Scientific Method and God

[uwot]

...so science creates truth?

This from half an hour ago:

Science isn't ultimately about truth; it's about making things work.

[Eodnhoj7]

...so science creates truth?

This from half an hour ago:

Science isn't ultimately about truth; it's about making things work.

But if it works there is an element of truth in it considering it exists.

[uwot]

...if it works there is an element of truth in it considering it exists.

Most science is much more mundane than people appreciate. What is true is whether the predictions actually happen and whether the mathematical model works. You can make up any explanation for why it works, and if that explanation makes predictions that come true, then scientists will take it seriously. If it doesn't, why should they care about it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

This is a ridiculous statement.
If the Scientific Method assumes God as the origin of all truth and real there is no need to prove God is real.
How can one deduce reality from an assumption, it is non-sequitor.

It is simple:

If the scientific method alone is principly responsible for determining the sole nature of truth, it acts as a universal mediator for knowledge and fulfills the role of "Divine Mediator" in the respect it is a universal means for truth from which all truth is composed and projects towards.

The Scientific Method, if it is to test God must effectively test all definitions of God and effectively test the definition of God, through empirical grounding, as "Origin of All Truth". In these respects it effectively must be the origin of truth and effectively be God, from a secular perspective, as the test of the origins effectively makes the test the origin.

Scientists never claimed the Scientific Method is responsible for determining the sole nature of truth. Your accusation is a straw man.
In principle scientific truths are true ONLY as conditioned to the requirements of the Scientific Method [processes] and Scientific Framework [note peer review].
There are other truths like economic, mathematical, legal, etc. which are acceptable and outside the scope of scientific truths.

To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

The Scientific Method is contained within the Framework and System of Science and it covers only things that are empirical, testable and falsifiable.

The system and framework of science is an abstract framework which extends through empirical reality. Show me "science" empirically speaking? One may show an experiment, but the reasoning behind this experiment (that which gives boundaries to the physical reality and seeing if these boundaries connect to other boundaries (laws) we understand) in itself as an "idea" can only be approximated empirically.

Whatever you may claim, the final test for any scientific truth is whether is complies with the requirements of the scientific method [empirically based], accepted by the scientific peers and more importantly whether it works.
There are the boundaries of the Scientific Framework which is dealt within the Philosophy of Science but they are not critical to the pragmatic aspects of scientific theory.

The Scientific Framework do not give a damn with name of things, i.e. God or whatsoever X is.
What works with Science is if a thing can pass the test and gain consensus within the Scientific Framework then it is accepted as a Scientific truth, note not any truth but a qualified and conditional Scientific truth.
Scientific truths do not has credibility outside its Scientific Framework.

The scientific framework suffers from the fallacy of equivocation where the scientific method is subject to multiple definitions and frameworks, that exists inside one framework of inherent circularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It does not, but even then, so what if the Scientific Framework suffers from the fallacy of equivocation?

If a scientific theory confirm it is bateria X that cause disease Y which can be cured by antibiotic Z and the side effects are stated,
then if you happen to suffer disease Y, then you take antibiotic Z to kill bateria X in your body to cure yourself of the disease with the awareness of any possible side effects.

The same applies to all scientific theories and its practical utilities.

Note as Popper has asserted, Scientific theories are at best polished conjectures, i.e. basically conjectures but they are nevertheless useful to humanity.

The idea of God is independent of the Scientific Framework.
The idea of God can be either an empirical claim or a claimed based on pure reason.

Considering all empirical claims exist through reason and all reason exists through empirical claims we see an inherent alternation that further extends to the methodology itself.
To say "God is independent of" when a definition of God as "ominipresent" effectively observes a contradiction unless one resorts to another definition of God as "Everything and Nothing"...and in these respects the Scientific Method exists as an extension of God, through its form and function, but is not God itself unless used as a means to test the existence of God.

