Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A Scientific Test for God's Existence


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No one cares about internet atheists. 

I already did, I disproved the existence of the Trinitarian God. I can't talk about all of them, that is why I am asking for your definition. 

Which Mormon concept of God? I believe in the alien God, his existence is highly probable. 

No one know who he is, but here is a better video, Sean Carroll is much more intelligent. He is a scientist and a philosopher.

 

 

Just listen to the first five seconds- where he shares HIS unproven assumptions about how we "should" view the world.

Taking these assumptions, he is right.

But we do not take on those assumptions.  That is the whole point of this crazy thread.  "what you should be doing is looking for predictions"

Sez who??

Absurdity reigns

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just listen to the first five seconds- where he shares HIS unproven assumptions about how we "should" view the world.

LOL that is why you should watch the entire video because that is not his point. He is a brilliant philosopher. Here is the transcript.

He said at the end, "Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “But I can explain all of that.” I know you can explain all of that—so can I. It’s not hard to come up with ex post facto justifications for why God would have done it that way. Why is it not hard? Because theism is not well defined"

Quote

Reality is created by intelligence. We are the "simulators"- there IS no "simulation

when yellowstone erupts, you think that volcano is going to care about our worldviews? 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Absurdity reigns

at least science makes predictions. So, can you please tell me why Theism is better than Agnosticism? 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted
1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No one cares about internet atheists. 

I already did, I disproved the existence of the Trinitarian God. I can't talk about all of them, that is why I am asking for your definition. 

Which Mormon concept of God? I believe in the alien God, his existence is highly probable. 

No one know who he is, but here is a better video, Sean Carroll is much more intelligent. He is a scientist and a philosopher.

 

I care about internet atheists. They are God's children, too.  The Mormon God is an alien. DIdn't you know he lives on the planet Kolob? His existence is therefore, highly probable.

The only thing that would make Sean better is if he were a violist, too.

Posted
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just listen to the first five seconds- where he shares HIS unproven assumptions about how we "should" view the world.

Taking these assumptions, he is right.

But we do not take on those assumptions.  That is the whole point of this crazy thread.  "what you should be doing is looking for predictions"

Sez who??

Absurdity reigns

It's so easy to assume what others should believe. Some even make a good living at it.

 

Posted (edited)

For those who might care, I am not responding to Skeptic anymore because it is a waste of time, but in response to the video, it is clear that Carroll is not familiar with philosophy at all, I could find no evidence of any degrees in philosophy, and his arguments are not philosophical arguments.  No question he is a brilliant guy, but not a philosopher.  People seem to think that cosmology is philosophy- it is not.

I quoted the video to show how he begged the question of how one "should" proceed in thought, that it "should" produce predictions.  But he seems to have no understanding that that view, as I have said numerous times, is no longer held by contemporary philosophy and has been dying for 200 years, until now when positiviism has been pronounced dead.

Skeptic doesn't understand this point and never will, though I have tried to explain it.  But the video was interesting- I just wanted to show it begged the question right from the beginning.

Theism is not even a competing theory to naturalism.  That's like comparing knitting to basketball. Theism is about teleology and he does not even understand that.  It is not about "facts"

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

For those who might care, I am not responding to Skeptic anymore because it is a waste of time

You need to respect the worldviews of others :) In my worldview I am not a waste of time. 

Could it be that you can't answer my questions? 

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

, I could find no evidence of any degrees in philosophy, and his arguments are not philosophical arguments.

He gave a seminar to the philosophy department at the University of North Carolina. I think his minor was in Philosphy, he does have training in Philosphy. Carroll even wrote an article defending philosophy

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I just wanted to show it begged the question right from the beginning.

or perhaps you are the one that doesn't listen to what i say? That was not his point, his point is that Theism is not well-defined. 

 

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's so easy to assume what others should believe. Some even make a good living at it.

