Eodnhoj wrote:
The limits through which the scientific method exists are the same limits through which God exists
The scientific method is limited by its ability for potential falsification
Belief in God is limited by the imagination of those who believe in him
The limitations on the former are greater because they have to be testable
The latter requires no test whatsoever and does not even have to be logical
If we look at the first two statements we can observe that both "science" and "God" extend from the term "limited" or "limit" with this nature of limit effectively being the, pardon the pun, "limit" through which we understand both God and Science. In these respects the nature of continuity of limits being created, destroyed, or maintains through limits exists in itself as a limit...in these respects Both God and Science exist through limit with limit itself existing through God and science.
Potential falsification as negation, is still truth...proving something does not exist under "x" framework is still a proof...even if a negative one.
Eodnhoj wrote:
If the scientific method alone is principally responsible for determining the sole nature of truth
Science is only interested in the properties and capabilities of observable phenomena
It has absolutely nothing at all to say about truth because this is outside of its domain
And is observation limited to strictly empirical or abstract truth when the empirical truths are founded under and abstract framework of science (and vice versa)?
Eodnhoj wrote:
The Scientific Method if it is to test God must effectively test all definitions of God
God is usually defined as metaphysical or supernatural which is beyond the remit of the scientific method
For science to test him he must be observable and possess property and dimension as physical objects do
Eodnhoj wrote:
The subjectivity and inherently random nature of proof gives problems to the scientific method
Science does not do proof as that is the remit of deductive systems like mathematics
Instead it does evidence as that is the remit of an inductive system which science is
Eodnhoj wrote:
The scientific method as a system does not provide a methodology for what would be deemed as an appropriate construct for how to test God
For example one may use the scientific method but the tests uses while subject to the scientific method are still subjective to the imagination
of the individual
It does not matter that tests are the product of human imagination. What matters is that they are tested to absolute destruction or as close to as possible. The reason as to why experimentation and inter subjectivity and potential falsification and peer review are essential components of the scientific method is to eliminate bias whether conscious or sub conscious. As a methodology the scientific method is as brutal and rigorous as it is possible to be both in concept and in practice. No other single means of investigating observable phenomena comes anywhere near such brutality and rigour. It is entirely peerless. It is also eternally self correcting to allow for the elimination of error following the acquisition of new evidence
Eodnhoj wrote:
It is a waste of time to try to continually negate the existence of God when a negation can
only be observed as a statement of relation to a positive existence or between positives
It is even more a waste of time to try to prove his existence which is non falsifiable
And will always remain so as long as he is given metaphysical or supernatural status
Eodnhoj wrote:
the nature of continuity of limits being created destroyed or maintains through limits exists in itself as
a limit ... in these respects both God and Science exist through limit with limit itself existing through God and science
God as a non falsifiable concept is absolutely limited whereas science in spite of its limitations will still make progress
Eodnhoj wrote:
And is observation limited to strictly empirical or abstract truth when the empirical truths are
founded under and abstract framework of science ( and vice versa )
Empirical observation is not the only type of observation but it is definitely the most rigorous
Eodnhoj wrote:
And is observation limited to strictly empirical or abstract truth when the empirical truths are
founded under and abstract framework of science ( and vice versa )
Empirical observation is not the only type of observation but it is definitely the most rigorous
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:46 pmTrue there is not experiment that supports the hypothesis, unless the experiment itself is the hypothesis that self-justifies through its inherent self-reflectivity.
Well yeah, it's called confirmation bias. If you happen to believe that Santa Claus will leave presents under your tree, the fact that there are presents under your tree will probably strengthen your belief. The trick is to accept that may be another explanation, and better yet; test it. That is what some theists fail to do. No one knows exactly how the universe came into being, for example, and it may be that some god was involved, but it is only the most philosophically naive who insist that lack of proof for an alternative means that their hypothesis is correct.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:46 pmTrue there is not experiment that supports the hypothesis, unless the experiment itself is the hypothesis that self-justifies through its inherent self-reflectivity.
Well yeah, it's called confirmation bias. If you happen to believe that Santa Claus will leave presents under your tree, the fact that there are presents under your tree will probably strengthen your belief. The trick is to accept that may be another explanation, and better yet; test it. That is what some theists fail to do. No one knows exactly how the universe came into being, for example, and it may be that some god was involved, but it is only the most philosophically naive who insist that lack of proof for an alternative means that their hypothesis is correct.
But isn't the scientific method, as a means to truth, falling under this same confirmation bias?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:41 pmBut isn't the scientific method, as a means to truth, falling under this same confirmation bias?
Science isn't ultimately about truth; it's about making things work. Two scientists can have different theories about why something happens, and if they care enough, and can get funding, they can test them. It may turn out that one or other theory produces better results, but it might also be inconclusive, in which case it doesn't matter what you believe. With religion, you can't even do the test. How could you decide whether Zeus or Yahweh kicked off the big bang?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:41 pmBut isn't the scientific method, as a means to truth, falling under this same confirmation bias?
Science isn't ultimately about truth; it's about making things work. Two scientists can have different theories about why something happens, and if they care enough, and can get funding, they can test them. It may turn out that one or other theory produces better results, but it might also be inconclusive, in which case it doesn't matter what you believe. With religion, you can't even do the test. How could you decide whether Zeus or Yahweh kicked off the big bang?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:57 pmduh...God fight club of course.
I don't think you understand scientific evidence. You don't choose between absolute and relativistic space by putting Newton and Einstein in a boxing ring.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:57 pmduh...God fight club of course.
I don't think you understand scientific evidence. You don't choose between absolute and relativistic space by putting Newton and Einstein in a boxing ring.
It is a joke...sort of...regardless...so science creates truth?