Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 9:49 AM
255 online now:
herebedragons, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (6 members, 249 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,582 Year: 10,405/29,783 Month: 1,069/1,583 Week: 87/451 Day: 19/68 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
18Next
Author Topic:   We know there's a God because...
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 166 of 256 (458831)
03-02-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Straggler
03-02-2008 12:14 PM


Re: We know there is a God because...
OK. Not a very full definition but true at least in as far as it goes (depending what is meant by 'entities')

So where exactly are you going with this? Is it related to the topic at hand?

Thank you for acknowledging the fact...

Entities simply refers to the subjects in question. You who are materialists philsophically (ie. 'scientists' cough cough...) already admit (at times) that you do not know 'what' matter (or the cosmos) is. You speak only about what it does.

In the simplest sense, I meant that our ideas (theories) about the empirical world are not necessarily real in principle, so I was referring specifically to them in terms of an 'entity'. Even so, the actual case is that we do not have comprehensive knowledge at all. So in theory, all of these factors in our equations are 'entities that are not fully defined/.

As to your 2nd to the last question, is there a place I am not allowed to go?

As to the last, It is related to the topic since it is my opinion as to how we can know there is a God in purely philosophical terms such as these.

The only means of actually 'knowing' is to meet Him personally. Such experience or observation is the hallmark of scientific reasoning. But we all know that the Christian concept of a personal relationship with the truth Himself is nonsense. I am only here to show that it is logical in theory, and that science historically originates from that belief.

Scientific equations are triune. They require at least two entities that, if coherent and consistent, are held to be real. And int that sense, logic is self existing.

I explain it all in the article I gave you a link to. I am not hold logic up as God, but as indivisible from Him as per the 1st chapter of John's gospel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2008 12:14 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2008 12:45 PM Rob has responded
 Message 173 by Admin, posted 03-02-2008 1:24 PM Rob has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 167 of 256 (458832)
03-02-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
03-02-2008 11:31 AM


Is it a word game to say that systemic methodology is by definition comparative and therby seeking consistency or contradiction between entities (specifically between theory and evidence)?

Saying that the law of contradiction is used in the scientific method is not the same as saying that science is the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction is the law of contradiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 11:31 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:04 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 168 of 256 (458834)
03-02-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rob
03-02-2008 12:31 PM


Re: We know there is a God because...
Scientific equations are triune. They require at least two entities that, if coherent and consistent, are held to be real. And int that sense, logic is self existing.

If I am to grasp this I am going to need to try and apply this to something a little more concrete (forgive my lack of imagination)

In my post message 121 in this thread (how do I link to this BTW?)
I discuss the difference between the personal and wholly subjective concept of 'red' and the verifiable consistently corroborated properties of that which we all call red.

Can you apply your methodology of contradiction thinking to this case so that I can understand what you are saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 12:31 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:02 PM Straggler has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 169 of 256 (458837)
03-02-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Straggler
03-02-2008 12:45 PM


Re: We know there is a God because...
I'll get back to you on your point about 'red'.

Does this link work? http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2008 12:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2008 2:39 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 170 of 256 (458838)
03-02-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by bluegenes
03-02-2008 12:43 PM


bluegenes:
Saying that the law of contradiction is used in the scientific method is not the same as saying that science is the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction is the law of contradiction.

Yes it is, because without it, there is no systematic science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 12:43 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:17 PM Rob has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 171 of 256 (458844)
03-02-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
03-02-2008 1:04 PM


Yes it is, because without it, there is no systematic science.

Saying that the scientific method depends on the law of non-contradiction is not the same as saying "science is the law of contradiction", the original statement that I picked you up on.

The scientific method also depends on observation, and the statement that science is observation would also be false.

"Is" doesn't mean "includes" or "depends".

Science includes the scientific method, which in turn includes observation, experimentation and the testing of hypothesis (where the law of contradiction can certainly be important). Science also includes the body of knowledge gained from this.

If you want to be a philosopher of science, as you appear to, you need to be as precise as philosophers try to be.

{ABE}Incidentally, Rob, the admins have put in a free for all section since you were last posting, and that's good for when people want to cover a lot of ground, instead of staying strictly on one topic. I think it's a good idea, and it might suit you.

Edited by bluegenes, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:04 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:25 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17431
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 172 of 256 (458846)
03-02-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rob
03-02-2008 10:48 AM


Hi Rob,

First I'll reply to this post as Percy, then I'll reply to the rest of your posts as Admin.

Rob writes:

When you can explain all of the details of how a world, and life specifically, could come into being without a God, then your question will be meaningful.

How do you tell the difference between a God-created world and life, versus a natural world and life where we lack sufficient evidence and intelligence to explain how they came about?

Furthermore, in a world without a god, I wouldn't expect wars and disease to be a problem fo you. Those things would simply be the natural course of all things.

