I can not see it, so it does not exist

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can't observe useful. It is subjective like good and bad.

Just because it is subjective doesn't mean we can't come up with criteria by which we can make objective judgments against the criteria. For example, does a thing help or hinder the quality of the water we drink? Knowing what we know about what constitutes a "contaminant" or "toxin" to our body, we can come up with tests and measurements that assess the objective levels of these (subjectively) bad things in the water.

In other words, once the goal is established (which may be entirely subjective, I agree), we can work toward achieving the goal. Religion may have the same sorts of things... but it is certainly different for each religion. Where something like quality of water is pretty much the same regardless the person needing to drink it - and thank goodness for that. Can you imagine if purifying water were as complicated and messy as determining the criteria by which humanity's religious goals were being met? Each person would have their own, unique formula, and instead of being able to take physiological readings and measurements to determine what it was they needed, you'd have to rely on what they told you!

 

[epronovost]

No there isn't.

There is only evidence that you have failed in your search.

It depends on the definition of your God. If you say your God is a blue djinn who invented the automobile and commanded allied troops in WWII, we can easily disprove it by simply finding the total abscence of a blue djinn in the creation of the automobile and no general in the allied troop HQ was a blue djinn or even refered to as the blue djinn. If you say, for example, that your God is a perfect human looking being who shoots lightning bolt and create stroms with his wrath, we could very well disprove him to by observing storms and finding no trace of such perfect human looking being, finding that lightning are produced by friction of particle in storm cloud and that storm clouds are created by evaporated water clouds getting in contact with one another due to air currents, not by the anger of anything or anyone. Again, this divinity has been shown to not be where it was supposed to be. It all depends on the characteristics. In some case, you are right, we simply didn't search at the right place or didn't use the right tools, but that's not always the case.

Let's use gamma radiation as an analogy.

Aside from the Incredible Hulk where gamma radiation is intense green and bright, I'm pretty sure I heard that gamma radiation is invisible. Completely so. So, you could make a concerted effort on all the nuclear places or wherever trying to "look" for it. "I didn't see it, so it must not exist!" 50 years later you get cancer.

I'msorry, but no. You are flat out wrong about that. Gamma rays can be detected. We use a device called a spectrometer to do so. Though gamma rays are indeed hard to detect since they are very rare and contain a lot of energy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence of that please.

The device you use to read this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The device you use to read this.

You really don't understand a reason argument at least in this exchange.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't observe useful. It is subjective like good and bad.

We are able to build micro-chips and use them in devices we call computers to have this conversation. Various theories of physics underpin those technologies. Without said theories, we wouldn't be able to build such devices.

That makes those theories of physics quite usefull.

You can deny that if you want, but it will just make you look like this:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You really don't understand a reason argument at least in this exchange.

You asked for evidence of usefull knowledge in context of scientific theories.

Plenty of scientific theories underpin the technology of the device you use to read this.
As in: without those theories, engineers wouldn't be able to build such devices. There would be no computers, no smartphones, no tablets, no internet.

If that doesn't make those theories usefull, then I don't know what you mean by "usefull".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You asked for evidence of usefull knowledge in context of scientific theories.

Plenty of scientific theories underpin the technology of the device you use to read this.
As in: without those theories, engineers wouldn't be able to build such devices. There would be no computers, no smartphones, no tablets, no internet.

If that doesn't make those theories usefull, then I don't know what you mean by "usefull".

No, I asked for how you know with evidence how it is useful knowledge. I want evidence for its usefulness using the methodology of evidence as per science.
I know that technology is useful to me, but that is subjective and not evidence. Evidence is objective.

 

[night912]

Why can't we see God? Well a cursory glance through the Bible explains this.
First of all, we have God the Father, who is a spiritual being. This God created the universe, and is not only undivided but by the definition above, part of the very fabric of the universe. It's like a dot painting, unless you back up, you can't see what you are looking for, and there's no guarantee your eyes will see God.
Then we have God the Holy Spirit, which unlike God the Father is a decentralized aspect, basically the spirit of God inside us. Our souls. If you don't believe in a soul, you will again never see this.
Finally, we have Jesus, the personification of God. You would think of Jesus as one particular person, but as far as we cqn see this only happened once in history. Jesus describes himself instead as the least of these. So cranky person that you meet on the street. Jesus is the God we meet, but most of us don't notice Jesus.

As you can see, none of these descriptions match a God that regular people can just wander around aimlessly and find. But like the gamma radiation, you proven absolutely nothing by not seeing God, except that you don't know how to look.

Then how do explain the exchristians? Not seeing the evidence is not the same as no longer seeing the evidence. It's like a dot painting, once you've seen it, even if after not be able to see it again, you know are still convinced that the image is still there. Just because someone else says that they don't see it or that there's no image, that doesn't convince you that there was no image.

Does finding God solve all your problems?

It does help in solving the problem of whether or not God exist.

In fact, I'm more depressed now than before as it seems most of his followers have turned their backs on God.

