Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Evidence for God

My sincere thanks for your gracious attitude, and words, free from personal attacks, TFF. Now in the spirit of dialogue, How do you define science? Is it just about maths, electronics, chemistry and physics? Or what?

BTW, talking about electronics, has the discussion forum been hors de combat, for awhile? Or was it my 'puter.

Science is not just about "sciences." Science is a method applied to a domain.

Neither the method nor the domain are are infinite in extent.

Karl Popper wrote a book called "Objective Knowledge" in which he outlined his solution to the problem of induction and simultaneously solved "the demarcation problem." That is, how do you distinguish what is a scientific theory from what is not?

A scientific theory must generate hypotheses which, if tested, could disprove the theory as a general principle, IF INDEED IT IS FALSE.

The domain of science is the natural world - nothing more or less. Science doesn't deny gods or spirits. It simply doesn't acknowledge them. If they exist, they are outside the purview of science. There's no logical reason to conclude "god did it" rather than "we just don't understand."

Revlgking,
The forum was out of service for a couple of days, It is now in service again. Try not to break it.

Amaranth

The definition of science:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

And thank you revlgking for actually demonstrating some interest in the topic. The polar opposite of science is faith whether expressed as religion, theology, new-age woo-woo brain-dead nonsense, or as described here:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I wonder if you are sincerely trying to join our community or just pandering. Time will tell.

BTW: Reverend ... where, exactly, did you earn your DD?

As one who is found of the Golden Rule, I am more interested in dialogue than in I am in debate.

BTW, I am not a fan of blind, or irrational faith. Faith may go beyond reason, sometimes, but one that goes contrary to reason is not for me.

For those interested, my bio is found on my Website, http://www.flfcanada.com

DA. A couple of good links. I especially enjoyed the one on faith. Have you followed the link in that one to "That's just contradiction, not an argument."? The Monty Python script. Ah, it was great reading that again. "You want to complain ... look at these shoes ... I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through."

Re Abraham. Again interesting link but it raises the question yet again of what his God was. Perhaps it was Seth, or Amun, Ra? Seems too early to be Aten. Anyway, what were these gods? I believe we still need to define the subject before we can dialogue over "Evidence for God".

Revlgking. For that reason we don't need to define science on this thread. You're changing the subject.

TNZ, am I correct in saying that when you say to me, "You're changing the subject" that you are making me the subject?
Just Joe-king . BTW, my oldest brother's name was Joe. This year, had he lived he would be 101. I have the feeling that he doesn't mind me usuing his name, joe-kingly.

Okay, what is the subject?

IMHO--and it is an opinion--there is no direct, reductionistic, concrete evidence for a personal God--in the monotheist sense of the word; there is only indirect evidence as the result of faith and opinion. As I understand it, the God of theism is beyond existence, as we think of it. Therefore, He is, if anything, ineffable.

"IMHO--and it is an opinion--there is no direct, reductionistic, concrete evidence for a personal God--in the monotheist sense of the word; there is only indirect evidence as the result of faith and opinion. As I understand it, the God of theism is beyond existence, as we think of it. Therefore, He is, if anything, ineffable."

1. I don't think this "indirect evidence" is evidence in the scientific sense at all.
2. What is the purpose in effing the ineffable?
3. The problem with pantheistic or panENtheistic views of god (from a scientific view, if not a philosophical one) is that invariably they end up associating a lot of extra baggage with whatever physical definition they apply to god. This is a situation that's bound to be confused when you start out using a baggage-laden term like "god" to describe something physical.

Science does not do God. I don't think I can state it any plainer than that.

Not everything, OTOH, has to be scientific. Lots of very important things are not scientific or science, per se. Moreover, science is not a panacea for solving all of our problems or making us happier. It's a tool with a specific purpose.

Technology helps and hurts. The world gets to be a better place when individuals step up to the plate, take some responsibility, and DO things - participate, help each other, get involved with their communities, etc. Science might provide some insight into how we might do this, but it's not actually a scientific problem, per se.

What science CAN do is give people a feel for what the problems are and how we might solve them. It can give people a sense of awe at the natural world. It can help us to understand that many problems are solvable. But the issue of getting people off their behinds? It's not science. It's altruism; it's good intentions; it's responsibility. Take your pick.

And sorry about your brother. I hope he had a long and good life.

TNZ the question about that god is, again, reasonably easy to answer as it is, without question, the god of the Judaic Old Testament and the Qran.

It is an entity that created the entire universe and all within it both good and evil.

It is an entity that has demonstrated the personality of a spoiled child with a habit of smashing things.

It is an entity that has a remarkably short memory as it contradicts itself.

And it is an entity that doesn't play fair with creatures it both created and can destroy in that it often sets them up with tests it knows they can not win and destroys them in the most painful ways inducing unnecessary suffering when none is required.

Lets get real here ... who was it who was being worshipped when Abraham went up the mountain with the kid? Why stop it then? Why not the day before? The week before? The year before? Why let it ever start? It is just a bad story gone horribly awry.

Revlgking ... why the pathological inability to discuss science on a science website?

Got the troll gene in your chromosomes or just plain rude?

DAM, are you talking to yourself, again? And why are you so hard on yourself? And remember what the moderator said about this section of the forum; it is not about hard science, okay?