The subjectivity and inherently random nature of proof gives problems to the scientific method as being the sole arbiter of truth in a seperate respect considering "proof" is subjective to subjectivity.

Note sure what is your point here?
The Scientific Framework is leveraged solely on empiricism.
There is no question of God involved in Science at all.

A claim for an empirical God [bearded man in the sky or some empirical entity] can be a scientific hypothesis, i.e. just bring the relevant evidence to be justified within the Scientific Method.

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.

The scientific method is a system that will test anything that is empirical.
If God is claimed to be empirical, then bring the empirical evidence of God for testing.

However as I had proven, the default God cannot be empirical, thus the ultimate God can never be a question for Science at all.

But as I have shown in another thread, the default God cannot be empirical due to inherent imperfections within empiricism. Thus the default God has to be based on pure reason.
Then I have proven an ideal God based on pure reason is an impossibility to be real.

The above dilemma and farce is because the idea of God arose not from possible facts but rather from a psychological issue of an existential crisis that compel theists to conjure an illusory God as real.

Prove the problem of God is subject to only an existential crisis scientifically or through reason....otherwise you are pushing personal dogma.

I agree my proposition 'God arise from an existential crisis' is a hypothesis and I have not provided the complete proof yet. I do not intend to proved the full proof but I have provided clues.

Here is the clue via reason;
Note the fundamental theme of all theistic [God driven] religion is about salvation, i.e. the yearning for eternal life to escape the inevitable existential crisis of mortality. Thus the conjuring of an all powerful entity - God, to grant eternal life to believers.
If this is not done explicitly, it is subliminally implied to soothe one's Angst.

Thus the real attention should be directed to the root cause of the idea of God [illusory and caused evil acts by theists], i.e. the psychological basis within the brain/mind.
It is a waste of time to prove and search for a real God when it is illusory and an impossibility in the first place.

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.

Note sure of your point.

Note non-theistic Buddhism, Jainism, and others of the likes which deal with the existential crisis without God and thus avoiding all the evils and violence inspired and committed in the name of an illusory fake God.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is a ridiculous statement.
If the Scientific Method assumes God as the origin of all truth and real there is no need to prove God is real.
How can one deduce reality from an assumption, it is non-sequitor.

It is simple:

If the scientific method alone is principly responsible for determining the sole nature of truth, it acts as a universal mediator for knowledge and fulfills the role of "Divine Mediator" in the respect it is a universal means for truth from which all truth is composed and projects towards.

The Scientific Method, if it is to test God must effectively test all definitions of God and effectively test the definition of God, through empirical grounding, as "Origin of All Truth". In these respects it effectively must be the origin of truth and effectively be God, from a secular perspective, as the test of the origins effectively makes the test the origin.

Scientists never claimed the Scientific Method is responsible for determining the sole nature of truth. Your accusation is a straw man.
In principle scientific truths are true ONLY as conditioned to the requirements of the Scientific Method [processes] and Scientific Framework [note peer review].
There are other truths like economic, mathematical, legal, etc. which are acceptable and outside the scope of scientific truths.

So Sagan, Hawkins, Neil de Grass Tyson do not hold such views? And saying belief in God is due to a universal existential crisis is not a strawman under the same logic?

To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

The Scientific Method is contained within the Framework and System of Science and it covers only things that are empirical, testable and falsifiable.

And the scientific method itself is not subject to empiricallity, testability and falsifiability? Has the scientific method been applied to the scientific method to see if it self-sustainable?



The system and framework of science is an abstract framework which extends through empirical reality. Show me "science" empirically speaking? One may show an experiment, but the reasoning behind this experiment (that which gives boundaries to the physical reality and seeing if these boundaries connect to other boundaries (laws) we understand) in itself as an "idea" can only be approximated empirically.

Whatever you may claim, the final test for any scientific truth is whether is complies with the requirements of the scientific method [empirically based], accepted by the scientific peers and more importantly whether it works.
There are the boundaries of the Scientific Framework which is dealt within the Philosophy of Science but they are not critical to the pragmatic aspects of scientific theory.

