Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Of course you see no value in it, you know you won't come out well based on your experience.

 

Those who have a basic antipathy toward me are are apathetic in reason. Not just me but toward anything.

 

The problem with relax's picture is that you indeed can prove whether or not someone has a baseball. God is a special circumstance that there really is no comparison for, because you really just can't prove there isn't a God. But I don't think that speaks to God's nonexistence; rather things that cannot possibly be falsified are usually true. Is God the one instance of something totally unfalsifiable being not true? I don't see why it would be.

I'm wondering if you guys believe that belief in God is even a real thing. Is deluding one's self the same thing as a real belief? Like I believe the sky is blue, but I don't have to find ways to convince myself of that. So does anyone truly believe in God at all? Many say they do. So if we assume they are not lying, we have to assume that belief is something completely natural. Something that occurs just as easily as the belief that the sky is blue. I am not arguing that this is the case; I am just wondering where people would stand on the subject of if belief actually exists or if everyone who says they believe in God is lying, for lack of a gentler word.

... All of those things can easily be proven untrue. Osiris is the god of the dead. We could conceivably map the entire ocean. We could do an X-ray of Chinacat. You guys need to stop making false analogies.

 

Statements filled with innuendo constitute creative writing not logic.

 

Who are you talking to, thedope?

 

People are guided by their own devotion.

 

I speak in general, but a specific example would be his nonsense isn't worth responding to.

 

These guys fail to realize that they have their own belief systems...and every time i point this out they simply don't respond.

On and on and on with this "we need empirical evidence...except for my atheistic ideas about nothing happening before or after i die"

 

So it has been suggested that I obscure the issue. What i do is point out the obscurity that exists, the un-examined assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions.

 

But you see as a Chtuluian, I'd like to point out that Chtulu's abilities allow him to not show up on any radars. There is no way you can track him, however this makes Chutulu's existence certainly true because you cannot prove the non-existence of Chtulu.

 

Actually we can go through the same exercise I do with god. Chutulu's existence has phenomenal parameters one of which is it exists as an idea.

 

It's a hunch, a guess. I wouldn't even bet 1$ on it, because it's not based on any kind of robust evidence, except for the common sense notion that before you existed, there was no you, and after you die, perhaps it's the same kind of thing.

It's not a philosophy, it's not a religion. I don't go around trying to spread it, and I'm not trying to prove it in a lab. If you ask me what I think happens when we die, I'll tell you what I think happens, based on simple observation.

It is entirely based on empirical evidence . . . unlike astrology and magick. So nice try, but once again I must recommend that the strategy of putting down your audience in order to make your own views seem less ridiculous is not a good way to go about getting your ideas respected.

Can you please explain to us where you get this from? That something that is not falsifiable is usually true? Because this is blatantly incorrect. You can literally think of millions of unfalsifiable claims off the top of your head, and I hazard to guess that exactly zero of them are true. Just one example: Inside every quark, there is a small Led Zeppelin album. Another example: There was, or is, or will be, a star, in the universe, which burns entirely on Pepsi.

Belief is completely natural; that doesn't make the object of the belief true Belief is a natural psychological phenomenon like happiness, or anxiety, or dreaming. It's a state of mind, an attitudinal stance towards a proposition. That doesn't mean the proposition is true. Think of all the children who truly, deeply, believe that santa claus is real. How is this different from all the adults who truly, deeply, believe that Allah is the Lord of the Universe and Mohammad is His messenger?

You also bring up whether people who claim to believe, might be lying about that. I can tell you that this is a well known fact to be true; a certain proportion of "believers" do not actually believe the propositions, they believe that they SHOULD believe those propositions.

The pope told catholics that they are required to "profess" certain beliefs. You see the word choice? Not believe beliefs, because you can't just "decide" to believe something if you aren't convinced. No, this has all to do with public image and the spread of a certain ideology. It's a very utilitarian and political stance, and don't be so naive to think that a huge portion of humanity is above this behavior. Think of a simpler example, the guy who goes on and on about how important fidelity is and how much he loves his wife, and the next day you catch him hitting on a waitress and getting her number. He might feel very strongly that he SHOULD believe deeply in fidelity, but he doesn't evidently. This is also a very natural state

Osiris being the god of the dead is proven untrue how? You could map the whole ocean, or could you? What if you missed a spot, the spot where Chulthu is? How would you know? After all, he's psychic. Maybe we're only tricked into thinking we've seen the whole ocean.

An Xray of chinacat would work unless this was a sufficiently advanced model of Terminator such that an xRay picture displays what appears to be normal living tissue.

