You're restricting yourself Robbie. The scientific community has zero information on this subject. Look at the qualifiers. It's outside of the remit of science. You need to use logic.

Here is a proposed entity who is atemporal and supernatural. So what do you know? That he can't be temporal or natural.

This is how everything is worked out. It all follows and has to be consistent to work. Anything inconsistent fails the model and can be rejected. Hence how we can know about God.

(December 27, 2014 at 7:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're restricting yourself Robbie. The scientific community has zero information on this subject. Look at the qualifiers. It's outside of the remit of science. You need to use logic.

Here is a proposed entity who is atemporal and supernatural. So what do you know? That he can't be temporal or natural.

This is how everything is worked out. It all follows and has to be consistent to work. Anything inconsistent fails the model and can be rejected. Hence how we can know about God.

I wonder if this is what L. Ron Hubbard concluded when he decided to create his own religion from scratch, and how tickled he must have been when it worked so well. Maybe Hubbard was a latter-day Paul?

You seem to gathering information from your definition, about your definition. You then use this to find out about your definition.

At no point have you demonstrated that what you define actually exists outside of your abstract definition.

What does "Anything inconsistent fails the model" mean? Does that mean as long as you are defining something that could possibly exist, and could fit with reality somehow, then it does exist?

There's a reason science is done the way it is. If you think you have a demonstrably better method than the scientific one, for determining information and truth about reality, you would be heralded as the most famous man of our age.

Unbelievably there's more to life than science. It's always existed and I certainly didn't invent it lol

What I'm explaining to you is the basic idea of God and how it's worked out. Try it yourself and you'll find it to be true. Humans conceptualise. It's what we do. You can call it man made. But then the entirety of existence would be man made too.

Yeah, what you're describing is imagination. That's just fine. But imagining something doesn't make it true. Sure, I can I imagine things plenty.

If you're not concerned whether it's true or not, then that's just fine. No problems from me.

Of course there's more to life than science, but if you want to know if something is true, then there isn't more. You seem to have a misconception about what science is. I made a thread about this a little while ago.

What you're describing as far as I can tell, is defining something, then assuming it's real.

(December 27, 2014 at 7:58 am)Tonus Wrote: I wonder if this is what L. Ron Hubbard concluded when he decided to create his own religion from scratch, and how tickled he must have been when it worked so well. Maybe Hubbard was a latter-day Paul?

I agree. Although I see his model fail. Unbelievably many people didn't.

---

(December 27, 2014 at 8:09 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, what you're describing is imagination. That's just fine. But imagining something doesn't make it true.

If you're not concerned whether it's true or not, then that's just fine. No problems from me.

If only it could be dismissed so easily. Unfortunately the prime concern is truth. And it has demonstrable effect on our health and well being... understanding it and acknowledging it. It's quite important, which is why it's always been a central component to our lives. Why are you atheist? Because it's affected you.

Do you use this "method" for anything else other than religion/spiritual matters?

---

Uh, what? Accepting a hypothesis makes you feel better, therefor it's true? That's not very scientific.

Because what affected me?

Yes, religion has been demonstrated to have a placebo effect. Sure.

(December 27, 2014 at 8:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree. Although I see his model fail. Unbelievably many people didn't.

Indeed, I think Hubbard deliberately pushed it as far as he did to see just how many people would accept such a premise. Although it might seem stranger than the abrahamic religions simply because we're so used to those stories. At the same time, it has become pretty common for people to determine that some Bible stories are literal and others are allegory, allowing them to find a level that suits them. I don't know if Scientology is anything like that.

Hubbard is a lying piece of shit. There are no other planets.

(December 27, 2014 at 8:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Do you use this "method" for anything else other than religion/spiritual matters?

---

Uh, what? Accepting a hypothesis makes you feel better, therefor it's true? That's not very scientific.

Because what affected me?

Yes, religion has been demonstrated to have a placebo effect. Sure.

Apologies that post was written very hastily as I was rushed out of the door.

It's either true or false. And as only true answers are accepted, nothing can be more truthful. What kind of scientist isn't interested in exploration or discovering truths? Not one I'd have much respect for.

I use logic for other problems, yes. Don't you? Do you have objections to using logic?