Scientific Method and God

[uwot]

So what seperates a scientist from a priest or shaman?

In terms of making predictions; not a lot. Anyone can make a prediction based on their knowledge, experience or instinct. The test is whether comes true, which is the same for everyone.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

That is a circle-in-a-square, not a squared-circle which is an impossibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The existential crisis is not probabilistic.

I claimed, DNA wise ALL humans has the inherent potential to have an embedded and unavoidable existential crisis within their brain/mind.
This potential of an existential crisis is activated in the majority of people [99%].
At this phase of humanity, this existential crisis drives the majority to theism and the minority to other secular measures to deal with the existential pains.

The majority are driven to conjure an illusory God [in various forms] to ease the resulting existential pains.

But the use of such an illusory God lead to terrible evil and violent consequences when believers take such an illusory God as real.
To theists, such a 'real' God have delivered commands to them via prophets and messengers with evil laden elements that inspire them to kill non-believers as a divine duty. Potentially these evil prone theists could even exterminate the human species in the name of God since regardless of whatever Armageddon happen on Earth, they will end up in Paradise.

Whilst the existential crisis is inherent and unavoidable, humanity should make it a point to understand how such an existential crisis has driven the majority of human into theism [of an illusory God] with terrible evil consequences based on immutable texts.

Once we understand the mechanics how the illusory God is conjured, we can redirect the forces of the unavoidable existential crisis towards strategies that are non-theistics which are benign and fool proof. In this case we can wean off theism, sidestep the immutable evil laden texts and get rid of the evil potential.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

That is a circle-in-a-square, not a squared-circle which is an impossibility.

Or the image can be inverted to a square in a circle...regardless the dualism observes an inherent relation of parts which exists as a part in itself.

"Square-Circle" and "Squared-Circle" are two seperate points to address, as the first post observes "Square-Circle".

The Square-Circle effectively observe two terms as 1 term and in these respects is an observation of relation between parts as a part in itself...hence the image is correct.

A "Squared" circle observes the past tense of a verb where the circle is effectively being squared. The Squaring of Circle, which is the common manner for determining Pi within history, observes that as Pi is infinite the squaring of a circle in itself is infinite. Considering observing the an infinite, such as a squared circle, in the past tense observes inherent boundaries through the past tense in the respect the past is a set limit in many respects, a negative boundary is observed in the respect 3.14159... (or the visual image of a squared circle) is defined by infinity acting as a negative definition in the respect the form is limited through "lack of further definition"...however considering this negative definition observe this negative nature as formless the squared circle is both defined (as is) and not defined (what maybe) considering the limits of the past exist dually to a potential future which effectively is formless through time itself. In these respect the squared circle is an observation of a medial boundary of movement as two parts (active movement of squaring and no movement of constant circle) which exist as 1 in themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The existential crisis is not probabilistic.

I claimed, DNA wise ALL humans has the inherent potential to have an embedded and unavoidable existential crisis within their brain/mind.
This potential of an existential crisis is activated in the majority of people [99%].
At this phase of humanity, this existential crisis drives the majority to theism and the minority to other secular measures to deal with the existential pains.

The majority are driven to conjure an illusory God [in various forms] to ease the resulting existential pains.

But the use of such an illusory God lead to terrible evil and violent consequences when believers take such an illusory God as real.
To theists, such a 'real' God have delivered commands to them via prophets and messengers with evil laden elements that inspire them to kill non-believers as a divine duty. Potentially these evil prone theists could even exterminate the human species in the name of God since regardless of whatever Armageddon happen on Earth, they will end up in Paradise.

Whilst the existential crisis is inherent and unavoidable, humanity should make it a point to understand how such an existential crisis has driven the majority of human into theism [of an illusory God] with terrible evil consequences based on immutable texts.

Once we understand the mechanics how the illusory God is conjured, we can redirect the forces of the unavoidable existential crisis towards strategies that are non-theistics which are benign and fool proof. In this case we can wean off theism, sidestep the immutable evil laden texts and get rid of the evil potential.

Actually it is probabalistic in the respect that the existential crisis foundation is relative to only "parts" of the population that place the necessity of God from this foundation. If arguing for or against God is not premised primarily on this existential crisis for all people, but rather groups which exist as a part of another group, it becomes probabilistic in the respect these relation of parts continually change through time under the large group which they form.

To argue "majority" alone is a fallacy of not just authority but a fallacy of democracy, where the authority figure of group majority is determined as the foundation for truth.


You have to remember an illusion, or deficiency in truth, is still a low grade form of truth in the respect it still exists. Take for instance a mentally ill person who hallucinates an sees "x". Now "x" may not be observable to the surrounding people however it is observable to the person seeing it...in turn this "hallucination" causes the person's behavior to change and effect the environment around them in physical manners. This hallucination causes a physical change in the environment and in these respects that while it is not fully real it becomes real through the actions of the person forming the environment...under these circumstances the hallucination becomes real.

[Eodnhoj7]

So what seperates a scientist from a priest or shaman?

In terms of making predictions; not a lot. Anyone can make a prediction based on their knowledge, experience or instinct. The test is whether comes true, which is the same for everyone.

But the test formed is subject to the person forming it and the group which agrees upon it...in these respects the test as a means of truth is not the same for everyone.

[uwot]

But the test formed is subject to the person forming it and the group which agrees upon it...in these respects the test as a means of truth is not the same for everyone.

That is a very astute point, and it is precisely the reason why the definition of science is so contentious.

[Veritas Aequitas]

sarggadradadfh.jpg

That is a circle-in-a-square, not a squared-circle which is an impossibility.

