What is God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonstruck888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
And your belief make it true? Not.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen. Sadly, you will not be able to find out if your beliefs are correct until after you’re dead.

I, being a skeptic, am largely spared the worst cancers of disappointment…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That remains to be seen. Sadly, you will not be able to find out if your beliefs are correct until after you’re dead.

I, being a skeptic, am largely spared the worst cancers of disappointment…
Click to expand...
And you are also spared the joys of the love of God. So sad.
 
davidv said:
Then why did you post the OP?
Click to expand...
I was interested in what observable evidence people might bring to the table. Sadly, they brought none.

I believe the question of whether or not there is a God can be answered scientifically. In fact, I believe it has been answered scientifically.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I was interested in what observable evidence people might bring to the table. Sadly, they brought none.

I believe the question of whether or not there is a God can be answered scientifically. In fact, I believe it has been answered scientifically.
Click to expand...
Good luck with a partial answer then. Scientific answers are never the complete answer.
 
davidv said:
Likewise.
Click to expand...
I’m not claiming to have all the answers. I simply reject all and every “answer” on offer on the grounds that they postulate an entity that is by definition complex in order to explain complexity. That approach beggars reason.
 
I am afraid my dear Moonstruck, you have very little idea how knowlege is formed.

You appear to be trying to apply a scientific method (A product of Christian-Islamic Scholasticism) – without truly understanding the epistimological concerns underlying such a method. 🤷

I can only reccomend that you at least approach some of the central texts in the theory of knowlege, a few different examples (not all of whom I agree with) of which are thus:

Ordinatio by William of Ockham,
The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, and The World as Will and Representation (particularily appendix) by Schopenhauer,
The Theory of Knowlege by Francais Bacon
Optics By Alhazen
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding by Hume

For starters should at least give you some grounding in the subject, in toto these make up less than ten thosand pages, so a sound fortnights work to educate yourself in the basics of Epistimelogical Philosophy – and then you might come across as a somewhat credulous or genuinely interested individual.

Apply some “scientific method” to those 👍
 
JohnDamian said:
I am afraid my dear Moonstruck, you have very little idea how knowlege is formed.

You appear to be trying to apply a scientific method (A product of Christian-Islamic Scholasticism) – without truly understanding the epistimological concerns underlying such a method. 🤷

I can only reccomend that you at least approach some of the central texts in the theory of knowlege, a few different examples (not all of whom I agree with) of which are thus:

Ordinatio by William of Ockham,
The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, and The World as Will and Representation (particularily appendix) by Schopenhauer,
The Theory of Knowlege by Francais Bacon
Optics By Alhazen
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding by Hume

For starters should at least give you some grounding in the subject, in toto these make up less than ten thosand pages, so a sound fortnights work to educate yourself in the basics of Epistimelogical Philosophy – and then you might come across as a somewhat credulous or genuinely interested individual.

Apply some “scientific method” to those 👍
Click to expand...
There are several religious claims the method can be applied to, i can’t think of any religious claims that have stood up to it though…
 
JohnDamian said:
I am afraid my dear Moonstruck, you have very little idea how knowlege is formed.

You appear to be trying to apply a scientific method (A product of Christian-Islamic Scholasticism) – without truly understanding the epistimological concerns underlying such a method. 🤷

I can only reccomend that you at least approach some of the central texts in the theory of knowlege, a few different examples (not all of whom I agree with) of which are thus:

Ordinatio by William of Ockham,
The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, and The World as Will and Representation (particularily appendix) by Schopenhauer,
The Theory of Knowlege by Francais Bacon
Optics By Alhazen
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding by Hume

For starters should at least give you some grounding in the subject, in toto these make up less than ten thosand pages, so a sound fortnights work to educate yourself in the basics of Epistimelogical Philosophy – and then you might come across as a somewhat credulous or genuinely interested individual.

