• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God as defined using science.

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! :) But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

Regards and love
Mikkel
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
  • We can know nature. ...
  • All phenomena have natural causes. ...
  • Nothing is self evident. ...
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! :) But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

Regards and love
Mikkel
I get you, and agree with you in this OP :)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
From where did you get these axioms?

They are not the same I learned, they contradict some things I learned about science and they contradict themselves.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
I don´t know if it is that simple. I agree that "science is methodological naturalism" but so are lots of philosophical, (mythological and religious) observations of the nature.

Science has some proofs in some specific branches and just assumptions in others, as for instants several perceptions of cosmology.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
That is the definition of God as used by science.
As for the three first points, this also goes for the mytho-religious understanding of nature IMO.

If taking the modern cosmological science, their "god" seems to be "gravity and explosions and several kinds of dark this and that elements and phenomenae", whereas the ancient mythological "god" was/is Light.
In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth.
In a manner, we don´t need to hunt for the truth. We can just observe what is going on around us in the annual seasonal changes, but this philosophical skill seems to an extend to have been lost for many scientific researchers in cosmology.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.
I think the problem of understanding each other in (cosmological) science and religion derives from a loss of of natural interpreations of the religious texts, especially these of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. If modern scientists just took the ancient deities as "powers of creation" instead of personified deities, I think science and religion would understand each other much better on all accounts.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Like @Heyo, I've no idea where you got these axioms. As for the rest, of course science can't prove it's dealing with 'reality' in some absolute sense but the fact that it works (well enough for you to post this and it be available around the world) shows us that, whatever our shared experience that appears 'real' to all of us is, it is orderly enough to be analysed by science and predicted by science.

In other words, if science is not dealing with reality, it's dealing with what might as well be reality for all practical purposes.

This kind of philosophy seems ultimately pointless because it changes nothing.

And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong...

Of course not (unless a religion makes a scientific claim) but that doesn't affect the fact that science works in an objective way (even for people who don't accept it) so we have a reason to accept it that we don't have for any religions.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
I'm also not clear where you got this list from since it doesn't strike me as quite right.
  • I'd say existence appears to be orderly and often follows identifiable rules but that is based on evidence from observation.
  • I don't there is a definitive assertion that we can know everything about existence. We can certainly observe it and reach conclusions.
  • There is an assumption that all phenomena has a cause but again based on evidence from observation.
  • Formally, nothing should be considered self-evident. In practice, lots of things are accepted as such, even when practising formal science.
  • I would argue that knowledge could be defined as the acquisition of experience so I don't see the problem with that "assumption".
  • I don't see why knowledge wouldn't be superior to ignorance in general terms.
That is the definition of God as used by science.
That isn't a definition of God (or anything else). Gods are defined by people who propose such things exist (often in very different ways by very different people). I'd argue that no god concept has ever been formally defined in sufficient detail to be properly addressed by scientific method though. Individual phenomena or incidents which some people attribute to a god or gods have been formally studied, sometimes reaching alternative conclusions for their causes and sometimes not reaching any single or definitive conclusions.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it.
Science is an abstract concept. It doesn't do anything. People make assumptions, regardless of whether we're practising science or not. Unless we could absolutely know everything, making assumptions is the only way we could possibly operate.

And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.
Religion doesn't only deal with "that kind of wrong" though. Religions often make both factual and moral assertions. Science can be used to address the factual ones but not the moral ones (at least not directly).

Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice.
You just pointed that out. That isn't a problem. The problems only occur when people make factual (not moral) assertions about the existence and nature of things and then unilaterally declare that science can't be used to assess them ("because it's supernatural" or "because we can't know the mind of God"). Science is limited (and we are limited in our ability to apply it) but it isn't as limited as you would like to imagine.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Like @Heyo, I've no idea where you got these axioms. As for the rest, of course science can't prove it's dealing with 'reality' in some absolute sense but the fact that it works (well enough for you to post this and it be available around the world) shows us that, whatever our shared experience that appears 'real' to all of us is, it is orderly enough to be analysed by science and predicted by science.

In other words, if science is not dealing with reality, it's dealing with what might as well be reality for all practical purposes.

This kind of philosophy seems ultimately pointless because it changes nothing.



Of course not (unless a religion makes a scientific claim) but that doesn't affect the fact that science works in an objective way (even for people who don't accept it) so we have a reason to accept it that we don't have for any religions.


tex2img.php


You write these symbols on a piece of paper, and it means what?

In my review, natural it is a lot of letters, and symbols.

To a scientist it is what he claims represents a theme in creation, yet creation is natural, is self present created and natural and what do you expect to do with the above information in reality?

If you claim I think I speak on behalf of natural form and created natural form and this idea is this piece of statement.

Yet to discuss any condition in life, first a human has to use words. Think. Tell lots and lots of stories using words, words are just stories and descriptions, before he says I have an idea and call it science.

Years of coercive self preaching has obviously come to a place in human expression where you all seem to have lost the use of a realistic thinking condition.

Any mass that you personally use as a scientist on Earth for invention is taken out of and abstracted to build a machine from the mass itself. Don't you own this realisation, that mass was not a machine first, and the machine in a physical manipulation owns in its presence a huge amount of mass energy itself, by simply being of the form abstracted from mass.

