Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

I am saying it's falsifiable because we can provide EVIDENCE to the veracity of the assertion.

First you ask questions to me, then you go ahead and presume some answer. How about you heed your own suggestion you made here, which was in regards to my faux worship of Chutulu.

In regards to your question about God... There is no EVIDENCE (or observation here) to support the assertion of existence. There was no video presented in a post in our God test in the other thread, you and I have both made posts here. Even many believers presume that God is some immaterial deity that is beyond the ability to test.

Your reasoning skills are deteriorating by the post.

 

I actually don't think I have it in me to keep up with all these errors . . .

Your use of "falsifiable" is completely incorrect neon . . .

Also just because we could never prove that proposition X is false, does not make proposition X true; it only means we can't prove it one way.

Just because we can't prove god doesn't exist, doesn't mean god exists. Same goes for Poseidon, or gremlins, or a square circle.

Your entire argument rests on this strange assumption; "whatever cannot be proven to be false must be true". But this is not so; this is not correct. If I am wrong, I challenge you to find me an internet source which supports you here.

China, I'll get to your astrology chart eventually, for now this conversation is more interesting. I'm also still waiting on you to figure out just exactly what you think will happen when you give me the information; in what scenario do I say "Oh my god, astrology IS real!" and in what scenario do you say "Damn, well I tried, and you proved to me that this stuff actually doesn't work"?

What I'm getting at here is that your own presentation of astrology is not falsifiable, and you've already stated that should I make any kind of statement casting doubt on my star chart, then you would write this off as me being willfully disruptive of the process here. So what COULD i say that would make you think it doesn't work? You hinted earlier that there is nothing, because you've already decided it works, based on anecdotal evidence which you won't share, etc, etc . . . so I'm not sure what the point of us going through those motions would be.

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
—Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

 

We assume we can provide evidence to the veracity of the assertion. But we don't assume this about God -- why not? Really, can we ever prove you were typing on a keypad? No. All we would have is your word.

I don't remember my suggestion. I noticed you didn't answer my question.

How do you automatically know there's no evidence? What if I'm experiencing God? Then there's totally evidence. You're just claiming from the offset that there can be no evidence and your circular reasoning is that there can be no evidence because there is no God, and there can be no God because there is no evidence.

Your reasoning skills are poor.

 

We can prove such things don't exist, though, by studying their parameters. A square circle, for instance -- how the hell could that exist? You're saying I can't prove that a square circle doesn't exist, and I'm the one who is making no sense? I can prove that a square isn't a circle because by definition a square isn't a circle.

Well how could you prove anything that was true false? I don't think you can even conceivably prove something that is true to be false. The only things that can't be proven to be false are truths. That just seems like common sense to me, but maybe I'm a stranger in a strange land.

If you could show me something that can't be proven to be false and is also not likely true...

 

The most obvious way we could test the veracity of the claim, if we were doing it scientifically is to video it. If I wanted to make the assertion "My next post will be typed" and we were applying scientific rigor to it, it can easily be done. I'm willing to bet a fair amount of grade school kids could understand the concept.

This is satisfactory for me as a response...


In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
—Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

 

We shouldn't, just as science shouldn't feel obligated to make room for God.

It's baffling to me that the hardcore skeptic comes out in you in regards to Chutlu, which is a relatively harmless belief, meanwhile the Personal God which has just as much supporting evidence, or lack thereof, overwhelms your reason. Is it perhaps the power and control aspect of religion throughout history, even til this day, that you are subconsciously attracted to more than the idea(s) themselves?

I'll assume that's trolling or you must be baked.

 

Apply this to Astrology as well. The evidence of the proof of Astrology is the way that my chart lines up with my being. It's my experience that is the evidence, but Writer is claiming from the beginning that it's not real and that therefore any evidence that i present, even a correct reading from someone who literally knows nothing about Writer (my girlfriend, who's more skilled at reading charts than me) wouldn't be sufficient evidence.

 

So why are you posting this quote on the bottom but meanwhile trying to explain a hypothetical situation in which someone who doesn't know you at all and who gives an accurate reading about you still wouldn't have to do with the astrology in any way, shape, or form? How is someone who knows you zero and giving you an accurate reading by using an astrology chart not evidence? It wouldn't it even be me giving the reading, it would be someone who has interacted with you zero.