So science is group opinion?

The Scientific Framework do not give a damn with name of things, i.e. God or whatsoever X is.
What works with Science is if a thing can pass the test and gain consensus within the Scientific Framework then it is accepted as a Scientific truth, note not any truth but a qualified and conditional Scientific truth.
Scientific truths do not has credibility outside its Scientific Framework.

But the "framework" is dependent upon a group consensus?

The scientific framework suffers from the fallacy of equivocation where the scientific method is subject to multiple definitions and frameworks, that exists inside one framework of inherent circularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It does not, but even then, so what if the Scientific Framework suffers from the fallacy of equivocation?

Reread the article, if not I can provide another one, the scientific method may as 1-2 more or less steps dependent on the framework chosen...it is subject to change.

If a scientific theory confirm it is bateria X that cause disease Y which can be cured by antibiotic Z and the side effects are stated,
then if you happen to suffer disease Y, then you take antibiotic Z to kill bateria X in your body to cure yourself of the disease with the awareness of any possible side effects.

The same applies to all scientific theories and its practical utilities.

Note as Popper has asserted, Scientific theories are at best polished conjectures, i.e. basically conjectures but they are nevertheless useful to humanity.

The idea of God is independent of the Scientific Framework.
The idea of God can be either an empirical claim or a claimed based on pure reason.

If the idea of God is based on either an empirical or abstract claim (or both) and considering God exists through both definitions it is subject to the scientific framework which is composed of both...



Considering all empirical claims exist through reason and all reason exists through empirical claims we see an inherent alternation that further extends to the methodology itself.
To say "God is independent of" when a definition of God as "ominipresent" effectively observes a contradiction unless one resorts to another definition of God as "Everything and Nothing"...and in these respects the Scientific Method exists as an extension of God, through its form and function, but is not God itself unless used as a means to test the existence of God.

The subjectivity and inherently random nature of proof gives problems to the scientific method as being the sole arbiter of truth in a seperate respect considering "proof" is subjective to subjectivity.

Note sure what is your point here?
The Scientific Framework is leveraged solely on empiricism.
There is no question of God involved in Science at all.

Empiricism is an abstract means of measuring reality where the senses are quantified and qualified through reason....the question of God occurs in Science in not just the conscious origins of science itself, the universal limits which compose it (circular and linear reasoning), but fundamentally in the hypothesis as the exploration of possible and potential truth...

A claim for an empirical God [bearded man in the sky or some empirical entity] can be a scientific hypothesis, i.e. just bring the relevant evidence to be justified within the Scientific Method.

The "bearded man in the sky" is not the sole definition of God however...further definitions exist.

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.

The scientific method is a system that will test anything that is empirical.
If God is claimed to be empirical, then bring the empirical evidence of God for testing.

However as I had proven, the default God cannot be empirical, thus the ultimate God can never be a question for Science at all.

Actually if the universe is found to exist through infinity or is infinite then it provides empirical evidence. The problem with empirical evidence however is its finite nature....but this empirical truth of finite relations exists as truth if and only if it continues with the increase in continuity observing a greater degree of truth. So if the empirical truths are infinite they give definitions, hence proofs of God, if they do not last then they contradict themselves.

But as I have shown in another thread, the default God cannot be empirical due to inherent imperfections within empiricism. Thus the default God has to be based on pure reason.
Then I have proven an ideal God based on pure reason is an impossibility to be real.

Actually the only thing you given was a proof to yourself, not others...your proof does not hold up to universal scrutiny and is entirely subjective.



The above dilemma and farce is because the idea of God arose not from possible facts but rather from a psychological issue of an existential crisis that compel theists to conjure an illusory God as real.

Ad-hominum, straw-main, circular reasoning, fallacy of equivocation...etc. I am assuming you would want me to expand the definitions of why this statement is not just subject to these fallacies but inevitably subject to further fallacies?



