1. 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!

Featured Love of Truth and the criterion of scientific character

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Here below is the quote from the fundamental research article in
    Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

    The criterion of scientific theory excludes the possibility of True Theory:
    "Scientist must be able to refute any theory." The scientist is pooled into the destruction of the foundations and effects. The most convenient "philosophy" hereby is the false atheism. The adjective "false" describes the fact, what the sentence of atheism "No God" is proven wrong.

    Proven wrong already by Jesus Christ, but also by the Thomas Aquinas, by many others and by me: term "reality" means "created by True God", the reality is there and touchable, so there is True God. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Matthew 22:37.

    "To refute" Einstein is very simple: "Now science does not know, but (for the infinity of future research) can be said with certainty: Einstein's error will be detected."

    And as He said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently, and to provoke Him to speak of many things: Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him. (Luke 11:53-54).

    Scientists have introduced themselves artificial rules of research (But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15:9). They do not lead to the creation of an intelligent life, but to unreasonable destruction. But the God blessed path of Truth makes people happy:


    I propose to change the skeptical sign in Popper's criterion following way:
    "a scientist must be able to confirm a theory or hypothesis." At the same time, confirmation tests can destroy the theory, but destruction is not the goal of the activity of scientists. The God can only be confirmed by researcher (if the researcher has stopped to exist, then he can not experience the negative result of the test), so the God necessarily exists. Applicable philosophy: Creationism, the Natural Theology. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
     
    #1 questfortruth, Jul 10, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
  2. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,320
    Religion:
    Christian
    I agree with your logic but atheists definitely do not.
     
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The problem is that it is impossible to verify a general theory.. Take Newton's theory of gravity for example. He proposed that the force of gravity obeys a particular mathematical law. He also proposed a dynamical law relating the force to acceleration.

    Now, how are these laws to be verified? Remember that *every* measurement and observation we make has only a certain level of accuracy: maybe 5 decimal places, or even 7.

    Will our observations confirm the theory? Suppose each and every observation matches the theory to the level of accuracy of the measurement. Does that verify the theory?

    And the answer is NO, it doesn't. It is *always* possible that when we gain the ability to do more precise measurements, the theory could be off at the new level. So, even if we verify 7 decimal places of accuracy, it is possible the theory i at the 10 decimal place level.

    And this is what actually happened historically. Newton's 'law' of gravit yis a very good approximation, but it isn't perfect. Einstein's general theory of relativity is a better approximation and we have not seen anything countering it. But it isn't verified because NO THEORY CAN BE VERIFIED PERFECTLY.

    So, the alternative is to eliminate or modify those theories that have shown themselves wrong. We can still use them if their level of approximation is enough for our purposes (as Newton's theory is today), but at the fundamental level they are wrong.

    So, the only way to proceed is to find when the theories disagree with observations and modify or eliminate them. We keep the ones that continue to work.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    One can recognize, what a theory is confirmed within the range of current precision.
    The Newton's theory is practical approximation of the General Relativity.
     
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Yes, and that is what happens in practice in most cases: we verify that the theory works to a certain approximation. But that means that it is never *completely* verified. It is always possible that it will be replaced by anew theory if better measurements reveal a problem.
     
  6. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Yes, but my concern is the language the scientists using. The better formulations will result in better attitude towards each other.
     
  7. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,697
    Ratings:
    +14,297
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    There is logic there to be agreed with?
     
  8. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,685
    Ratings:
    +9,147
    "Logic" is a rather fuzzy word to many people.
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I think the language is more proposed by the philosophers of science rather then the scientists themselves.
     
  10. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,127
    Ratings:
    +5,454
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    There is no logic here. Science is merely based on verifiable evidence. God has not been proven to exist (for example, Aquinas' "proof" has been repeatedly proven wrong and illogical ... filled with logical fallacies; as have all of the other proofs you have put forward on this). So, how can you stick to your belief that God has been proven to exist?

    Long story short, logic is a great thing, but it is often flawed. Many things that seem logically valid have turned out to be completely false. Verifiable evidence is the best way to discover truth. It is really the only reliable way.
     
  11. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Any slightest doubt is a sin in my Religion.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Then that is a problem with your religion. You don't find truth by ignoring doubts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    My Religion is the True Religion. No doubt is allowed.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  14. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Hahahahaha. And that is the problem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12,823
    Ratings:
    +4,859
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    It seems to me your certainty about God relies way too much on science. Or really science's inability to provide certainty for you.

    Where science can't provide the certainty you desire you turn to God. With God, all things are certain.

    It's true, science will never remove from you all doubt like faith in God will. If you need certainty then science isn't for you.

    Science leads to questions and doubt. There's always some doubt. So we have to retest and re-validate constantly, well until we've some comfort we can get a consistent result, but it's never perfect.

    If you need certainty then you need God.

    Before you can question God's existence, you have to let go of you're need for certainty. If you can't or are unwilling, then God is the only thing that will satisfy your need.

    I've no need for certainty so I can question everything, including God. That doesn't mean I'm better or worse than you. It just means that I've let go of my need for certainty.

    upload_2017-7-10_9-31-2.jpeg
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,267
    Ratings:
    +5,401
    Religion:
    None
    Correct. I see no logic in the OP's comment, "The God can only be confirmed by researcher (if the researcher has stopped to exist, then he can not experience the negative result of the test), so the God necessarily exists." That's a fallacy called a non sequitur - the conclusion does not follow from what preceded it. It would be just as (in)valid to assert the opposite - that a God is necessarily nonexistent - which also doesn't follow.
     
  17. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    The test is ones death. The possible outcome of test is only one: the afterlife exists, no other option will be recorded.
     
  18. jonathan180iq

    jonathan180iq Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,140
    Ratings:
    +2,451
    So then, by design, you can't even question whether or not you are right? You just go with whatever your religion says and that's it?

    Seems a bit like blind faith, doesn't it?

    There's a dragon in my garage.
    If you disagree, you're a sinner.
    Flawless logic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    670
    Ratings:
    +120
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    I do not feel discomfort, I see the historic path of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. I enjoy my Religion, any doubt is just a pain.
     
  20. jonathan180iq

    jonathan180iq Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    4,140
    Ratings:
    +2,451
    "Once you convince yourself, the Universe falls into place..."
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...