Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Germania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaQVDuhe89w

 

Shame that we haven't discussed a damn scientific thing in about 3 pages?

 

Didn't we already settle this in the other thread where if God was able to display such knowledge and powers that he/she/it would be able to post a video response within like 24 hours? Nothing happened, why are you still entertaining those ideas?

It may not be a concern to you but for the logical among us and those who invoke critical thinking, it is a huge concern.

 

Invalid due to fallacy:

 

I'm kind of all over the place because honestly I have mixed feelings about God. It seems like there can be too much of God, because what if God is so powerful he just destroys everything just because he's present? Then you wouldn't want to go looking for God.

Yeah he/she/it would be able to post, but maybe he/she/it doesn't because it would just be too much. It would make sense that we could only see God when we die, since that's where people usually claim God is. God could be our destruction.

I consider myself a pretty logical fellow. I just don't think our human concerns are necessarily God's concerns. If the way things are is just the only way things can be, I say we let things be. I mean to an extent.

Perhaps there is something so powerful, physically, that it will always be unknown to us. We will never be able to experience it because we will know mathematically what it will do. So can you have the idea of a thing without the idea itself meaning your destruction? We should be more careful with science, perhaps. Because what if we do the opposite and do something we don't know the results of in order to discover the results of something else and it simply destroys us?

Should we say God doesn't exist because evil does exist? is the question, as I see it. And I can imagine God being something so powerful that evil just cannot be helped. Because if it were helped we would simply return to God.

But then I also think, if God created everything, then there is no difference between us and God, logically, because otherwise God would have to be split in two. And what I mean is, two parties would technically be responsible for our existence: God and the substance from which we were created. I don't know how much credit you could give God, if we aren't made from God. Because otherwise, what would God be without the substance from which he could create? I suppose it's not fair to God to say God would be nothing... But you could still give a lot of credit to the substance.

So that kind of contradicts the idea that God is so powerful he couldn't come here. Because he would already be here. But if he is here, then he did come and talk to us and it was all of us talking all along.

 

[/QUOTE]
How is this deity all powerful and all knowing if it does not understand what it takes to make a hipforums video without 'destroying us?' That seems to contradict it's prescribed abilities.

 

I didn't assert a proposition, though. I stated two facts and then continued to expound upon them. Fact 1, It's possible God exists. Fact 2, God can't be shown not to exist. (God could always have created the universe to seem like he doesn't exist.) I didn't begin by saying "God exists" at all. I ended by saying God exists.

What proposition is it that I asserted to be true because it hasn't been proven false? Both of my initial statements are proven true. It is possible that God exists, and you can't prove God doesn't exist.

 

We can assert Lepercauhns in this argument as well.

2 is a proposition.

 

I assume that Lepercauhns is how you guys spell your new and improved "leprechauns" which happen to also be God.

Two doesn't assert that because something hasn't been proven false it must be true. It asserts that because something CANNOT be proven false, it must be true. It isn't a matter of "hasn't" been proven false, because there is simply no way to prove it false. If it "hasn't" been proven false, that would imply that it could possibly be proven false, which I already showed, it can't.

All true things share the common trait that they cannot be proven false.

 

Yes, get on my misspelling of leprechauns that makes your bullshit more intelligible.

 

I thought you misspelled it on purpose to make fun of me. You even capitalized it. It was like you were calling me mentally challenged. I thought it was pretty funny, and my reply was only meant to be joining in on your humor. I certainly don't believe in being the grammar police, and it would have looked poorly on my part to take part in such behavior, as though I couldn't handle your points so I took to making fun of a petty misspelling. I accidentally spelled "negligible" "neglible" today.

Thedope is the only one who is really handling this well. It's really hard, on the internet, to express yourself in such a way that is really appreciative of other's points of view. I honestly can't tell sometimes if I'm being friendly or being a complete dick.

I don't want to hang around...well yes I do. But I don't want to keep repeating the same things over and over. Well I guess again I really do.

 

How would you redirect? I'm just going with the flow. I think in terms of virtue, trying to come up with ideas about how scientific method can be applied to the study of god is of greater efficacy than trying to make an argument that science is not involved because god doesn't exist or that the subjective experience can't be examined with scientific rigor. In the case of the subjective experience the scientist himself must be the subject and also must have the ability to monitor his own experience objectively. How do you establish controls, through self discipline.

 

Either I am not understanding you or I don't agree. I feel you are attempting to loosely grasp onto a few scientific ideas/terms and force some type of applicability to the topic where there is none. This seems like an approach that aims to be pseudoscience, if that.

There is no control for bias in what you are suggesting if I understand it correctly and I don't see how you can make a falsifiable study only studying oneself either.

 

As far being falsifiable the subjective take has a credibility problem as it is. Control is established by some standard measure. The condition of self is measurable by self. The question arises how do you establish an objective stand. That lies in how you use your powers of distinction. As far as a clue to where we might look for verification it is in the accounts of those who have been close to god and their method of achieving that state. He did it, so can you. In every case being a sensational awareness the method involves changing the way you apprehend the world on a fundamental level. The experimenting never stops if the appropriate level of attention is applied to the effort.

As far as to whether the subjective state can be trusted, we trust it enough to say science is the method we should use. We are not useless without instrumentation.

 

Your are using a non-random selection bias there, again pseudoscience.

 

Biology includes the study of animal behavior. To study ones own behavior requires consistent and diligent accounting. Like I said you got to put in the hours behind the blind.

I've been watching young chipmunks recently and noticed them picking up pebbles and nibbling on them. Now presumably they do this to get some kind of mineral supplement, something essential for health or at least that they crave. I have never seen an official account of this behavior and I have studied the habits of many animals and learned about them from field studies. The scientific view is that there is something in it's biology that accounts for this. The same is true for the human animal. He organizes himself around his sense of rightness or promise of success. This speaks to something essential in biology.

 

Would you explain this to me?

 

A major part of objectivity in scientific studies is selecting from a random (general) population.

 

Okay from researching the term you suggest there are not enough subjects to provide random sampling. That does not mean that the potential is not there. You have to get people involved in the study.

I also suggest there is a discipline for transcending bias. For one as long as you are convinced of the idea that there is good and evil you can't be objective. This idea of rightness is a sliding scale that compels certain conclusions. We get a grasp on real things through standard metrics. In order to see light from billions of years ago we had to develop a way to get beyond the distortion of the atmosphere and so we have space telescopes. The same is true of our own instrument of apprehension. You can't even begin the investigation in the way it is required without first refining your powers of perception.

 

So the notion "God is good" can be thrown out.