Prove the problem of God is subject to only an existential crisis scientifically or through reason....otherwise you are pushing personal dogma.

I agree my proposition 'God arise from an existential crisis' is a hypothesis and I have not provided the complete proof yet. I do not intend to proved the full proof but I have provided clues.

Here is the clue via reason;
Note the fundamental theme of all theistic [God driven] religion is about salvation, i.e. the yearning for eternal life to escape the inevitable existential crisis of mortality. Thus the conjuring of an all powerful entity - God, to grant eternal life to believers.
If this is not done explicitly, it is subliminally implied to soothe one's Angst.

"The fundamental theme" and "a fundamental theme" are two seperate points altogether...God is not limited to "salvation", but "reason", "order", "consciousness", "nature", "measurement", "Transcendence/Descendence duality" and a whole list of fundamentals. The infinite definitions of God observe infinite fundamental measuring points...hence what you argue as "fundamental" is subject to a relativistic interpretation inherently leading to the problem of the "existential crisis" you seem "subjectively" fixed upon...

Thus the real attention should be directed to the root cause of the idea of God [illusory and caused evil acts by theists], i.e. the psychological basis within the brain/mind.
It is a waste of time to prove and search for a real God when it is illusory and an impossibility in the first place.

Negation of a positive necessitates a positive, with all negations being observations of relation hence untrue in themselves.

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.

Note sure of your point.

Proving a positive Definition of God requires a positive definition to exist, hence the existence of God through degrees of defintion. The continual negation of these definitions necessitates the infinite manifestations of these degrees of defintion...hence God.

Note non-theistic Buddhism, Jainism, and others of the likes which deal with the existential crisis without God and thus avoiding all the evils and violence inspired and committed in the name of an illusory fake God.

[Eodnhoj7]

...if it works there is an element of truth in it considering it exists.

Most science is much more mundane than people appreciate. What is true is whether the predictions actually happen and whether the mathematical model works. You can make up any explanation for why it works, and if that explanation makes predictions that come true, then scientists will take it seriously. If it doesn't, why should they care about it?

And what is the scientific definition of prediction considering the prediction becomes probabalistic over time with the increase in time...considering the laws of physics are subject to time through time, the nature of time itself is subject to its own nature and these laws eventually become probabilistic over a long enough time period.

[uwot]

And what is the scientific definition of prediction considering the prediction becomes probabalistic over time with the increase in time...considering the laws of physics are subject to time through time, the nature of time itself is subject to its own nature and these laws eventually become probabilistic over a long enough time period.

Well, given that over a long enough time period laws eventually become probabilistic, and that the nature of time itself is subject to its own nature; considering that the laws of physics are subject to time through time and that predictions become probabilistic over time with the increase of time, the scientific definition of prediction is that shit happens.

[Dalek Prime]

Oh, look! SMeG, ma!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find you post very messy and different to sort the [.quote].

Scientists never claimed the Scientific Method is responsible for determining the sole nature of truth. Your accusation is a straw man.
In principle scientific truths are true ONLY as conditioned to the requirements of the Scientific Method [processes] and Scientific Framework [note peer review].
There are other truths like economic, mathematical, legal, etc. which are acceptable and outside the scope of scientific truths.

So Sagan, Hawkins, Neil de Grass Tyson do not hold such views? And saying belief in God is due to a universal existential crisis is not a strawman under the same logic?

I have not read of Sagan, Hawkins and Neil's view but I am aware of Richard Dawkins' adherence to the principles of the Scientific Framework.

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins dared not dismiss the possibility of the existence of God because of his belief of the empirical factor in the Scientific Framework.
Dawkins as with the principles of the Scientific Framework provided a 1/7 possibility that God could exists because Science cannot provide absolute truths to denounce God is an impossibility.
In this case Dawkins is constrained by his beliefs of the Scientific Framework and thus has no choice but to presume God is an empirical claim which has to provide a certain degree of possibility because there is no 100% certainty within Science.

