Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

So are ETs like God, or like baseballs?

Just because we can't prove that Osiris is not the sun god, doesn't mean he isnt. We can't prove Cthulhu isn't asleep at the bottom of the atlantic. We can't prove that you are actually a machine sent from the future to kill John Connor.

The problem with this "logic" is that it doesn't work china; it is not USEFUL in the real world to seriously consider every proposition.

I'm going to give you a heuristic shortcut that we all actually use in our everyday lives, that is actually based on logic and evidence:

Absence of evidence points to evidence of ascence.

That's it. That's the only step you need to take to figure out, as an adult, that there's no boogeyman under your bed, that santa claus is not real, that Thor does not kill ice giants in Jottenheim, and that there is no superbeing who created everything and happens to coincide with either some major world religions or is so phantasmagorical that he is literally nothing.

 

And meanwhile you have your own personal philosophy about what happens when you die, despite not having any proof of it. You have posted it before.

 

And it explains it away from its own sense of Logic being equal to God. The fact is is even if there were evidence of God, most people who don't believe because of Science still would explain it away with Logic. The same goes with Astrology in this attempt to explain away with Logic.

 

I love how in order to justify your own unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs, you point to any other error being made by anybody else as though two wrongs make a right. As though the fallacies of another person obviate you of your own fallacies and your own responsibility to your own intellectual honesty.

You are truly a child.

My "philosophy" about what happens when we die, cumbersome and labrynthian though it may be, is this: When you die, nothing happens. It's like what it was like before you were born.

God, how do I live with myself, carrying such a huge edifice of artifice in my mind all day???

If only I believed in astrology and magick, then my thoughts would be clearer

 

I love how you ignore the fact that you don't have evidence for your philosophy on what happens when you die, and meanwhile go on and on about how you need evidence for any proclamation that i or anyone else makes.

I love how you insist that i need to show evidence about Magick and meanwhile try to explain away a hypothetical situation of me being 100 percent correct on giving you an Astrology reading, and don't give the info that I ask to show this.

You're calling me a child but you fail to see how hypocritical that you're being. You're not walking your own talk.

 

Logic is a description of the formal syntactic rules of the universe. If something you have thought of breaks down under logical analysis, that doesn't mean that it's "you vs logic", and logic is the bad guy. It just means you're wrong. I know that's really hard to admit for you, but I hope one day you can just grow up and say "Shit, I was really dumb with all this horseshit. It was wrong all along, staring me in the face, and I was just a pissy little guy who wanted his cake and to eat it to".

You yourself employ logic in everything, including in trying to prove the existence of magick and astrology and god.

Logic isn't equal to god, whatever that means, because god is an empty set, a non-entity. at most a literary figure. Logic is the foundational structure for all of mathematics, science, and philosophy. Most art too.

Pick your battles better dude.

 

Please tell me, do you KNOW or do you believe that God isn't real, simply because you can't currently see him/her/it?

Do you know or do you believe whatever it is your philosophy is on what happens before and after you die?

Of course i use Logic as a tool to try to link up with Magick and Astrology. However, i don't herald Logic as the key and only thing that means truth. Intuition, creativity, paradox and non-rationality play their own roles in the truth of the Universe

 

I love how you ignore the fact that you don't have evidence for your philosophy on what happens when you die, and meanwhile go on and on about how you need evidence for any proclamation that i or anyone else makes.

I love how you insist that i need to show evidence about Magick and meanwhile try to explain away a hypothetical situation of me being 100 percent correct on giving you an Astrology reading, and don't give the info that I ask to show this.

You're calling me a child but you fail to see how hypocritical that you're being. You're not walking your own talk.

 

Not a logically consistent statement. According to your own criteria it means you are wrong. However it is logically consistent to say, so you have invoked. It doesn't matter if you are careful picking your battles if your arguments are sloppy.

 

why isn't it logically consistent? according to what criteria am i wrong?

 

You filled the supposed empty set with a definite value, at most a literary figure.

 

Curious i don't have to pick my battles on the grounds that I have developed a good defense. My reasoning is sound in any instance. I can follow my interest wherever it leads.

If the eye be sound the whole body will be full of light

 

This right here, this is why I don't reply to 90% of your posts anymore.

I obviously meant "It's an empty set or at most a literary figure".

I don't understand the vast majority of your posts, including the one right above, and those that I do understand seem to be tripping up over language that no one else is tripping up over.