Or the image can be inverted to a square in a circle...regardless the dualism observes an inherent relation of parts which exists as a part in itself.

"Square-Circle" and "Squared-Circle" are two seperate points to address, as the first post observes "Square-Circle".

The Square-Circle effectively observe two terms as 1 term and in these respects is an observation of relation between parts as a part in itself...hence the image is correct.

A "Squared" circle observes the past tense of a verb where the circle is effectively being squared. The Squaring of Circle, which is the common manner for determining Pi within history, observes that as Pi is infinite the squaring of a circle in itself is infinite. Considering observing the an infinite, such as a squared circle, in the past tense observes inherent boundaries through the past tense in the respect the past is a set limit in many respects, a negative boundary is observed in the respect 3.14159... (or the visual image of a squared circle) is defined by infinity acting as a negative definition in the respect the form is limited through "lack of further definition"...however considering this negative definition observe this negative nature as formless the squared circle is both defined (as is) and not defined (what maybe) considering the limits of the past exist dually to a potential future which effectively is formless through time itself. In these respect the squared circle is an observation of a medial boundary of movement as two parts (active movement of squaring and no movement of constant circle) which exist as 1 in themselves.

Don't waste your time beating round the bush.

The main principle here is the Law of Non-Contradiction i.e.

A circle cannot be a square at the same time and same sense.
A circle cannot be a non-circle and a square a non-square at the same time and same sense.

Some try to use paraconsistent logic to overcome the LNC but that invoke different senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually it is probabalistic in the respect that the existential crisis foundation is relative to only "parts" of the population that place the necessity of God from this foundation. If arguing for or against God is not premised primarily on this existential crisis for all people, but rather groups which exist as a part of another group, it becomes probabilistic in the respect these relation of parts continually change through time under the large group which they form.

To argue "majority" alone is a fallacy of not just authority but a fallacy of democracy, where the authority figure of group majority is determined as the foundation for truth.


You have to remember an illusion, or deficiency in truth, is still a low grade form of truth in the respect it still exists. Take for instance a mentally ill person who hallucinates an sees "x". Now "x" may not be observable to the surrounding people however it is observable to the person seeing it...in turn this "hallucination" causes the person's behavior to change and effect the environment around them in physical manners. This hallucination causes a physical change in the environment and in these respects that while it is not fully real it becomes real through the actions of the person forming the environment...under these circumstances the hallucination becomes real.

Note my hypothesis is,
-ALL humans are embedded with an existential crisis just like all humans has a human body, head and toes.
-the majority of people are theists - a fact
-theism is the resultant of the existential crisis [to be justified].

There is no critical issue of probability in the above case.
Your other points are merely beating around the bush and irrelevant in this case.

[-1-]

... the definition of science is so contentious.

What is the definition of science? Is there a decreed consensus on that? By what people / bodies of people / institutions? Or any dictionary definition encounters this contention?

[surreptitious57]

The study of the properties and behaviours of observable phenomena using the scientific method

[uwot]

What is the definition of science? Is there a decreed consensus on that? By what people / bodies of people / institutions? Or any dictionary definition encounters this contention?

I've just finished a Masters degree in the History and Philosophy of Science at University College London; it's one of the world's top universities, stuffed full of right royal smartie-pants. I tell you this not to show off (though obviously I am a bit), but because having rubbed shoulders with some of the most respected authorities in the field, I can tell you that not one of them would give you a straight answer. They wouldn't even answer the question in the same way. Broadly speaking, the professors are divided into two camps. On the one hand there are the philosophers who, if you have a week to kill at the end of which you will want to kill yourself, will bang on about some vague set of criteria that need to be met. You will never get the same answer twice; not even from the same person. On the other hand, there are the Science and Technology Studies crowd who will blithely wave at someone, probably in a lab coat and maybe carrying a clip-board and say 'It's what they're doing' and run away when you're not looking.
There is no definitive answer, but there is usually observation, measurement and explanation-preferably mathematical-involved. And lab coats.

[uwot]

The study of the properties and behaviours of observable phenomena using the scientific method

Uh-huh. And what is the "scientific method"?

[-1-]

What is the definition of science? Is there a decreed consensus on that? By what people / bodies of people / institutions? Or any dictionary definition encounters this contention?

I've just finished a Masters degree in the History and Philosophy of Science at University College London; it's one of the world's top universities, stuffed full of right royal smartie-pants. I tell you this not to show off (though obviously I am a bit), but because having rubbed shoulders with some of the most respected authorities in the field, I can tell you that not one of them would give you a straight answer. They wouldn't even answer the question in the same way. Broadly speaking, the professors are divided into two camps. On the one hand there are the philosophers who, if you have a week to kill at the end of which you will want to kill yourself, will bang on about some vague set of criteria that need to be met. You will never get the same answer twice; not even from the same person. On the other hand, there are the Science and Technology Studies crowd who will blithely wave at someone, probably in a lab coat and maybe carrying a clip-board and say 'It's what they're doing' and run away when you're not looking.
There is no definitive answer, but there is usually observation, measurement and explanation-preferably mathematical-involved. And lab coats.

Thanks, uwot. I suspected as much. The more advanced knowledge any field accumulates, the more diverse it gets, and subtleties gain huge importance. Ask a high school kid who Shakespeare was, and e tells you. Ask a Ph.D. in English lit and e will tell you that Shakespeare was seven people, actually, each called William Shakespeare, who by coincidence all published under the same pseudonym: William Shakespeare. Then they will go on vicious verbal battles which W. S. wrote which of his works.

Okay, now that we know what science is, what is the scientific method? I know you asked the same question, but I feel a bit of professional jealousy, (jealousy, not envy) since I asked first what science was.