Because as a scientist Dawkins views are constrained by the limits of the Scientific Framework, his only challenge to theist is merely to request empirical evidences of God if they insist God exists empirically as real.

My view is philosophical, i.e. which is based on philosophy and include Scientific with other fields of knowledge.
Because I am not constraint by the scientific empirical framework, my thesis is God is an impossibility based the philosophical perspective.

My point is, to claim God exists is like claiming a square-circle exists which is by default an impossibility within reality.

Theists claim God exists due to a psychological drive that compel them to believe in an illusory God to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove the problem of God is subject to only an existential crisis scientifically or through reason....otherwise you are pushing personal dogma.

I agree my proposition 'God arise from an existential crisis' is a hypothesis and I have not provided the complete proof yet. I do not intend to proved the full proof but I have provided clues.

Here is the clue via reason;
Note the fundamental theme of all theistic [God driven] religion is about salvation, i.e. the yearning for eternal life to escape the inevitable existential crisis of mortality. Thus the conjuring of an all powerful entity - God, to grant eternal life to believers.
If this is not done explicitly, it is subliminally implied to soothe one's Angst.

"The fundamental theme" and "a fundamental theme" are two seperate points altogether...God is not limited to "salvation", but "reason", "order", "consciousness", "nature", "measurement", "Transcendence/Descendence duality" and a whole list of fundamentals.
The infinite definitions of God observe infinite fundamental measuring points...hence what you argue as "fundamental" is subject to a relativistic interpretation inherently leading to the problem of the "existential crisis" you seem "subjectively" fixed upon...

Note the dreaded pulse of the existential crisis exudes in different degrees in different people.

It is very active in the majority and decrease with the minority.
The majority are driven to believe in a God which is very anthropomorphic [bearded man] to lesser anthropomorphic properties up the highest reasoning, i.e. unity, oneness, absolute, ontological [a being than which no greater exists] a maximally great entity and the likes.

Thus whatever the concept or idea of God [illusory and impossible] it is reducible to the psychological drives within the person.

Note the Buddhists and other Eastern religions did away with the concept and idea of a God and turned to deal with the inherent existential crisis with the psychological approach. Its effective is evident where Buddhism proper do not have evil elements in its religious texts to inspire believers to commit terrible evils and violence in the name of God.

[Eodnhoj7]

And what is the scientific definition of prediction considering the prediction becomes probabalistic over time with the increase in time...considering the laws of physics are subject to time through time, the nature of time itself is subject to its own nature and these laws eventually become probabilistic over a long enough time period.

Well, given that over a long enough time period laws eventually become probabilistic, and that the nature of time itself is subject to its own nature; considering that the laws of physics are subject to time through time and that predictions become probabilistic over time with the increase of time, the scientific definition of prediction is that shit happens.

So predictions are "shit happens"?

[Eodnhoj7]

I find you post very messy and different to sort the [.quote].

Scientists never claimed the Scientific Method is responsible for determining the sole nature of truth. Your accusation is a straw man.
In principle scientific truths are true ONLY as conditioned to the requirements of the Scientific Method [processes] and Scientific Framework [note peer review].
There are other truths like economic, mathematical, legal, etc. which are acceptable and outside the scope of scientific truths.

So Sagan, Hawkins, Neil de Grass Tyson do not hold such views? And saying belief in God is due to a universal existential crisis is not a strawman under the same logic?

I have not read of Sagan, Hawkins and Neil's view but I am aware of Richard Dawkins' adherence to the principles of the Scientific Framework.

