(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The limit of your scientific philosophy is that it only deals with questions relating to empirical data. We can establish that proof of God may or may not be in the artifacts that are the physical universe. Scientific method finishes in it's usefulness there, unless you want to talk about the reasoning for (for example) biblical guidelines which I find to be tried and tested and work.

Conversely the limit of any other philosophy (math excepted is that they cannot validatably demonstrate a single thing and therein lies your problem ... whilst I can be reasonably confident science works you rely on faith alone.

Science is as impotent as faith on the questions of faith as you'd like to know. Faith/ theology at least answer the questions.

(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't want to discuss whether or not God exists then we have no problem. If you need to then yes, we do. And science will not deal with such abstract thought because it lacks the ability to do so. We can use scientific method to dismiss impossible scenarios easily, but that leaves the vast majority of questions still unanswered.

I don't agree that science lacks the ability to do so, I think it is simply a matter of technical resolution, that our current level of technology is not sufficient to the task.

Science of the gaps you mean.

(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Just to show that I am very seriously considering your argument.. Maybe I'm using scientific method to reach my understanding of God. The biblical statement of "God" = "I am" works scientifically for me. God 'just is'. He doesn't exist in linear time. It's an idea that is more scientific in nature than theological. Perhaps that's why I have no interest in religious forums because my language is more philosophy of science than pure theology.

I don't see how you think you might be using science to understand your god ... "God" = "I am" is the antipathy of everything science is about. It also highlights why I cannot accept your claim to doubt being key to your faith ... if your god "just is" then you're not doubting it at all are you?

Kyu

No - "God = I am" isn't saying God "just is" - it's saying God is timeless. God doesn't have a begginning and an end. that what the original text says.

(June 17, 2009 at 8:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Conversely the limit of any other philosophy (math excepted is that they cannot validatably demonstrate a single thing and therein lies your problem ... whilst I can be reasonably confident science works you rely on faith alone.

Science is as impotent as faith on the questions of faith as you'd like to know. Faith/ theology at least answer the questions.

Sorry but I've read the first sentence several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Faith/theology at least answer what questions?

(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't agree that science lacks the ability to do so, I think it is simply a matter of technical resolution, that our current level of technology is not sufficient to the task.

Science of the gaps you mean.

That doesn't make any sense ... the point of the gaps concept is that something is claimed to exist but has not been found yet and therefore is presumed (not unreasonably) to exist in the gaps of what we don't know/haven't explained as yet ... science makes no claims to explain things other than those things it actually has (at least partially) explained. In fact saying what you said is really rather naïve.

(June 17, 2009 at 6:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't see how you think you might be using science to understand your god ... "God" = "I am" is the antipathy of everything science is about. It also highlights why I cannot accept your claim to doubt being key to your faith ... if your god "just is" then you're not doubting it at all are you?

No - "God = I am" isn't saying God "just is" - it's saying God is timeless. God doesn't have a begginning and an end. that what the original text says.

What original text? The bible? The problem with a claim that god is timeless or exists out of time is that I can raise the claim that the multiverse has always existed, is timeless or exists out of time ... such a claim would be of equal validity or better (inasmuch as it least makes some rational sense, at least potentially explains some aspects of our universe whereas a creator god raises only problems for science, physics and reason) than yours.

Kyu

(June 18, 2009 at 5:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Science is as impotent as faith on the questions of faith as you'd like to know. Faith/ theology at least answer the questions.

Sorry but I've read the first sentence several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Faith/theology at least answer what questions?[/quote]

They answer questions of the subject. Who is God; what we need to do to live healthily spiritually etc..

Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Science of the gaps you mean.

That doesn't make any sense ... the point of the gaps concept is that something is claimed to exist but has not been found yet and therefore is presumed (not unreasonably) to exist in the gaps of what we don't know/haven't explained as yet ... science makes no claims to explain things other than those things it actually has (at least partially) explained. In fact saying what you said is really rather naïve.

I make the point though that you're happy for there to be gaps in your understanding from science and can dismiss any need to think because 'one day, science will know everything'. That's my point.

Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 17, 2009 at 4:45 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No - "God = I am" isn't saying God "just is" - it's saying God is timeless. God doesn't have a begginning and an end. that what the original text says.

What original text? The bible? The problem with a claim that god is timeless or exists out of time is that I can raise the claim that the multiverse has always existed, is timeless or exists out of time ... such a claim would be of equal validity or better (inasmuch as it least makes some rational sense, at least potentially explains some aspects of our universe whereas a creator god raises only problems for science, physics and reason) than yours.

Kyu

Yes, the bible.

It isn't a 'claim'. It's a reasonable proposition. At least quite equal to at your proposition that the multiverse is timeless. Your insistance that theological ideas are also scientific claims isn't of theology's making.

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: They answer questions of the subject. Who is God

Sorry to butt in, Kyu- I know you don't need or want me to, but I'll bleed through my eyes if I don't add a quick note of my own to the table.

Anybody can answer that question, and many people answer it many ways. Just because an answer is provided, does this make it right? How do theologians back up their answers? Is it objective or does it rely on an assumption that one holy book or another is in some way proof of a godly being? Is there evidence involved in their assertions? Does ANYTHING they say reflect reality?

Seems like a bunch of crazy speculators to me. How can they truly know God? Lets be fair here.

The fact that the provide answers does not stand for much, if anything, as their answers are probably... well, y'know.

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 5:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Sorry but I've read the first sentence several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Faith/theology at least answer what questions?

They answer questions of the subject. Who is God; what we need to do to live healthily spiritually etc.

So questions with no discernable value then?

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 5:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: That doesn't make any sense ... the point of the gaps concept is that something is claimed to exist but has not been found yet and therefore is presumed (not unreasonably) to exist in the gaps of what we don't know/haven't explained as yet ... science makes no claims to explain things other than those things it actually has (at least partially) explained. In fact saying what you said is really rather naïve.