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that you don't have any evidence of you not existing prior to this life? Your entire atheistic standpoint rests on this issue alone.

What COULD i say to you that proves that it's real? You've already cancelled out all options, as even a 100 percent accurate reading wouldn't be any sort of evidence according to you.

What about the videos that we have already posted by a Scientist talking about how the interior experience plays a part in all of this? So if my Astrology chart is not only just happening to be accurate to my personality, but also resonates for me, then how is that not sufficient evidence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

 

If a Scientist is unable to prove that I had the dream that i had and just woke up from, using all of his available instruments and resources, it should therefore be concluded that i did not have the dream that i had then?

And notice how even this quote doesn't say "in ALL circumstances"...I thought Science and Logic was all about repeatability...

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
—Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

 

The issue is with your idea of an "accurate reading". Astrology readings are not accurate, they are tailored to fit the vast majority of people. I've had many readings done before, I used to be friends with someone who was really into astrology in high school (hopefully she grew out of it). Back then I too was impressed when a star chart told me that as a Taurus, I was "stubborn". Or that I "Have health problems that sometimes trouble me". Today, that doesn't impress me, because I've learned a lot about psychology, science, logic, and pseudoscience.

I'm not ignoring the fact, it's a non-issue. Like I said, I wouldn't even bet 1$ on this assertion, it's just a hunch, based, actually, on empirical evidence. The evidence that most people, myself included, don't seem to remember what it was like to be anything before we were born. One is inclined to wonder whether the same sort of experience awaits us after we die.

I don't take accounts of past lives seriously because they are extraordinary claims which have never produced extraordinary evidence.

Here's another intuitive argument for this: If you hit your head, and damage your brain slightly, you might lose consciousness. If you go under neurological surgery, and I cut out a certain part of your brain, you might lose the ability to speak. Another part, the ability to recognize faces. Another part, the ability to control your bowels and bladder. Another part, the ability for your heart to beat and lungs to breathe. And so on, and so on; we can damage the brain incrementally and watch as all those things that we think of as what constitutes a "person" are slowly stripped away from a particular mass of flesh and bones.

Knowing this, we are to believe that upon death, the ULTIMATE damage to the brain, somehow consciousness survives completely intact?

My atheistic standpoint has nothing to do with this view china. Atheism is a lack of belief in dieties. You are talking about an afterlife. Those are two separate issues. There could be a god, and no afterlife, and there could be an afterlife, and no god.

For the third time, this is a useless direction you are arguing. Pick your battles better.

If you told me extremely specific information such as my blood type, the exact nature of my medical complaints, the number of siblings, my relations to them, the number of close friends I have, precise details about my romantic and professional life, etc. Multiple numeric values would impress me.

As I've said before, I've already had my chart done, numerous times. Probably by the exact program you hold in such high regard, and it didn't impress me back then, as it doesn't for a huge portion of humanity.

If this chart were really some kind of proof, don't you think scientists would be taking a look at it? Don't you think it'd be on the news? Don't you think your doctor would consult it during a checkup? There's a whole constellation of societal effects we should expect if this thing were real, and none of it is there. Instead we have all the markings of a pseudoscientific phenomenon.

China, did you even watch this video? It is a direct refutation to both Magick and Astrology. He is arguing that there is no SELF china; with no SELF, what does astrology measure? With no SELF, what is exerting it's "ultimate will" in magick? If there is no SELF, what is it that "survives" into the afterlife?

Come on dude, it still seems like you're not really trying. All this takes is honest and patience.

But we know that people have dreams, and we can see people having them on EEGs quite easily.

Science and logic also use Inductive Reasoning, which this is an example of. Of course this wouldn't be a point you'd be tripping up over if you'd have done basic, basic, rudimentary research on logic and science.

Experiments are about repeatability, that's what you're thinking of. Sometimes even observation is not repeatable, and we have to work with what we've got.

 

Popper considered falsifiability a test of whether theories are scientific, not of whether propositions that they contain or support are true.

he strictly opposed the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad, and noted that falsificationism does not imply it.

Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are important in science. Contrary to intuition, unfalsifiable statements can be embedded in — and deductively entailed by — falsifiable theories.