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins dared not dismiss the possibility of the existence of God because of his belief of the empirical factor in the Scientific Framework.
Dawkins as with the principles of the Scientific Framework provided a 1/7 possibility that God could exists because Science cannot provide absolute truths to denounce God is an impossibility.
In this case Dawkins is constrained by his beliefs of the Scientific Framework and thus has no choice but to presume God is an empirical claim which has to provide a certain degree of possibility because there is no 100% certainty within Science.

Because as a scientist Dawkins views are constrained by the limits of the Scientific Framework, his only challenge to theist is merely to request empirical evidences of God if they insist God exists empirically as real.

My view is philosophical, i.e. which is based on philosophy and include Scientific with other fields of knowledge.
Because I am not constraint by the scientific empirical framework, my thesis is God is an impossibility based the philosophical perspective.

My point is, to claim God exists is like claiming a square-circle exists which is by default an impossibility within reality.

Theists claim God exists due to a psychological drive that compel them to believe in an illusory God to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

sarggadradadfh.jpg

[Eodnhoj7]

Prove the problem of God is subject to only an existential crisis scientifically or through reason....otherwise you are pushing personal dogma.

I agree my proposition 'God arise from an existential crisis' is a hypothesis and I have not provided the complete proof yet. I do not intend to proved the full proof but I have provided clues.

Here is the clue via reason;
Note the fundamental theme of all theistic [God driven] religion is about salvation, i.e. the yearning for eternal life to escape the inevitable existential crisis of mortality. Thus the conjuring of an all powerful entity - God, to grant eternal life to believers.
If this is not done explicitly, it is subliminally implied to soothe one's Angst.

"The fundamental theme" and "a fundamental theme" are two seperate points altogether...God is not limited to "salvation", but "reason", "order", "consciousness", "nature", "measurement", "Transcendence/Descendence duality" and a whole list of fundamentals.
The infinite definitions of God observe infinite fundamental measuring points...hence what you argue as "fundamental" is subject to a relativistic interpretation inherently leading to the problem of the "existential crisis" you seem "subjectively" fixed upon...

Note the dreaded pulse of the existential crisis exudes in different degrees in different people.

It is very active in the majority and decrease with the minority.
The majority are driven to believe in a God which is very anthropomorphic [bearded man] to lesser anthropomorphic properties up the highest reasoning, i.e. unity, oneness, absolute, ontological [a being than which no greater exists] a maximally great entity and the likes.

Thus whatever the concept or idea of God [illusory and impossible] it is reducible to the psychological drives within the person.

Note the Buddhists and other Eastern religions did away with the concept and idea of a God and turned to deal with the inherent existential crisis with the psychological approach. Its effective is evident where Buddhism proper do not have evil elements in its religious texts to inspire believers to commit terrible evils and violence in the name of God.

That implies a probabalistic reason as to why people believe (or do not believe) in God considering the foundation of God's existence as the projection of an "existential crisis" in itself is an observation of a fraction (relatively large one according to your argument) of the population. The problem is, that as a statement premised in a probabalistic interpretation, it exists if and only if a dual thesis (or antithesis depending on perspective) is made evident.

So you claim existential crisis is the foundation of the reason people project God...however it does not explain the foundation of reason for belief when no limited to or founded in an existential crisis.

In these respects not only the subject of "existential crisis" does not provide a firm foundation, but a theoretically infinite degrees of reasons exist beside the subject of existential crisis.

In simpler terms "existential crisis", as a probabilistic reason, in itself leads to a probabalistic intepretation and eventually necessitates a definition/belief/structure of God.

[uwot]

So predictions are "shit happens"?

Well, 'Shit will happen', if you want to get technical. There's really no need to over-complicate things; the only difference between yer common or garden definition of predictions and a scientific definition of predictions is that one of them is wearing a lab coat.

[Eodnhoj7]

So predictions are "shit happens"?

Well, 'Shit will happen', if you want to get technical. There's really no need to over-complicate things; the only difference between yer common or garden definition of predictions and a scientific definition of predictions is that one of them is wearing a lab coat.

So what seperates a scientist from a priest or shaman?