 

Don't know what happens after changing form from sentient to rotten husk, but I sure hope it's better than what many, many have to "live" with currently. Actions speak louder than words--be nice to hear from the departed. Not holding my breath, tho.

"if it's all an illusion and nothing is real--then I definitely overpaid for my carpet."-Woody Allen.

Would ANYONE put god in charge of scientific discovery? And if so--just how would this occur?

Or has it occurred? If everything done by humans seeking answers to the natural world (and cosmos) is guided by a god, then that god must also take responsibility for the horrible conditions/wars/starvation/torture,degradation of many. Can't have it one way only. Many have faith that they and their families won't be slaughtered,displaced,etc and can live some kind of half-way decent lives---not working out so well on that.

 

You mean I set the standard too high? It is not my job to figure out what you mean but to understand what you say. It is precisely because people fill in the blanks that they don't communicate but talk past each other. If logic represents some syntactical perfection then you need to be accurate with your syntax. All this represents is that you are not aware of your own fundamental errors and these errors serve as suggestive elements in a running dialogue. You come to erroneous conclusions.if your vernacular is not straight and all inclusive.

Your defense to what I point out is quite weak. Your statement included, a non entity. It cannot be both a non-entity and/or a literary figure. So it is not an oversight of or. I told you before you can't bring truth to illusion and make the illusion real. You first say this is the truth, it is illusion, and then you argue against the illusion as though it were real. It just makes you self contradictory. You want to dispel what you feel are illusions about god. To dispel the illusions look to the empirical facts of god. You named one, literary figure, but fell far short in saying at most. Further the term a non-entity is contradictory on it's face. What is not real does not exist. You could say there is no entity to make that term straight on it's face

As to not understanding what I say that is not for the lack of saying it and knowing and meaning what I am saying. Claiming you don't understand me is a weak logical defense for your actions. If you don't understand the intellectually honest thing to do is ask questions not ignore what is said. Really you have difficulty with me because you are not that good a logician. You could be but you have too many strong convictions and conflicts of interest. My hope is to bring you up to speed.

 

To clarify the post you just had a question about.
You suggested someone pick their battles presumably to achieve greater success. I say it leads to greater success to rise above the battlefield and simply be adept at reason. If you are adept at reason you can hold your own in any subject.

If the eye be sound, if you are clear and of sound vision, then all circumstances present themselves clearly.

 

I have asked you before many times to clarify your statements and you fail to do so. There is a fundamental chasm of communication here we are not crossing, you and I. There is a similar chasm with chinacat, but I feel it's a different nature; for him his categories and ideas of how things work are untested and unstudied, and he is trying to construct a marvel of civil engineering using a children's lego set.

With you, your goal seems to be:

1) to nitpick my posts and point out ever so slight errors of technical wording that literally nobody else points out (and why you don't jump in during more glaring logical absurdities of others is troubling and confusing; you seem ok with others shooting themselves in the face but god forbid i stub my toe?)

2) to keep bringing the debate away from discussion of concrete facts and towards abstractions of a level I am not familiar with at all, and suspect are hot air.

Your post right above, is a great example. I told chincat to stop attacking logic, and pick his battles better. This was a rhetorical statement pointing out that his battle is futile because he is using logic and reason to argue against the value of logic and reason.

Your contribution is to "correct" me, by telling me that I'm doing it wrong, and what I should be doing is telling him to "rise above the battlefield and be better at reason" . . .

Well that's exactly what I just said. So maybe when you think you're giving us Echkartt Tolle level wisdom, you're really just regurgitating exactly what we're saying but in more obscuring language where the chances of understanding your posts are somewhere around 9%.

But wait, let me guess. Understanding is that which we invoke?

 

His nonsense just isn't worth responding to, really.

 

Example of the many times I haven't?

To point one. Being precise with language when the language is meant to be perfectly logical is essential. The errors are not ever so slight, as I say they form impressionistic interpretations rather than lead to logical conclusions. That nobody else points this out has to do with the preoccupation of trying to make their own point. I look at what is being said.

I can't relieve your confusion about why I don't jump in during more glaring logical absurdities because I am not familiar with the metric more glaring.

To point two, I keep bringing up concrete facts to disrupt the habitual assumptions. Your suspicions make you suspicious is all. they don't clarify anything.

 

And my statement was in addendum to what you said with chinacat on the other end as well. What is the purpose of good reason, to win arguments? I think it is to see clearly.

I told you you were wrong by your own metrics. If the chances of understanding what I said are around 9 percent then you beat the odds in claiming "that is exactly what I said." Don;t complain about me rise to the occasion.