefs are nonfalsifiable. I may believe them but they are not evidenciary based. This is not a “scientific defintion” of God.
Let me repeat for the sake of clarity: God has a place in my personal belief system, but that part of my belief system is not subject to scientific methods because God is not a scientific nor testable belief. I just believe it and I respect that others may have other God concepts or no God concept or merely choose to remain unconvinced either way. And just as God is not subject to scientific judgement, my scientific beliefs are not subject to mandatory accordance with revealed truths of sacred texts.
Different kinds of knowing for different kinds of questions.
Maybe it’s been too long since I hung out in GD, but does every single thread which even mentions religion & science in the same paragraph get sidetracked into proofs/non-proofs of the existence/ definition of TDFCKAG (“the deity figure commonly known as god”)?
Curse me for being so innocent! :smack:
[QUOTE=DSeid
Fiveyear, I am sure you are right about Lekatt. It is merely amusing to have read all of his links and the article cited in those links as providing evidence of NDEs, and then be told I am only reading articles by “skeptics.” This is ignorance beyond our help. But can we get to others before they reach that point of self-imposed willfull and terminal ignorance? Heck, I’ll put on my public health hat. Ignorance to that level is a terminal state and is spreading throughout our society. How does it spread? What conditions foster its spread? How do you interupt its transmission and prevent new cases? How can you treat early cases before they are too far gone? Do we have the tools to immunize the population against it and to eliminate its root causes?[/QUOTE]
Probably don’t need to provide evidence of NDEs, most everyone knows millions of people have experienced them. As for ignorance, that’s what guys like you call guys like me. It is the answer to your question:
Sort of like a “everyone-is-wrong-but-me” attitude. But it doesn’t matter really, everyone will get their answer to the “ghost in the machine” question when they have their own death experience. Best Wishes
You mean like the attitude that you display when you falsely accuse science of being atheistic?
Or falsely claim that other posters have not read your links simply because they do not agree that your links prove what you claim for them?
Or ignore the actual definitions of science to pretend that it is supposed to accept anecdotes instead of test results, simply because you want to get science to support your beliefs?
That ‘Sort of like a “everyone-is-wrong-but-me” attitude’?
Probably shouldn’t use this as an example, but I will.
When I look for skeptical literature to pass along to people who might be willing to consider it, I find the smugness and “everyone-is-wrong-but-me” thing gets in the way. Another point made in the article I linked above was that it’s hard to send people to "Quack"watch to learn about dubious health info - it’s offensive to fence-sitters before they even read an article!
I like to think that I’m fighting ignorance out of compassion and concern, not to feel superior. It seems so easy for that self-righteous smugness to creep in, especially when “debating” with someone you know is never going to question their basic tenets.
This is what I posit as a major reason for the resurgence in a fundamentalist attitude among many who espouse religion. Not everyone, but certainly some. I also think this desire for certainty, guidance and rules has been taken advantage of by those who would erase the separation of church and state.