 

The idea that falsifiable is the line of demarcation between scientific and unscientific is not universally accepted. there are many legitimate criticisms of the perspective. For one the use of inductive reasoning to create hypothesis. The reason I don't like this dogmatic approach is it ignores any contribution of mind.

 

And we have a single philosopher and his degree of stress. It is dogma simply.

 

No-self does not in any way refute Magick or Astrology...the more you get into Spirituality, the more that it becomes natural to come across "no-self". What this means is that the Ego which we believe to be ourselves is merely a belief of ours and nothing more. Coming to this realization is what can open the door for Magick and Astrology, as the True Will has to do with your Higher Self, as does Astrology. Realizing no-self kicks the Ego out of the way and opens up your True Will. You are completely incorrect on this issue and anybody involved with metaphysics would agree with me.

When the Buddhists are talking about No-Self, you will come across time and time again the term True Self right along with it, or just Self, as it's all talking about the same thing. The true Self shines through when the false self is realized to not actually be real. Then, the True Will can manifest through, rather than egoic desires creating egoic manifestations. This is Spirituality basics.

There is vague Astrology and there is specific Astrology. If you're so confident that i won't tell you anything specific or meaningful to you then why not give the info that i have asked for already and see the results? What are you afraid of?

Well I have the same hunch, intuition, whatever you want to call it, that there is absolutely no way that there is any way that this is the first time that I have ever been alive. In fact, in my deepest being, it's rather obvious that this isn't the case. There are many people in the world who actually feel the same way. Probably the same amount, if not more, than the people who have no remnant of a memory of anything before this. So this argument of yours is not valid.

There are Scientists who are open to the idea that the brain doesn't produce consciousness, but rather the brain is a radio to channel consciousness through. This seems intuitively obvious for me as well. It's a hunch, based on my empirical evidence (AKA my observation of my intuition on the matter) that i do have some sense of a life before this one. This also lines up with all of those Buddhist teachings, as coming in to contact with No-Self reveals that there is no real death, and this is the moment of Ego death. This is where the saying "to die before you die so that you can really live" comes from.

You seem to be in to Buddhism but don't seem to realize that the hallmark of those teachings is that Consciousness survives death.

Well let's just clarify that you neither believe in an afterlife nor a deity. So when i say atheism, this is what i am referring to. I can call it atheism/lackofabeliefinasoul if that makes you feel better.

You seem to not understand that this program doesn't do ANYTHING at all other than print out the chart. There's nothing "high-regard" about it. But the Astrologer who wants your info needs the system in order to print out the chart. The system doesn't actually give the reading. It prints out the chart, and the Astrologer gives the reading. This seems to be difficult for you to understand.

I'll ask again, why do you put so much stock and trust in societal structures that CLEARLY are failing all around the planet, which more and more people are losing trust in? Because society and doctors don't use Astrology charts, now means that Astrology isn't relevant? This is your proof??? Look at the systems that you're talking about. Are they working very well in our current state in the world?? Be honest with yourself.

Yes we know that people have dreams but can any scientific instrument prove what thought or dream i specifically have in any moment? With this lack of evidence for my thought or dream, does this mean that it's not real or that it didn't happen? Of course not.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/

 

The demarcation that popper makes is not between what is true and false but whether a thing could be considered scientific in his estimation.

 

chinacat, although the astrologer interprets it is according to standardized descriptions of influence.

 

Just clarifying Popper's position.

 

What we know about the the world is revealed.

I understand the effort. That statement doesn't make poppers position clear unless you consider the other parts of his position alla post 691. The statement you post specifically refers to an act based on a specific forgone conclusion, if it is not falsifiable it is not scientific, not to his overall position which in fact does contain nuance. If his position requires this nuance then it doesn't stand on it's own as a solid or complete basis for apprehending the world. The only thing I see that his position does is tone down the argument if you accept it.

It is suggested that the subjective experience is not falsifiable, but I suggest otherwise because it is shared. If you can do it so can I. The only thing that makes god scientifically inaccessible is lack of subjects to study. It is not that they don't exist but that the debate rages on as to whether it is even worthy of science. That is a philosophical debate.

 

Do you have any sources where he states this?

I'm not sure how he would arrive at 'non-science' or pseudoscience statements demarcated by their unfalsifiability as being important in science.