Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

In the first paragraph I said I argued for everyone really on their behalf. I don't know if you made a typo or what. I would also add that I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth; I'm not arguing on people's behalf like that. Just that that is where my heart is, trying to find the best route.

Yes in the second paragraph, because you kept thinking I was a solipsist, I tried to clarify the part I actually believe in. Which is that comprehensively we are one. What I said wasn't different is the way people would behave if this were true. If we're already one, then we don't really have to change anything. I wouldn't like too much change, as I think we've got a pretty good thing going. I like for people to have their own points of view; I would hate for everyone to have my point of view.

In no way did I attempt to do so. I don't even have a problem with us all realizing, somehow, that we are one. I just don't want to be a big part of trying to convince people of that. It bothers me to try to change people's philosophical positions. In a way trying to change them is limiting the province of mind; the mind should be free to explore all avenues of thought. Even when a philosophy is logically incoherent, it plays a big role in shaping that person's identity and creativity. I wouldn't like for everyone to be the same. I like all ranges, from darkness to light. I would hope that a knowledge of oneness wouldn't detract from this, however. I kind of have an anything goes attitude...to a point, I mean. I don't think rape and murder should go, for instance.

I don't think of it that way. I just think of it as a possibility. To somehow know everything. I think the opposite would be true, that we would be placing God above us if we were to say we couldn't become like God.

Me too, so I think you're misreading what I'm trying to say. Or I'm not being clear enough. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe in the Biblical God, or any God of that ilk. All I was trying to say is that God doesn't have to be scientific in order to exist, and maybe the OP places too much emphasis on God being scientific in order to exist.

I guess I don't think of true knowing in terms of being able to verbally communicate something. I think of it as qualia. I think knowing and experiencing are the same things, in other words. Everyone knows something unique. And if lifeforms are the only thing capable of knowing and are actually a part of the same thing, which I think we are, then collectively we know everything, as in everything that can possibly be known. That isn't the same thing as saying we know what planets orbit every star in the galaxy -- I don't know if we can know that. But I'm sure we're going to try. Who knows how long humanity has to exist and what data it will collect and catalog, and, hypothetically anyway, at what point would the distinction between man and God become blurred?

But that brings me back to my original point, that there will always be something we don't know. We are confronted with a mystery and our reaction to it is not scientific; it is simply natural.

 

You can start with the wikipedia article for it, to distinguish between "strong" and "weak" atheism; one is the lack of belief in any diety, the other is a belief that no dieties exist.

Some people get confused by this:

Strong atheism: Makes a positive claim p, where p = "There are no gods"

Weak atheism: Makes no positive claims, only remains unconvinced of any particular god.

Most people are strong atheists with regards to 99% of all dieties that have ever existed.

That is, if you were to ask a christian today "How do you feel about the god Mithra?" They would likely reply "Mithra doesn't exist, only Yaweh/Jesus does", or something to that effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atheism

Anything else that you attribute to atheism in your mind is not so; you're probably thinking of Humanism or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Let me know if you have any more questions. There's not so much "stuff to understand" in atheism as there is a program of questioning that which, as you said, is bashed into our heads from birth. It's more about unlearning certain common assumptions and adopting a questioning stance.

 

Theoretical Physicists have plotted out Advanced Civilizations Types...

The original scale consisted of :

Type I: Civilizations controls the energy of it's planet.
Type II: Civilization controls the energy of it's Star.
Type III: Civilization controls the energy of it's Galaxy.

There has been a few addendums, perhaps most common and notable...

Type IV: Civilization controls the universe.

It seems a Type IV civilization would appear God-like, probably even Type II and Type III to us but the primary attribute of God to be God in any meaningful sense is creation, whereas these hypothetical civilizations are not necessarily creating anything,(although clearly they would need to come up with really advanced technology) just harnessing the power and control of the conditions. If I recall correctly, on the Particular Scale they use to determine how advanced the civilizations are, to get to a Type I civilization is like a 1.0 and they currently place humans at a 0.7.

 

Thanks! I've been thinking about that lately, how one step up from us on the evolutionary ladder might seem godlike.

 

I know what I intended. No mystery there.

 

Well there is a mystery here though, why is it your intent and your results don't match? That is why the question of intent. If your intent and your results don't match that is indicative of not knowing what it is you do. In this instance then I don't think your instruction of what can or can't be said carries much weight. Thanks for the sleepy nod though.

 

Curious why?

 

at what point would the distinction between man and God become blurred?

At what point did it become a distinction between as opposed to a relationship with?

 

If you have a relationship with something that is because you are distinct from it. If you weren't distinct from it, then to have a relationship with it wouldn't make sense; you'd just be talking about you.

 

Depends on what you think you are. We can't exist absent our relationships. We are an agglomerate. Each mirror image a facet on the same jewel.

 

I don't now I was curious as to what potential you see in that arrangement to have proposed it.

 

I think you fail to understand common usages of the English language.

Anyway, pointless to go any further here.

 

Probably take it up with the likes of Michio Kaku, he is not the one who proposed the system, but he discusses it in his book Parallel Worlds as well as some discussions. I suppose we are all naive to some extent, in regards to the fact that we do not know civilizations that have such powers. I probably do not know all the nuances of the scale but I do think it is a valuable scale to have personally.

I take Type I as having the energy control to be in the form of a civilization to completely traverse the planet, alter the planet etc. Worldwide communication (which essentially we have), the ability to travel to any region on the planet (check) and perhaps it goes further to controlling the weather and such, which is why we are not a Type I civilization yet.

The ability to star hop and what not, If the host star is dying. Perhaps regulate the stars output in some way, I do not know what else being a Type II civilization may entail.

For Type III, you can probably apply many of the same features of Type II only in regards to Galaxies. Type IV would include control of the observable universe, as well as Dark Energy.

Ironic in how charged with emotion that sounds. :rofl: The level V you propose sounds like a worthy type of energy control, however it also presumes that advanced civilizations have a very similar type of psychological makeup. It does make me ponder how the hierarchy of energy control would work among some of these Advanced Civilization types.

 

I just got here, and admit not having all the 556 previous posts, so I apologize if what I say is redundant. I don't think there's any room for God in modern science, because it's the job of science to look at naturalistic explanations for phenomena and to address empirically testable, refutable propositions. The flip side of this is that scientists, as scientists, have nothing directly to say to us about the existence of God, although they can shed light on points of religious doctrine that relate to physical reality, such as the age of the earth, the origin of life, the nature of consciousness, and human evolution. By accounting for the integrated complexity of the universe, the nature of religious belief, etc., science could provide the basis for reasonable inferences concerning God, but that's all they would be. By the same token, people whose credentials lie outside the field of science can't claim superior knowledge of physical reality on the basis of their faith. Science remains the gold standard of reliable knowledge. Matters that can't be addressed by empirical observation and testing of refutable hypotheses should be relegated to the realm of philosophy and theology. Whether or not those disciplines are up to the task is debatable, but any claims that science can ever answer such questions are unfounded. Science is mainly concerned with avoiding Type 1 statistical errors: the risk of accepting false positives, or claims that are false . It doesn't adequately address Type 2 errors: rejecting propositions that might be true but cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter category of claims can still be accepted by people who are willing to take a chance on them based on less rigorous methods :intuition, reason, and /or less than scientific proof. In my opinion, people who do so should be aware that that is what they're doing.

 

..