How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until..

[Enai de a lukal]

Incorrect. Science tells us about a specific subset of what can be real. Unless, for instance, you consider beauty, morality, or worth to be "not real."

This is basically a canard. There is no necessary limitation to what science could or could not study, aside from being constrained by the real; science most certainly can and does tell us about things like "beauty, morality, and worth" (evolutionary anthropology, psychology, etc etc- this are hardly topics which are insusceptible to scientific inquiry).

 

[technomage]

This is basically a canard. There is no necessary limitation to what science could or could not study, aside from being constrained by the real; science most certainly can and does tell us about things like "beauty, morality, and worth" (evolutionary anthropology, psychology, etc etc- this are hardly topics which are insusceptible to scientific inquiry).

Science can tell us why we feel something is beautiful, but cannot detect beauty or weigh it on a scale. Science can tell us about psychology, and why as human beings we may consider some act moral or not, but cannot tell right from wrong.

I also note that you omitted the supporting example from my post, and did not respond to it. Without that example, we are discussing vague generalities. With that example, we can discuss a concrete (if hypothetical) topic. I would be interested in your response to the example I provided.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Science can tell us why we feel something is beautiful, but cannot detect beauty or weigh it on a scale.

I'm not sure what that means, since beauty is merely a judgment- but it seems entirely possible that science could come to predict, for instance, what a given person will consider beautiful on a given instance, simply from understanding the cognitive processes which underlie our aesthetic judgments.

Science can tell us about psychology, and why as human beings we may consider some act moral or not, but cannot tell right from wrong.

Well, that's supposing that there is such a thing as being right/wrong above and beyond being considered right/wrong- I see no reason to accept such a presupposition. In any case, supposing there is such a thing as "objective" right or wrong, I still see no reason why science could not, in principle, study or classify it.

I also note that you omitted the supporting example from my post, and did not respond to it. Without that example, we are discussing vague generalities. With that example, we can discuss a concrete (if hypothetical) topic. I would be interested in your response to the example I provided.

Well, it isn't the best example since science generally doesn't tell us anything about single isolated events, but patterns or regularities; but if miracles did indeed occur, it is conceivable that science could figure out how they work, such that it could predict future cases.

 

[psychoslice]

Slight quibble: the word is spelled "accept."

More important issue: how much of the universe would you have to search (assuming you start from Earth) to discover our Sun? Many theists claim that the existence of God is as obvious as the existence of the Sun is. While I disagree with their assertion, I do have to accept that _if_ their assertion is true, one would not have to search very far.

I disagree also on that, unless they believe the sun to be god, Oh sorry about the spelling, its no big deal to me, its just words.

 

[technomage]

I'm not sure what that means, since beauty is merely a judgment- but it seems entirely possible that science could come to predict, for instance, what a given person will consider beautiful on a given instance, simply from understanding the cognitive processes which underlie our aesthetic judgments.

While accurate, your statement is irrelevant to my argument. Science can amass a body of data on what people consider beautiful, and can make predictions based on that data. Science cannot develop a theory of beauty. Of course, to some extent that is because "beauty" is not "real" in the sense that color, or mass, or material are real. (I do not hold to the Platonic concept of forms.) But to a larger extent, it is because beauty cannot be weighed on a scale, or measured by a gauge.

Well, that's supposing that there is such a thing as being right/wrong above and beyond being considered right/wrong- I see no reason to accept such a presupposition. In any case, supposing there is such a thing as "objective" right or wrong, I still see no reason why science could not, in principle, study or classify it.

It is precisely because there is no such thing as "objective" right and wrong that science cannot study it.

Well, it isn't the best example since science generally doesn't tell us anything about single isolated events, but patterns or regularities;

Incorrect: science can extrapolate from individual data points to patterns, or can interpolate from general patterns to specific instances. In science, there IS no such thing as a "single isolated event." All natural phenomena can be connected to other natural phenomena.

but if miracles did indeed occur, it is conceivable that science could figure out how they work, such that it could predict future cases.

Unlikely. Again, presuming that a miracle occurred, you are dealing with an entity (or entities) with intelligence and volition. How do you persuade such an entity to submit to examination? If God exists, can you weigh him on a scale?

There is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Science relies on the first, not the second.

 

[Tiberius]

Incorrect. Science tells us about a specific subset of what can be real. Unless, for instance, you consider beauty, morality, or worth to be "not real."

They are subjective and thus are not real in any sense external to the person holding the opinion. There is no objective beauty. There is, however, an objective truth as to how the leopard got his spots.

Science is extremely good at telling us about physical phenomena. But let us suppose for a moment that a miracle occurs. What, precisely, could science tell us about this miracle? It could only tell us "This event occurred that was not in accord with the normal physical phenomena that can be discussed scientifically."

It could tell us how things acted differently. And by this logic, it would only be through science that we could be aware that a miracle had in fact occurred at all.

Besides, it's never happened. There has never been a clear concise account of an event in which the natural laws were suspended.

Of course, I have severe doubts that miracles have ever occurred. But let us acknowledge that science is, by definition, limited.

Not when it comes to the objective. And everything that is external to a person's mind is objective. It is the person's viewpoint of it that is subjective.

 

[Tiberius]

How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

This question can be asked the other way around......how can you except the possibility of a God until you have searched every inch of the universe., how much of the universe has religion searched to make this claim ?.

I don't need to search all of my lounge room to know my keys are there. I could find them on the sofa, and so I don't need to search the coffee table to know the keys were in the lounge room.

Likewise, I don't need to search the whole bathroom to find my razor if I find it in the shower. I don't need to then search the cabinet. I can leave places unsearched and still know for a fact my razor is there.

 

[Breathe]

And what definition would that be?

Pantheism, for a start.

