Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

My comments on poppers position are related to statements made in the article that you quoted. That specific instance doesn't have to apply. there are other nonfalsifiable statements that are important to science.

 

Okee dokee... thedope

 

So apart from the dogmatic demarcation that it must be falsifiable, A philosophical position. It seems that scientific applies to those things to which scientific method can be applied.

 

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

 

Scientific method factors out bias and in so doing throws out the baby with the bath. The baby being intuition. However there is another way to approach the problem of bias and that is to overcome it. It is a problem with how we organize our perception. One of the most unreliable ways we organize our perception is around the construct of good and evil.

What is real cannot be caused to become unreal and what is not real does not exist.

 

Another unreliable way to organize perception is around loose rhetoric which is why I make an effort to address it. The response is often that it is just semantics or unduly rigorous semantics. That just expresses a lack of desire to play by the same rules you impose because it has suddenly become a challenge to apply them in support of your own positions.

 

Can the same be said when asked to supply sources and you deflect the request?

 

I didn't deflect the request. Post 691 consists entirely of quotes from the article you quoted. The analysis of course is mine.

 

Not to leave any doubt the request was not satisfied,
,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

 

Anyway...

suspicion about sources is not required in a logical exercise. We can examine it's merits by the true statements we can make.

 

Overcoming perceptual bias is what the teaching of forgiveness is about.

 

Another thing that is unreliable is utter reliance on reputable sources. What gives a thing it's repute is you. The greatest liar can be the source of accurate information.

 

Your last post can't, though. So you're saying in order for something to be scientific, someone first has to know some truth others can't know. But some can. They just can. Such as in the case of your last post. If you tell everyone it's true, you were typing on a keypad, some people will believe you, simply because they trust or have faith in you. So where does it end?

Science is a method, not a community. New things are discovered and the community joins in on them. Why is God off-limits, is my question. Why shouldn't someone search for God if that's what they really want to do? And how can you be so sure that search isn't a scientific one? Just because you're saying from the offset that God doesn't exist.

Just trying to understand if God is truly different from these things.

I am baked. You said the deity of millions died...I assumed you were talking about Chutulu.

 

If we are retroactively testing, a theory does tend to become more likelihood, rather than the certainity we may presume of a controlled test. This is probably why the people who deny evolution, usually go after macro-evolution in particular, because the events of changes in species is suggested to happen over a timespan that is usually far greater than a lifespan.

It's a community too...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community


Where in the outset of this thread, did I say that God did not exist?

 

I would like to see a source about buddhism being occult, because looking at the history of it, it seems to be a pretty open dialogue, overall.

However, in that vein, later today or tomorrow I will tear apart China's terrible post above where he completely misunderstands what buddhism has to say about the self, and I will actually provide multiple sources to back me up. China if you want to get a headstart on me maybe research your own statements and it would be refreshing to see you come back here saying something like "Ok, after double checking my facts, it turns out I was wrong, my bad". But no pressure . . .

Except this is not what Astrology is about. Astrology does not wish to measure the inertial forces of all matter in the universe to predict the future in a deterministic way. Please be careful with creating a strawman argument or mis-representing just exactly what we are talking about here.

Astrology is an ancient system of assigning meaning to the position of certain celestial bodies (suspiciously, only those visible to the naked eye by ancient peoples and conforming to their particular interpretations of constellations). For example, Astrology has no interest in the following phenomena:

-Neutron stars

-White dwarfs

-Black holes

- Nebulae

- The entire visible milky way galaxy

- any other galaxy in the universe

- any stars not assigned to a constellation under the worldview of the people who concocted astrology

- dark matter

- dark energy

-Quasars

- the cosmic background microwave radition

- the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter

- the Oort cloud

I could go on, and on, and on. Do not conflate Astrology with an attempt to measure the influences of all matter in the universe; that is PHYSICS. We already have that science, and it's been much, much, MUCH more useful to us than astrology in making predictions and testing models.

Nobody here is arguing that events are not influenced by other events. Nobody here is arguing that the position of every single thing in the universe at the moment of your birth will determine everything else (I guess to believe in astrology you must believe in determinism?); the problem is that this is true of every single moment in the universe, ever. And those influences definitely do not manifest according to the principles of astrology. Those astrological *interpretations* are based on folkloric, literary tropes regarding roman/greek gods. It's not like somebody did a double blind study 1,000 years ago to see if such and such a personality does in fact arise when such and such a planet is on the rise; they just decided that it was so, because it sounded nice to them. We're talking about pseudoscience here.

Today, when we do those studies, putting the predictions of astrology to the test, they fail, conclussively.

So please consider what you're arguing carefully, given the credulous nature of some of our posters here. They don't need more fuel added to their delusional fire, they need a bucket of cold water to the face.

So there is an appearance of self, and not a real substance to it (which again I will provide some material about). That's the definition of an illusion. When we analyze a rock, it doesn't "disappear" into minerals, molecules, and atoms . . . it is those things. We assign the word "rock" to that particular aggregate of events and things, and they are there, because you can stub your toe. The Self doesn't provide the toe stubbing experience, and I'll get to that.

 

Do consider carefully what you are arguing. What are the principles of astrology? What do you know of it's origins? I already told how how they came to their descriptions, through careful observation of the subjective space in conjunction with observation of the sky. The sun doesn't reach it's solstice because someone thought it sounded good. There are also hindu and chinese astrological systems, not just western systems. Your rhetoric is full of characterizations that have nothing to do with fact and which amount to superstitions on your part. Which is why I have wondered time and again If you really can't see your excesses or if you take a radical and disproportionate view just to agitate for a point.

Where are the studies you say have put astrological predictions to the test and found them to fail conclusively? What is an astrological prediction? Perhaps you need a dunk. Where are your credentials for prescribing what people need. Your judgments make your analysis useless because your analysis is applied to sustaining them, not toward understanding the issue.

 

Just as Meagain stated buddhism began as an esoteric pursuit. To answer the question of how to end suffering. It involved someone investing themselves to find hidden meaning. The only yardstick being the subjective space.

As to there being no self. That is a statement that is self contradictory. There is no separate self. We are an agglomerate. Reality is non-local meaning present everywhere. Reality is not remote meaning no where absent.

You are real, let that sink in.

 

Why strict atheism is un-scientific http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/11/27/why_strict_atheism_is_unscientific_106413.html

 

Aren't all initial observations a likelihood at some point, though? And what makes a scientist -- is he someone who just looks again? So I'm wondering if all observations made by scientists are scientific. So can someone possibly look for god in a responsible, scientific way? And would that person be a scientist and would God be scientific, therefore.

But a new area of study isn't ever just automatically accepted into the community, is it? Because then how are scientists being scientific about what they do and don't accept? So if something novel comes along, it isn't scientific until it's accepted by the scientific community? That just seems absurd to me. Surely the guy who was studying it was a scientist. The thing was always scientific.

I suppose you didn't. Maybe I got a little carried away.