Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Tesla]

I'm sure many remember the courts ruled against it.

I argued on science forums in my youth that it should, but due to the attack structure of the forums administrators, I never got to explore the topic to say my peace.

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

wrong i just explained how. define scientifically what constitutes the idea of God(s)

I feel atheist and religious individuals have both blundered, because they decide absolutely one way or the other. I'm Agnostic, yet, not in the traditional sense. I despise religion for defining an undefined. I'd rather to explore, IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

Probably look for God in the quantum world.

maybe or what about the other direction?

The universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?

The universe is not expanding into anything, it is creating space/time as it expands.

that is a theory with little evidence to support it. space time isn't very well understood. perhaps our math is corrupt. perhaps the universe is expanding because it is inside of something else that it can expand into. blow up that balloon, it grows inside of another mass. but no one can see beyond the inside of the balloon, so one may assume there is nothing else, or they can assume there is, or they can admit the possibilities are endless, which is the truth. the arrogant believe to know, the more thoughtful can agree where mystery begins

[Ginkgo]

I'm sure many remember the courts ruled against it.

I argued on science forums in my youth that it should, but due to the attack structure of the forums administrators, I never got to explore the topic to say my peace.

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

wrong i just explained how. define scientifically what constitutes the idea of God(s)

I feel atheist and religious individuals have both blundered, because they decide absolutely one way or the other. I'm Agnostic, yet, not in the traditional sense. I despise religion for defining an undefined. I'd rather to explore, IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

Probably look for God in the quantum world.

maybe or what about the other direction?

The universe is expanding, apparently infinite. Whats it expanding in?

The universe is not expanding into anything, it is creating space/time as it expands.

that is a theory with little evidence to support it. space time isn't very well understood. perhaps our math is corrupt. perhaps the universe is expanding because it is inside of something else that it can expand into. blow up that balloon, it grows inside of another mass. but no one can see beyond the inside of the balloon, so one may assume there is nothing else, or they can assume there is, or they can admit the possibilities are endless, which is the truth. the arrogant believe to know, the more thoughtful can agree where mystery begins

Actually, there is a lot of scientific evidence to prove my claims. Brian Schmidt won the Nobel Prize in physics when he proved the universe is expanding at its outer edges faster than the speed of light. Thanks to Einstein we know a lot about how space/time behaves.

BTW The existence of God is a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.

Like I said before the universe is not expanding into anything, space/time is created as it expands. That is what the science tells us

[Tesla]

You cannot teach God non religiously, it is by definition a religious argument.

wrong i just explained how. define scientifically what constitutes the idea of God(s)



Probably look for God in the quantum world.

maybe or what about the other direction?


The universe is not expanding into anything, it is creating space/time as it expands.

that is a theory with little evidence to support it. space time isn't very well understood. perhaps our math is corrupt. perhaps the universe is expanding because it is inside of something else that it can expand into. blow up that balloon, it grows inside of another mass. but no one can see beyond the inside of the balloon, so one may assume there is nothing else, or they can assume there is, or they can admit the possibilities are endless, which is the truth. the arrogant believe to know, the more thoughtful can agree where mystery begins

Actually, there is a lot of scientific evidence to prove my claims. Brian Schmidt won the Nobel Prize in physics when he proved the universe is expanding at its outer edges faster than the speed of light. Thanks to Einstein we know a lot about how space/time behaves.

BTW The existence of God is a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.

Like I said before the universe is not expanding into anything, space/time is created as it expands. That is what the science tells us

it proves nothing. it evidences expansion without explaining anything else. the math of Einstein was never completed. That's why mathematical assumption were necessary to explain discrepancies. The Idea of God(s) is explained by religion, but the idea itself is an Idea. No less inscrutable than an idea like electricity. Electricity had behaviors to explore, which made it a science topic, while the Idea of God has zero data outside beliefs to explore. To find more about the idea in science one first has to determine where to look to find any. That is the point of teaching it scientifically, religion offers no real data. if any Gods exist, there will be evidence, otherwise it is just Santa clause, the easter bunny, Zeus, and Athena, etc. A wish, A unicorn. 2000+ year old insistent myth.


“[...] Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design
other issues:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/ ... blems.html

Look, Scientists choose their models based on philosophy.There isn't anything wrong with that. But the first thing a scientists learns is that with new data the models change. Science doesn't 'prove' as much as it 'shows evidence to support' truths. there more evidence, the stronger the model.