So you can't even respond to my question in English and it's my loss? I ask for an answer and you give me something that is unintelligible and then you blame me? That's rich.

I thought you could use your Google-fu.

So anything called a God must be WITHOUT limits?

Not necessarily, but you're missing the point of polytheistic interpretations.

You're just using more technobabble to support your original technobabble. I might as well say that being splarffy means to have the property of shnookelness. It's all still meaningless, isn't it?

Immanent and transcendent are right there in the dictionary.

Enough with the patronizing. Mythology tells us nothing verifiably true about the real world. It can tell us ideas, yes, but it does not provide explanations for concrete things. When it tells us how the leopard got his spots, for example, it is not describing the actual reason why leopards are spotted. Science does that. Mythology can only deal in metaphors and simile. It does not deal in actual events, actual causes and effects.

That's because mythology is not supposed to be historically accurate.

Oh please. Didn't you say, "God is not something that can be defined. It is something that can be experienced, but when one puts it to words, then they have made it something it is not"?

That's exactly how I feel when I watch TV. Don't blame me for your inability to explain something.

You're not being serious. I'm wasting my time with you.

 

[chinu]

Yes, that's the problem: that you see aliens appearing and rubbing ice cream on a 3 year old's face as a possibility.

I don't see aliens appearing and rubbing ice cream, it just your claim.
My claim is, if there's universe than "Somebody" has created it, And the one, or whoever created is God.

Of course, saying alien has rubbed ice cream isn't a genuine claim, But you don't have any claim for who created this universe.

 

[chinu]

Chinu you ignored my question a few pages back.

Perhaps it is left unread,
Am just going back to read it again.

 

[chinu]

Surrender to what? And we continue to search because of an innate curiosity.

Though neither activity is dependent upon the fact that "Denial" and "not accepting" are not always the same.

Ok, I want to re-continue the debate from here once again.

Firstly tell me.. Continue to search because of an innate curiosity.. FOR WHAT ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, I want to re-continue the debate from here once again.

Firstly tell me.. Continue to search because of an innate curiosity.. FOR WHAT ?

The answer to the next question. The driving force of science is curiosity and we humans have developed a need to discover and learn.

Though you never answered my question as to why I should surrender to god if I'm not convinced he exists?

 

[chinu]

The answer to the next question. The driving force of science is curiosity and we humans have developed a need to discover and learn.

Though you never answered my question as to why I should surrender to god if I'm not convinced he exists?

Surrendering doesn't depend on somebodies existence.
There's a karate teacher, why should I surrender that teacher without any reason ? If there's a reason I want to learn something from that karate teacher, than of course I have to surrender myself in order to learn because I failed to learn of my own.

Similarly, if one want to overcome the universe than why don't one surrender to God ? as very well one knows that its impossible to do it own-self.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Surrendering doesn't depend on somebodies existence.
There's a karate teacher, why should I surrender that teacher without any reason ? If there's a reason I want to learn something from that karate teacher, than of course I have to surrender myself in order to learn because I failed to learn of my own.

Similarly, if one want to overcome the universe than why don't one surrender to God ? as very well one knows that its impossible to do it own-self.

Because I don't believe god exists. I believe that "surrendering" to god would be wasting my time and slowing down my progress rather than providing something fruitful.

 

[technomage]

They are subjective and thus are not real in any sense external to the person holding the opinion.

But they are still real to the person who perceives them. And they tell us things about ourselves (as part of the real world) that science cannot.

Scientism is a dead end, Tiberius. There's no scientific reason to fall in love ... yet we do it. There's no scientific reason to get a cool car, as opposed to one that is simply functional ... yet I still want a Volkswagen Thing more than I want a conventional sedan.

Science can't tell us everything.

The problem is, you front-loaded your assumptions. You said "Science tells us about what is real," thus excluding from "reality" anything that science is silent on.

 

[chinu]

Because I don't believe god exists.

Have you ever tried ? I don't think so.

I believe that "surrendering" to god would be wasting my time and slowing down my progress rather than providing something fruitful.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Have you ever tried ? I don't think so.

Actually I have. I was a true believing YEC Christian for nearly 10 years. I was an agnostic theist for about 3-7 years off and on. I actually struggled greatly with my faith and I begged god to show me he existed. I wept the day I finally came to the conclusion that I have today. Of everything that it could possibly be, it is not from a lack of trying to believe in god.

 

[chinu]

Actually I have. I was a true believing YEC Christian for nearly 10 years. I was an agnostic theist for about 3-7 years off and on. I actually struggled greatly with my faith and I begged god to show me he existed. I wept the day I finally came to the conclusion that I have today. Of everything that it could possibly be, it is not from a lack of trying to believe in god.

Are you really responding to what I asked you ? I don't think so. So, let me reverse the conversation once again.

You said>>>Because I don't believe god exists. I believe that "surrendering" to god would be wasting my time and slowing down my progress rather than providing something fruitful <<<

Really have you ever tried surrendering ? There's big difference between "Believing in the existence of God.. in order to search God" and "Surrendering to God.. in order to get help to search God"

Waiting for your reply in order to carry on the topic.

 

[sinzzer]

Are you really responding to what I asked you ? I don't think so. So, let me reverse the conversation once again.

You said>>>Because I don't believe god exists. I believe that "surrendering" to god would be wasting my time and slowing down my progress rather than providing something fruitful <<<

Really have you ever tried surrendering ? There's big difference between "Believing in the existence of God.. in order to search God" and "Surrendering to God.. in order to get help to search God"

Waiting for your reply in order to carry on the topic.

What do you mean with "tried surrendering"?

 

[chinu]

What do you mean with "tried surrendering"?

Surrender in simple means Hands-up.
When one just says that I put my hands-up and surrender because after trying my level best i failed in doing this specific work, Now I want help.