Sorry, about that posters, forgive me. I promised myself that I would just dialogue, but I just couldn't resist!

I agree it isn't about science. But would you be willing to accept that it is about some aspect of science? Would you be willing to accept that not once have you been on topic?

Hope so. Because I intend to bite at your heels all the way to heck if you can't contribute something with more substance than aerogel.

Revlgking wrote:

"Okay, what is the subject?"

At the top left of each posting is the heading for that thread. This one happens to be "Re: Evidence for God". We have a problem. Before we can find evidence for anything we have to have some idea of what we are looking for. DA's definition of God as being an entity responsible for a whole list of things is inadequate. Besides, to say we are looking for the God of Abraham opens a whole new can of worms. Was his God of Semitic, Egyptian or Mesopotamian origin? or a hybrid of all three, perhaps with others as well?

Possibly God is just an idea. An idea moreover that has been evolving along with humans for tens of thousands of years. We can certainly find evidence of the idea's evolution. But the thread is "Evidence for God" not "Evidence for God's Evolution".

God is defined by His attributes. This may be an acceptable start point:

A) Eternal
B) Omnipresent
C) Omniscient
D) Omnipotent
E) Immutable
F) Sovereign

Blacknad

Not immutable, Blacknad. We know he evolves, like everything else.

Revlgking ... we discuss science here. Lets say, for example as with this thread, there is a reference to god. People interested in science ask for the terms to be defined. We do that ... you post fluff. People interested in science reference documents that supply verifiable information ... you post inaccurate quotes from an authorless book whose providence you can't support. People interested in science utilize critical thinking skills and consider the possibility that there is something they don't know ... You as the self-proclaimed moral compass slather us with woo-woo new-age feel-good proclamations that accomplish no more than did the woo-woo new-age feel-good Ramtha loving nonsense from a generation ago. Pay attention to Blacknad. Even when I don't agree with him ... which can be often if you check the archives ... he gives evidence of having gray matter between his ears and using it.

Blacknad's list is a good one though I would suggest that some people would waffle on the definition of these words too. If "D" then why not destroy the devil? Because you sanction evil? If "E" then ... heck I'm not sure what that means. It sure doesn't mean never changes its mind. And "F" perhaps that has some special meaning in a country with a sovereign but here in the States that word has no meaning as we have a kleptocrat.

Got to go with TNZ. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't evolve. Especially the god of Abraham who seems to have evolved rather suddenly about 2000 years ago.

---------------THE THEOLOGY OF ORTHODOX JUDAISM-----------------
Because Orthodox Jews want to avoid committing idolatry with the mind--that is, by objectifying divine mind in anyway--when Jewish theologians write about what Christian monototheists call 'God', they write it 'G-d'.

I think they have a point, and I respect it.

However, I have no such fear. Like pantheists, using my subjective mind, I am not afraid to objectify that part of divine mind which I experience, and know, with my senses. In this sense, I do not just believe there is divine mind, I know there is.

I know this in the same way that I know that I live on a global earth, made of minerals, water, air, whatever, even though I have only visited a small part of it.

However, like the poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892), I believe there is a

-----------------THE HIGHER PANTHEISM--------------------

The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains,-

Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns?

Is not the Vision He, tho' He be not that which He seems?

Dreams are true while they last, and do we not live in dreams?

Earth, these solid stars, this weight of body and limb,

Are they not sign and symbol of thy division from Him?

Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,

For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?

Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,

Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.

Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-

Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.

God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,

For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.

Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,

For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;

And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;

But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?

--------------------------00000------------------------
The symbol I like to use to name divine mind is, G?D.

BTW, I, too, have problems with traditional theism. This is why I prefer what the poet Tennyson called "Higher Pantheism". I also like the theological philosophy of Spinoza and Einstein.

Meanwhile, do not lay people have to take, on faith, much of what professional scientists tells us.

How much direct evidence, understandable by laity, do astronomers have when they tell us there are billions and billions of galaxies?

You say, "Science does not do God." I agree. And with much of what you say as follows: Interestingly, the literal meaning of 'devil' is, that which divides, or splits, us.
The Greek is 'diabolos', slanderer. Slander destroys community. This is why I try to avoid it. From 'diabolos' we get diabolic, diameter, perhaps divide.

Yah! I would like to know the kind of god atheists are NOT looking for, or trying to avoid.

I agree. Each of us is entitled to have our idea of 'god', IMHO.

Revlgking wrote:
"I do not just believe there is divine mind, I know there is."

I do not believe there is an invisible purple rhinoceros. I know there is."

Revlgking wrote:
"The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains,-
Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns?"

Well if that isn't on-topic science I don't know what is. No doubt your next great feat will be to cure malaria.

Revlgking wrote:
"The symbol I like to use to name divine mind is, G?D.

Because it is really kool. Really neato. Really new-age. And it is mine ... all mine. Bwaaahaaahaaa!.

Revlgking wrote:
"I also like the theological philosophy of Spinoza and Einstein."

Wonderful. God = Reality. Well that certainly ought to stop global warming, build a moon base, cure cancer, and take out the garbage. And, of course this supports your new-age nonsense that there is no difference between good and evil explaining why you feel justified in being a troll. Trolling is good. Going to a science forum and discussing science is evil. I've got it.

Thanks for, again, demonstrating your disdain and contempt for science.