[Skepdick]

To find more about the idea in science one first has to determine where to look to find any. That is the point of teaching it scientifically, religion offers no real data.

Would you consider the contents/structure of a scientist's mind as a source of data?

Would you consider this data to be susceptible to empirical study by the scientist themselves?

If a scientist uses the scientific method to study the contents of their own mind and finds evidence of God would that be sufficient to strengthen their model for God?

Why, or why not?

[Ginkgo]

Actually, there is a lot of scientific evidence to prove my claims. Brian Schmidt won the Nobel Prize in physics when he proved the universe is expanding at its outer edges faster than the speed of light. Thanks to Einstein we know a lot about how space/time behaves.

BTW The existence of God is a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.

Like I said before the universe is not expanding into anything, space/time is created as it expands. That is what the science tells us

it proves nothing. it evidences expansion without explaining anything else. the math of Einstein was never completed. That's why mathematical assumption were necessary to explain discrepancies. The Idea of God(s) is explained by religion, but the idea itself is an Idea. No less inscrutable than an idea like electricity. Electricity had behaviors to explore, which made it a science topic, while the Idea of God has zero data outside beliefs to explore. To find more about the idea in science one first has to determine where to look to find any. That is the point of teaching it scientifically, religion offers no real data. if any Gods exist, there will be evidence, otherwise it is just Santa clause, the easter bunny, Zeus, and Athena, etc. A wish, A unicorn. 2000+ year old insistent myth.


“[...] Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design
other issues:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/ ... blems.html

Look, Scientists choose their models based on philosophy.There isn't anything wrong with that. But the first thing a scientists learns is that with new data the models change. Science doesn't 'prove' as much as it 'shows evidence to support' truths. there more evidence, the stronger the model.

Science doesn't know everything, that goes without saying. Your argument asserts that because science lacks knowledge in certain areas something else must be true. The implication is that, because science does not have an answer already, any claim can take its place. You argument is very close to the God of the gaps fallacy.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Einstein's maths was incomplete?

You made the claim that you can explain God(s) scientifically, please repeat that argument.

[seeds]

if any Gods exist, there will be evidence, otherwise it is just Santa clause, the easter bunny, Zeus, and Athena, etc. A wish, A unicorn. 2000+ year old insistent myth.

Let me address your assumption that there will be “evidence” for the existence of God.

As an extremely fanciful thought experiment, try to imagine that you are a seed within a melon,...



Furthermore, as an added feature of the experiment, imagine that the melon is conscious of itself, and that it somehow willfully directed the formation of its inner contents.

In which case, the fact that you are a seed of this melon means that the melon, in essence, would be the “God” (creator/progenitive source) of your existence.

Now, if it is indeed a fact that, as a seed, you would not only be completely encapsulated within the living pulp of this “melon God,” but also that your very own seed pod would be made of the same fundamental substance as that of the pulp itself,...

...then clearly, the evidence for the existence of this melon God would be implicit in LITERALLY everything you see, touch, hear, smell, and taste.

However, the problem is that from your extremely limited “seed” perspective, you are utterly incapable of apprehending the full scope of the melon God’s overall being (especially that of its “outer” being).

Indeed, the only way you could actually view this melon God’s true and ultimate form, would be from the perspective of the “garden” on the other side of the all-encompassing rind wall.

Now the point is that if it is even remotely possible that we humans are in a similar situation relative to the progenitive source of the universe - as is speculatively suggested in my earlier illustration...



...then how in the world do you think that “evidence” for the existence of God...

(and especially of that conscious part of God - the part that wills the fabric of reality into phenomenal structures)

...could be discovered by human scientists (the “seeds”), when the only thing that the seeds could ever directly access and analyze with their scientific devices, is the inner (material) pulp of the melon and nothing else?

The ultimate point is that there is absolutely nothing that science could discover on the “inside” of the closed bubble* of the universe – as depicted below...



...that would provide us with the necessary “overview” of the true status of God’s ultimate form.

Indeed, such an overview would require a perspective that resides “above and outside” of the bubble itself. Hence the constant reference in religious doctrines (albeit naïvely stated) of the existence of a “transcendent” context of reality.

*(Think of the all-encompassing outer “film” of the bubble depicted in the image above as being the metaphorical equivalent of the rind wall of the melon in the thought experiment.)

“[...] Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” ― Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

Actually, it is Stephen Hawking that is dead, not philosophy.

In fact, you have just demonstrated philosophy’s aliveness by employing one of its standard tenets in your “appeal to authority” to support your argument.
_______