So basically, you're not depressed because you saw God, it's because not everyone believes what you believe.

So why search for God? The only answer is if you actually want a relationship with God.

Again, what about exchristians? And just because you no longer want a relationship with your (ex)boyfriend/girlfriend, you still believe/know that they and the relationship existed.

If don't, be honest that you never really tried to meet God, and this "proof" isn't proof. If you were committed to finding God, strange things would begin to happen to you.

Be honest, even if someone told you that they were committed, you still wouldn't accept that they did until they finally told you that they believe that God exist, even if they lied to you that they now believe. You will probably even say that those exchristians weren't real Christians, they weren't really committed, they know God exist but just choose to not believe and/or they just just want to sin or any other lame excuse to try and justify your belief. It's that isn't it? Be honest now, lying to others or yourself is a sin. Don't be tempted by Satan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You really don't understand a reason argument at least in this exchange.

The knowledge obtained from physics research accumulated in our current understandings of how physics works. This knowledge is formulated in theories. I called such theories usefull and you asked for evidence of them being usefull...

These theories enable us to build computers, based on that knowledge.

So clearly the knowledge is usefull - it enables us to do such things as create all kinds of devices, transport, food processors, etc.

You asked for evidence of how scientific theories are usefull and I provided it.
Not sure what your problem is.

For a thing to be usefull, it needs to enable you to do thing, open up doors of oppertunity. That what "usefull" means. And scientific theories certainly do exactly that, as I have just given you an example of.

What's the problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

....
These theories enable us to build computers, based on that knowledge.

So clearly the knowledge is usefull - it enables us to do such things as create all kinds of devices, transport, food processors, etc.

You asked for evidence of how scientific theories are usefull and I provided it.
Not sure what your problem is.

For a thing to be usefull, it needs to enable you to do thing, open up doors of oppertunity. That what "usefull" means. And scientific theories certainly do exactly that, as I have just given you an example of.

What's the problem?

That "us" and "useful" are subjective.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.

You have to learn this. How we use knowledge, to what end, is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I asked for how you know with evidence how it is useful knowledge. I want evidence for its usefulness using the methodology of evidence as per science.

Care to rephrase that in a more comprehensible manner?

I know that technology is useful to me

And scientific theories underpin technology. Without those theories, there is no such technology.
So clearly the theories are usefull in that they enable us to create the technology.

What's the problem? How is the existance of technology, which is based on scientific theories, not evidence of the usefullness of theories?

, but that is subjective and not evidence. Evidence is objective.

There's nothing subjective about that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Care to rephrase that in a more comprehensible manner?


And scientific theories underpin technology. Without those theories, there is no such technology.
So clearly the theories are usefull in that they enable us to create the technology.

What's the problem? How is the existance of technology, which is based on scientific theories, not evidence of the usefullness of theories?



There's nothing subjective about that.

See above.

If you build a bridge, that is objective.
But whether you want to build it or not, is subjective

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That "us" and "useful" are subjective.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do


You have to learn this. How we use knowledge, to what end, is subjective.

Usefullness, is by definition subjective "to us".

I don't think a cat will find atomic theory usefull.



You're being incredibly obtuse.

Given the meaning of the word "usefull", theory is objectively usefull in that it enables us to create technology and / or understand certain processes we can plan around.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See above.

If you build a bridge, that is objective.
But whether you want to build it or not, is subjective

Now, you're just saying random irrelevant things.

Theory underpins technology.
Therefor theory is usefull for building technolgy.

That's all there is to it. What's your problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now, you're just saying random irrelevant things.

Theory underpins technology.
Therefor theory is usefull for building technolgy.

That's all there is to it. What's your problem?

That you can't understand when you are subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That you can't understand when you are subjective.

What's subjective about the notion that, for example, the theory of relativity allows us to build GPS satellite systems?

Without relativity, it doesn't work.
With relativity, it works.

How's that subjective in a practical sense?



Also note that you asked for evidence of scientific theories being usefull. Here you have yet another example: GPS. It works with relativity, it doesn't work without it.

So the theory of relativity is pretty usefull, in that it enables us to build something like a GPS.

How is that not a piece of evidence that the scientific theory of relativity is usefull?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What's subjective about the notion that, for example, the theory of relativity allows us to build GPS satellite systems?

Without relativity, it doesn't work.
With relativity, it works.

How's that subjective in a practical sense?



Also note that you asked for evidence of scientific theories being usefull. Here you have yet another example: GPS. It works with relativity, it doesn't work without it.

So the theory of relativity is pretty usefull, in that it enables us to build something like a GPS.

How is that not a piece of evidence that the scientific theory of relativity is usefull?

Look here:
God as defined using science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look here:
God as defined using science.

That silly solopsism inspired thread, does not answer my question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That silly solopsism inspired thread, does not answer my question.

You can't even tell the difference between the different kinds of solipsism.

This is about useful:
God as defined using science.