These are not false analogies . . . you aren't taking the time to think through this. Your logic is full of holes and it's important that you slow your roll and think through every step of your reasoning.

You specifically have some odd ideas about something being necessarily true if it cannot be proven false. This is a simple fallacy, and without it, it seem your entire premise for the existence of god crumbles. This is important, don't be deluded, don't believe in god for the wrong reasons. If this undermines your reasons, then get better reasons.

 

Does it allow him to show up on any future technology, or will future technology be so similar to radars they will technically have to be radars in order to detect anything???

Couldn't I just invent an entity that tracks Chutulu without radar? Since we do have good reason to believe Chutulu is the creation of an author, a fictional work, why can't I just create another fictional work in which Chutulu dies? I mean besides copyright laws?

You see what I'm getting at. God can not be proven to be the property of a fictional work. It belongs just as much to a larger class of philosophers who have nothing to do with the church. You're just making false associations either due to personal bias or a bad experience with churches. Your arguments basically come down to: I feel this way, and I'm right.

 

You are assuming that there is no you before you were born. Do you have any evidence of this? And if you respond with "I don't have any memory of anything before this", well does that mean that the dream that you forgot you had last night didn't exist either? What about those who do have claims of having vivid memories of a life that isn't this one?

And what i'm interested in is based on evidence. I just don't care to share the details of Magick on this forum, and I have attempted to give you an Astrology reading only for you to walk around in circles with the issue.

 

How would I know? Regardless, since we will never know what technology may come about science should feel obligated to prove his existence.

Look maaaaan, there is already literary works where the deity of billions has died.. Chutulu however, is an apex predator, so even if you made a fictional work about Chutulu's demise and gathered followers, we know our story of Chutulu is real more accurate.

In regards to Chtulu not being addressed by philosophers, his ferocitiy is only matched by his elusiveness, he works in mysterious ways, which is why he is such a worthy deity.

I'm not going to try and convince you, you just gotta believe

 

Well I'm thinking that everything that actually is true is inherently not falsifiable. Again your statements are falsifiable. In the first case, anything that small would not technically be an album. In any way shape or form. You're imagining that macroscopic objects can somehow shrink into an unfathomably small size and still have the same purpose, and thus essence, of macrosopic objects. In the second case, we know that stars are made of gas. Not Pepsi. If something burns off of pepsi, it wouldn't be a star at all, and we would know that because stars don't burn off of pepsi.

So you're saying that belief in God in some people comes as naturally as belief in the sky, but that doesn't make God real. OKAY!

Again we will have to redefine what God means. What does it mean to be a god? What, exactly, does Osiris do to the dead? You see, with God there are no questions like these, necessarily. God could be anything, so long as it's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Osiris can't just be anything.

The point is everything you are talking about can conceivably be made false. The existence of God can't conceivably be made false.

 

I'm not putting down your views, I'm simply making observations. You do have the belief that nothing did or will happen before and after you die, you DON'T have any evidence for this, and you do just not respond and ignore it when i point this out. In fact, you have been putting down my views, have you noticed?

You don't go around and try to spread it, huh? Then why do you insist that it's highly important in society and participate in every one of these forums? how is that not trying to spread it?

On another note, Archetypes are the ways I feel in which "mythical" beings actually have an existence and reality to them.

 

I cannot tell if you are confused about the term falsifiable or if you are arguing from a position that sees the material world as not real. If it's the latter, this really should be discussed in the Philosophy and Religion forums.

But if something is falsifiable, that means that it could potentially be shown to be false, however that presumes that in most cases there is a statement that is true.

If I say:

"My next sentence here will be typed on the keypad."

Then I have made a falsifiable sentence because we can imagine other instances which may be true without the supporting evidence.

I.e.

I used a voice-to-text program for the sentence.
Someone else types the sentence for me.
Etc.

 

I've never read Lovecraft, but I bet if I did I would find holes in the possibility of Chutulu's existence. I don't see why we should feel obligated to prove Chutulu's existence, but are we obligated to prove anything's existence? What obligates us?

So are you saying Chutulu died in one of the books?

 

Okay, so, say you did actually type this on the keypad. You're saying I can imagine a situation in which it is untrue. So what about things I can't possibly imagine to be untrue? Are they falsifiable? Such as, I am typing on a keypad. I actually am typing on a keypad, but you're saying for me this is still falsifiable because for you it's falsifiable? That makes no sense.

So...because you can imagine a situation in which God is untrue, it is falsifiable? God is becoming more and more scientific, then.