I make the point though that you're happy for there to be gaps in your understanding from science and can dismiss any need to think because 'one day, science will know everything'. That's my point.

You didn't make it very well then but, more to the point, conceding gaps in our knowledge, conceding that science is not absolute, that's its explanations are not necessarily the last word is an inherent strength in the philosophy and not a weakness as you appear to be implying.

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 5:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The problem with a claim that god is timeless or exists out of time is that I can raise the claim that the multiverse has always existed, is timeless or exists out of time ... such a claim would be of equal validity or better (inasmuch as it least makes some rational sense, at least potentially explains some aspects of our universe whereas a creator god raises only problems for science, physics and reason) than yours.

It isn't a 'claim'. It's a reasonable proposition. At least quite equal to at your proposition that the multiverse is timeless. Your insistance that theological ideas are also scientific claims isn't of theology's making.

No it isn't because you have yet to demonstrate that your god exists ... I could equally well say the cosmic cream cake is timeless and exists outside of time and that would ALSO be meaningless ... defining something for which there is no validatable evidence and calling it god doesn't confer upon it some hyped value (over other silly ideas).

---

(June 18, 2009 at 3:56 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Sorry to butt in, Kyu- I know you don't need or want me to, but I'll bleed through my eyes if I don't add a quick note of my own to the table.

Quite the contrary ... there are times I feel almost alone in fighting this kind of stuff. Frodo (as I think most of us will admit) is smart and relentless ... he must be stopped

Kyu

I'll just say to fr0d0...

@Fr0d0: I'll just say that there's no good discussing: "Who is God; what we need to do to live healthily spiritually etc."--as you say-- if there's no evidence he even exists yet! That's why theology is nonsense. It's totally premature - they discuss God but there isn't even any reason to believe he bloody exists! They take the first page on genesis as an axiom it seems! - But that doesn't work because that's entirely circular logic!

And as I've said before...if God is indeed 'outside the realm of science' and there just cannot be evidence (at least empirical anyway) it's not rational to simply go ahead and believe anyway! Having no evidence for something isn't a good thing! That makes it irrational to believe not rational - despite whether it's possible or not...sounds to me like an attitude like this: "Oh damn...there can be no scientific evidence for God because he is 'Unfalsifiable'...oh well I guess my only hope is to just believe anyway 'On Faith' if there can't be any evidence it means I don't need it I guess ".

What, so if there can be no evidence then you should just believe anyway? Because the point here is that if there is no evidence that God exists then in other words there's no rational reason to believe that God exists - because that's what evidence is for. If you had rational reasons to believe that God actually exists then that would in other words...be evidence!

So if can justify believing without evidence - then what about other Gods? They offer no more or less rational reasons to believe (no more or less evidence IOW - still 0 just like yours!) than your God does!...so what about 'Allah'? What about 'Zeus'? What about 'Thor'? What about...the FSM? - there's no reason to believe the FSM isn't just as unfalsifiable and 'unprovable' as your "God" is - so how come you've cherry-picked out your God that is without evidence? I have no reason to believe it isn't simply personal irrational bias and totally non-objective...because there's no evidence of any objectivity in it...you have just cherry picked it out - hidden in your 'reasons' that you admit do not give reason to believe he actually exists because if they did they'd be a form of evidence...and if they are - how come you can't give me any(?) - Because it's non-objective per chance?

...So what's wrong with the FSM then? Embrace pastarfarianism! Embrace pasta, fr0d0, embrace.

EvF

How can God be timeless without beginning or end unless its entropy is at its maximun?

Wouldn't that make god Captain Chaos?

How could god think if his randomness was at its maximun?

(June 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:They answer questions of the subject. Who is God; what we need to do to live healthily spiritually etc.

So questions with no discernable value then?

To you wanting to understand from the perspective of science. No none.

(June 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I make the point though that you're happy for there to be gaps in your understanding from science and can dismiss any need to think because 'one day, science will know everything'. That's my point.

You didn't make it very well then but, more to the point, conceding gaps in our knowledge, conceding that science is not absolute, that's its explanations are not necessarily the last word is an inherent strength in the philosophy and not a weakness as you appear to be implying.

So you say that It's a strength in 'the philosophy in science' yet a weakness in theology. To me this seems a glaringly obvious contradiction.

'Science of the gaps' seems very succinct.

(June 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It isn't a 'claim'. It's a reasonable proposition. At least quite equal to at your proposition that the multiverse is timeless. Your insistance that theological ideas are also scientific claims isn't of theology's making.

No it isn't because you have yet to demonstrate that your god exists ... I could equally well say the cosmic cream cake is timeless and exists outside of time and that would ALSO be meaningless ... defining something for which there is no validatable evidence and calling it god doesn't confer upon it some hyped value (over other silly ideas).

You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists. This shows blatantly that science is totally inadequate. I don't entertain such ludicrous notions, yet you do taking the scientific philosophy tach.

Meaningless it isn't; if you were to remove your science coloured spectacles you'd see the point. The point is that there is no evidence. Clear this hurdle and you can move on.

---

(June 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 3:56 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Sorry to butt in, Kyu- I know you don't need or want me to, but I'll bleed through my eyes if I don't add a quick note of my own to the table.

Quite the contrary ... there are times I feel almost alone in fighting this kind of stuff. Frodo (as I think most of us will admit) is smart and relentless ... he must be stopped

Kyu

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

fr0d0 Wrote:You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists.

Just a quick point which only requires a quick response (if any).

I thought God always used to demonstrate his existance in various way? Or was that part of the bible untrue?

You want magic and superstition Luke. I'm not into that.