 

Exactly- and he doesn't even have a clue.  He doesn't understand what is even called "secular religion" which is religion without God.   That may seem absurd and it is, but at least these folks understand that religion is not about science. http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/the-global-ecovillage-network-process-philosophy-and-ecological-theology-applied.html

These folks have turned ecology into religion- a way to achieve meaning in one's life.  They essentially worship the planet itself.

These are atheists who at least understand what religion IS- Carroll does not.  And this is what Skeptic also does not understand.  Here is an atheistic "religion" which is not about facts or his favorite word- "predictions" but it IS about teleology- man's purpose for existence.  

Their belief is that our purpose is to save the planet.  That is their a-theistic religion.  But at least they understand the purpose of religion. 

Quote

According to Litfin, the ecovillage movement replaces the symbolic logic of “atomism and the machine” with the “organism and living systems.” Like process philosophy, ecovillages uphold science and religion as inseparable partners in dialogue, and they eschew the cosmological division between the divine and the world. “Their spirituality is embodied and relational, aiming not for liberation from this world, but rather for the transformation of it.” As Litfin illustrates, “eco-villages are consciously seeking to birth new ways of living that transcend the modern dichotomies of urban vs. rural settlements, private vs. public spheres, culture vs. nature, local vs. global, expert vs. layperson, affluence vs. poverty, and mind vs. body.” Ecovillages therefore reflect a shift in philosophical orientation away from modernism’s various bifurcations and toward a more holistic postmodern organicism.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That was not his point, his point is that Theism is not well-defined. 

 

Nothing is well defined.  That is the whole point.  We CREATE meanings, not finding them in dictionaries.  Language is a human creation and so is everything else said in it, it cannot be otherwise.  Science is words, it is not reality

Here is an atheist who understands this

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nothing is well defined.  That is the whole point.  We CREATE meanings, not finding them in dictionaries.  Language is a human creation and so is everything else said in it, it cannot be otherwise.  Science is words, it is not reality

I agree, but disagree at the same time. Of course we create meanings, Science is a description of our observations, but science also makes predictions. 

scientists can predict solar eclipses. Science predicted the New Horizons was going to flyby Pluto.

 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted
1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and by well-defined he means a definition that has specific details, and that it is useful. 

This is what you are missing- you get to make your own definitions for what gives you purpose (teleology) in life

Did you look at the ecotheology link?

I can't do it for you.

My teleology fits perfectly with Mormon teleology.  If yours doesn't figure it out for yourself.  I made my own specific definitions with specific details and then found it fit perfectly with Mormonism.

I wish I didn't care that you figure this out, so much, because you are a real pain.

Posted
7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and by well-defined he means a definition that has specific details, and that it is useful. 

People can and often do disagree on definitions and descriptions, even those with specific details that some people think are useful for communicating their ideas to those other people.

It's not as if everybody has no choice but to agree on everything, or even to try to communicate their ideas to other people.

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what you are missing- you get to make your own definitions for what gives you purpose (teleology) in life

Sean Carrol is a scientist and he likes definitions that are useful. For example, scientists have a good definition for "carbon", but not so good for "life". 

I understand what you are saying, but you are not understanding what Sean Carroll is saying. 

Of course we make our own definitions, but we also have to make good definitions for others. 

We are social apes, we need good communication and good definitions to understand each other.

Good definitions allow us to follow rules, to make progress, to solve problems.  

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted
7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Sean Carrol is a scientist and he likes definitions that are useful. For example, scientists have a good definition for "carbon", but not so good for "life". 

I understand what you are saying, but you are not understanding what Sean Carroll is saying. 

Of course we make our own definitions, but we also have to make good definitions for others. 

We are social apes, we need good communication and good definitions to understand each other.

Good definitions allow us to follow rules, to make progress, to solve problems.  

You are still not getting this. What is YOUR personal purpose in life??

Do you want to be a fireman when you grow up?  A research scientist?  What do YOU think about the afterlife??  Do you want to get married?  How many children?  Why were you born? What good is this world and why are you in it????