Apply some “scientific method” to those 👍
Click to expand...
In determining fact, there’s only one thing that matters. One heuristic.

Observe → Hypothesise → Experiment → Repeat.

All philosophers do is philosophize round in circles. The same questions are being asked now as were being asked by ancient Greeks, and in another 3,000 years there still won’t be an answer that everyone accepts. Science erradicates personal opinion, annihilates indecision and constantly redirects the observer in the right direction.

Even Einstein was forced to reconsider his opinions on Quantum Theory in the face of experimental results.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
In determining fact, there’s only one thing that matters. One heuristic.

Observe → Hypothesise → Experiment → Repeat.

All philosophers do is philosophize round in circles. The same questions are being asked now as were being asked by ancient Greeks, and in another 3,000 years there still won’t be an answer that everyone accepts. Science erradicates personal opinion, annihilates indecision and constantly redirects the observer in the right direction.

Even Einstein was forced to reconsider his opinions on Quantum Theory in the face of experimental results.
Click to expand...
Which philosophers have you been reading? 🤷

If you really want to play in the “perception only” sandbox, then go right ahead - leave the thinking to us, it takes equipment 👍
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Ignatius;6687548:
Moonstruck888;6685827:
Correct. I believe everything has an explanation that lies in material things
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There are many things, even with a material basis, that are not quantifiable and measurable in a scientific way. There are even things with a scientific basis such as tetraquarks and exotic baryons that are knowable only by deductive reasoning and are, therefore, not quantifiable. I hope you do not deny the existance of them simply because they are not quantifiable and measurable.
Click to expand...
 
Moonstruck888 said:
What is God?
Click to expand...
A more interesting question would have been, “What are the properties of God?”

The question you put is more likely to bring forth the usual fundamentalist replies with which you already disagree, which will give you a bunch of fundamentalist foils to argue with, which is presumably the real point of your question. You sucked them in, sure enough.

By way of an equivalent question, I might ask you, “What is the thing that preceded the Big Bang?”
 
greylorn said:
A more interesting question would have been, “What are the properties of God?”

The question you put is more likely to bring forth the usual fundamentalist replies with which you already disagree, which will give you a bunch of fundamentalist foils to argue with, which is presumably the real point of your question. You sucked them in, sure enough.
Click to expand...
The question was actually a spin off from another thread, “Does Science Require Faith”, and in that context the properties of God were what I was asking about. The Original Poster in the other thread considered my question to be off topic, so I started this thread.
By way of an equivalent question, I might ask you, “What is the thing that preceded the Big Bang?”
Click to expand...
Given that I won’t live long enough to witness the unforeseable advances in technology that would be needed to probe that question, that will be forever beyond my knowledge.

I don’t pretend to know.
 
Ignatius said:
Moonstruck888;6689291:
Ignatius;6687548:
There are many things, even with a material basis, that are not quantifiable and measurable in a scientific way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That does not mean that they don’t have a material explanation. Love, for example, is an emergent property of the electrochemistry of the brain. You can’t perform a quantitative analysis on love, but it has a material cause.
There are even things with a scientific basis such as tetraquarks and exotic baryons that are knowable only by deductive reasoning and are, therefore, not quantifiable. I hope you do not deny the existance of them simply because they are not quantifiable and measurable.
Click to expand...
We are in the process of desiging and using particle accelerators to attempt to investigate exotic particles. While we still do not have the technology to observe them yet, there is no theoretical objection to it.

Incidentally, it was Angular Momentum, dismissed by that arrogant prig yppop as irrelevant, that first put us on the path to realizing the baryons had constituents.
Click to expand...
 
Moonstruck888 said:
That does not mean that they don’t have a material explanation. Love, for example, is an emergent property of the electrochemistry of the brain. You can’t perform a quantitative analysis on love, but it has a material cause.
Click to expand...
Can science tell us if time exists or if it is just part of a mental framework for structuring the universe? And can it provide evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top