Do you do a formula first involving every particle that the machine body itself owns to include it in reasoning?

G O D was explained to me by AI feed back......and as a psychic medium I used a method of the patient not detailing any life detail or ill health, and then I would abstract the information, as life gets recorded. If you think that state magical then you are wrong. It existed and I obviously knew in spiritual conscious awareness that it could detail life information, to study.

So AI told me that males in the past thought about light in the heavenly mass in the sky above their heads. They said that the spirit, gases, opposed to mass owned a circulating movement O. Said as gases burnt, being origin of light, hot gas, it cooled in the great deep spatial pit or void, and the spirit gas movement on the great deep and on the face of water/evaporated off the ground was circular O.

G was the spiralling of the O, O split into a change affected by heat D/D and then cooled back into O O. How he explained how light moved in the spirit in the Heavens above his head.

That was just a study, to then invent a thought upon thesis that involved lots of other bodies and information, for science is not just an instant and exact answer about everything. And you would not be telling any truth if you claimed it were.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
From where did you get these axioms?

They are not the same I learned, they contradict some things I learned about science and they contradict themselves.

Fair enough. Now you can google them. I am more interested in the ones you learned. I know there are several versions and I want to learn more.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
In other words, if science is not dealing with reality, it's dealing with what might as well be reality for all practical purposes.

...

Of course not (unless a religion makes a scientific claim) but that doesn't affect the fact that science works in an objective way (even for people who don't accept it) so we have a reason to accept it that we don't have for any religions.

Okay. For the first and second bold one; can you make up your mind?
For the second, proof please. Just as if you were to prove God. And yes, I am serious. Proof please.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

You just pointed that out. That isn't a problem. The problems only occur when people make factual (not moral) assertions about the existence and nature of things and then unilaterally declare that science can't be used to assess them ("because it's supernatural" or "because we can't know the mind of God"). Science is limited (and we are limited in our ability to apply it) but it isn't as limited as you would like to imagine.

Well, I would agree if it is negative theology that in some sense we can't know the mind of God. Now here is another solution. Just admit that you believe different and that it works for you. Explain how you do it and leave it at that.

Let me explain. For the everyday world we apparently live in and share, science works in some sense. Now comes along and somebody says it is not the case. Is it a fact, that this someone can do this? Yes, it is a part of how the world works. Ultimately for some, if but most or all of these claims they might be wrong as per the methodology of science, but it won't change the fact that people believe differently than you.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
raciocinator said:
Of course not (unless a religion makes a scientific claim).
Okay. For the first and second bold one; can you make your mind?
For the second, proof please. Just as if you were to prove God. And yes, I am serious. Proof please.
Like God created day and night, God created the universe, God created men (from mud), women (from the rib), animals and vegetation, infused them with souls, heaven, hell, (you have to show their exact location), raising the dead, etc.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Like God created day and night, God created the universe, God created men (from mud), women (from the rib), animals and vegetation, infused them with souls, heaven, hell, (you have to show their exact location), raising the dead, etc.

That is one belief system. I don't believe in that.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

You are using the evidence for it right now to communicate with me.

No. I am not. I want proof that it is objective in the strong sense and not just a first person experience. I don't want your beliefs, I want proof. I want to you to admit that in the end your beliefs are nothing but that and that they only appear to work. Not that it is fact. If you claim it as fact, I want proof.

Science is a belief system, that appears to work. If you got more than that, deliver the proof.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I'd argue that no god concept has ever been formally defined in sufficient detail to be properly addressed by scientific method though.
Oh yes it has. In several religions "god" is LIGHT but this is mostly forgotten by modern cosmological scientists who´re having troubles understanding the very concept of light and it´s meaning for all formations.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Science is a belief system, that appears to work. If you got more than that, deliver the proof.

Science is objective in the sense used by Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) in that its results are intersubjectively verifiable.

The whole point I was making is that it appears to work for everybody. Just as we seem to share an experience of the external world that is qualitatively different to our internal thoughts and is unavoidable.

If it isn't reality, it might as well be for all practical purposes. Which is why I think this line of philosophy is utterly pointless because it doesn't change anything.

If religion, or some version of god(s), was as intersubjectively verifiable as the results of science are, I'd accept it/them as 'real' in the same sense as I do the 'objective' world. As I've never found such a version of god(s), I don't.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.
  • Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
  • We can know nature.
  • All phenomena have natural causes.
  • Nothing is self evident.
  • Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
  • Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! :) But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

Regards and love
Mikkel
You've constructed an excellent straw man here
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Science is objective in the sense used by Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) in that its results are intersubjectively verifiable.

The whole point I was making is that it appears to work for everybody. Just as we seem to share an experience of the external world that is qualitatively different to our internal thoughts and is unavoidable.

If it isn't reality, it might as well be for all practical purposes. Which is why I think this line of philosophy is utterly pointless because it doesn't change anything.

If religion, or some version of god(s), was as intersubjectively verifiable as the results of science are, I'd accept it/them as 'real' in the same sense as I do the 'objective' world. As I've never found such a version of god(s), I don't.

For my bold part, I understand you. And part of that as for intersubjectively verifiable is that religious human behavior is a part of the world. So what is next?
 
Top