So if in a Godless world we should expect wars and disease, since wars and disease are exactly what we do have, then isn't a Godless world the natural conclusion?

--Percy

PS - I think it's great that you can spell empirical now, but you somehow managed to misspell for! :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 10:48 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:29 PM Percy has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12555
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 173 of 256 (458847)
03-02-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rob
03-02-2008 12:31 PM


Re: We know there is a God because...
Hi Rob,

I'm ruling the nature of science off-topic in this thread. If you require more than just a couple posts to introduce some novel approach to the topic, you should probably propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 12:31 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:27 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 174 of 256 (458848)
03-02-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by bluegenes
03-02-2008 1:17 PM


Observation as well is pointless unless it is weighed against an interpretaion.

Isn't you who argue against people who observe the universe and see God?

If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.

All of those qualities depend upon the law.

Science is the law of contradiction. The other definitions that we have depended upon (since the 16th and 17th centuries) exist to obscure that fact.

I am simply pointing to it's actual roots.

Those roots are necessarily philosophical whether one is an empiricist, or a theist.

In fact, that is the great Irony that I mention in my article. That it was the materialist philosophers who are ironically called 'empiricists'.

I don't think we need to waste space on this thread arguing that matter any longer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:17 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:34 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:49 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19526
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 175 of 256 (458849)
03-02-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
02-25-2008 9:10 PM


Problems from the start.
Hello Percy, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I have a couple of comments:

How would we know just by examining the world around us that there is a God?

Translation: how do we determine whether something non-material exists by examining only material evidence? I'm not saying that god is non-material, just using this as an analogy.

For myself, I would approach this question by asking what differences might exist between a world created by God and another world that came about in the absence of a God.

The problem here is only having one set of data, one that you can't tell whether it is created or not.

How would gravity be different in a created universe versus one that came about in the absence of a god? One could argue that in a chance formed universe that things would behave according to simple basic laws that could be easily determined, like Newtonian gravity, while in a created universe the closer you looked the more mystery was involved.

How would matter\energy be different in a created universe versus one that came about in the absence of a god? One could argue that in a chance formed universe that things would be formed of simple particles, particles that are stable over time and different from energy, while in a created universe one can become the other at whim, and the closer you looked the more mystery was involved.

Thus one can argue that a self formed universe would be necessarily simpler than the one we see, while a created universe would necessarily be complicated due to complexity added by the creation of something more than a simple universe.

Which would be expected to have more wars, more prejudice, more disease, more disasters? Certainly we seem to have enough of these to suspect the possibility of an absence of God in this world.

Was that the purpose of creation?

If the purpose was entertainment, then the fact that we entertain ourselves with historical and fictional accounts of such things would show that this purpose is fulfilled.

If the purpose is to compose a 4-dimensional kaleidoscope, the existence of certain life forms and their peculiar peccadilloes may be incidental "noise" in the system.

Say there were no Bible, no Qur'an, no Bhagavad Gita, no religious texts of any sort.

Humans seem particularly adept at developing religious texts without needing a particular starting point, in every culture known. If god existed and could be partially perceived by occasional mystics in some necessarily incomplete manner (due to the vast complexity of god), then we would logically expect many different religious texts.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 02-25-2008 9:10 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by cavediver, posted 03-02-2008 3:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 176 of 256 (458850)
03-02-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Admin
03-02-2008 1:24 PM


Re: We know there is a God because...
As you wish...you're the boss. Feel free to hide my last post as I just became aware of this new formality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Admin, posted 03-02-2008 1:24 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 256 (458851)
03-02-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
03-02-2008 1:19 PM


Percy:
So if in a Godless world we should expect wars and disease, since wars and disease are exactly what we do have, then isn't a Godless world the natural conclusion?

:)

Not necessarily, it may just mean that mankind has crucified God so as to stay in control as god himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 03-02-2008 1:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 03-02-2008 2:39 PM Rob has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 178 of 256 (458853)
03-02-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rob
03-02-2008 1:25 PM


Off topic - for Rob.
Rob, see my addition by edit on the last post. The "free for all idea" is ideal for when you want to range over the connections between different subjects, as you like to do. If you start a topic on your current line of thinking there, you can take it where you want to, without "off topic" warnings.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:25 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 312 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 179 of 256 (458855)
03-02-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rob
03-02-2008 1:25 PM


Isn't you who argue against people who observe the universe and see God?

That's on topic, so I can reply. Not if they're Pantheists.;)

It always seems to me that if people are observing the universe, they're observing the universe, and seeing the universe. Maybe I'm weird.

We can go into what science is on your new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 1:25 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2008 1:50 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6439
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 180 of 256 (458856)
03-02-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by bluegenes
03-02-2008 1:49 PM


I bet you also argue against people who look at clouds and see bunny rabbits.


...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:49 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2008 1:53 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018