THESE are "religious" questions that YOU design YOUR own answers for- they are not "out here" in the world to be discovered!!

I happen to believe that Mormon beliefs are perfect for me- with some adjustments.  I make the adjustments to insert what I think and go from there

I MAKE MY DEFINITIONS  

YOU MAKE YOUR DEFINITIONS

Maybe you accept the bible, maybe you don't

Maybe you want to be Donald Trump (rich and famous) when you grow up.   Religion is not out there to be proven or disproven.  Carroll doesn't get it either.  It's not about some state of the world- some person floating around or not.

Religion is about what you BELIEVE that gets you out of bed in the morning.  BY DEFINITION IT IS NOT ABOUT SOMETHING OUTSIDE YOU.

It is about what you believe that cannot be proven that is personal and subjective to you that you define for yourself

It's about what you believe MIGHT BE the case, that gives YOUR life meaning, and purpose.

If you have none of those things- then you have none.  If you have some, THAT is your religion.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are still not getting this. What is YOUR personal purpose in life??  .... THESE are "religious" questions that YOU design YOUR own answers for- they are not "out here" in the world to be discovered!!

Yes I am, but that has nothing to do with what Sean Carroll is saying. Sean Carroll is NOT saying that good definitions are out-there to be discovered, of course he believes we make our own definitions. Sean Carroll wants us to make useful definitions.Again, he is not saying "discover good definitions" he wants us to make them. Watch the entire debate online. 

Quote

It is about what you believe that cannot be proven that is personal and subjective to you that you define for yourself

Again, that has nothing to do with what Sean Carroll is saying, He simply wants Theists to make good definitions because good definitions are harder to manipulate. 

He said, "Third, theism is not well defined. I’m going to be emphasizing this third point because if you ask a theist about the definition they will give you some very rigorous sounding definition of what they mean by God. The most perfect being, the ground for all existence, and so forth. There are thousands of such definitions, which is an issue, but the real problem is not with the definition, it’s when you connect the notion of God to the world we observe. That’s where apparently an infinite amount of flexibility comes in" 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The most perfect being, the ground for all existence, and so forth. There are thousands of such definitions, which is an issue, but the real problem is not with the definition, it’s when you connect the notion of God to the world we observe. That’s where apparently an infinite amount of flexibility comes in" 

GOD IS NOT IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE

Every person has their own definition so OF COURSE there is an infinite amount of flexibility.

See everyone else- this is the problem with the CORRESPONDENCE theory applied to religion- this is precisely what is happening here.

He wants to "CONNECT" God to the WORLD WE OBSERVE.

It cannot be done, other than when the world around us inspires to know there is someone behind it

God is a feeling in your heart which is undefinable.

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

GOD IS NOT IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE

Every person has their own definition so OF COURSE there is an infinite amount of flexibility.

Exactly, every person has their own definition, but Sean Carroll hasn't heard a useful definition yet, at least not from a Theist. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

GOD IS NOT IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE

Every person has their own definition so OF COURSE there is an infinite amount of flexibility.

See everyone else- this is the problem with the CORRESPONDENCE theory applied to religion- this is precisely what is happening here.

He wants to "CONNECT" God to the WORLD WE OBSERVE.

It cannot be done, other than when the world around us inspires to know there is someone behind it

God is a feeling in your heart which is undefinable.

Missed opportunity at better communication is what I'm seeing right here.  And when you were so close to getting there already that I thought you were going to get there. 

Let's rewind back to just before the moment you said, and so forcefully too, that GOD IS NOT IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE.

I'm assuming you were talking about our Father in heaven when you said God then but let's consider what might have happened if you had instead been thinking of God as a word to refer to the kind of being he is, namely us, his children,  who we commonly refer to as people. 

We are in the world we observe,  and we as the same kind of being as our Father in heaven are the God that can be observed in this world. 

If only theism covered that concept in well defined terms to help all of us understand what we are observing. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...