godelian talks shite wiv veritas

[Veritas Aequitas]

The one who claims God is an impossibility to exist as real…is like claiming life itself is not possible or real.

Life obviously is without doubt or error and cannot be refuted or negated or experience the absence of.

What life is…is unknown…except in its conception.


The point is…. Nothing of life is knowable except what is imagined via concept. What does it matter what humans say or claim ?

Humans know nothing, they only believe and think they know. They can only imagine. And that’s their lot.

Life still exists outside of human language - and that’s all that matters.

Still don't get it.

'What is life' can be verified and justified via the science-biology Framework and System.

Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

To speculate to something that is impossible* to be verified and justified within the scientific FS is creating unnecessary complications.

* I can speculate there are dogs on Jupiter because 'dogs' and the 'planet' are empirically and scientifically possible, so it is matter of bringing in the evidence to support the claim.

An unknowable life is something like insisting a square-circle exists, where it is a non-starter for anything to be real.
Btw, if there is anything to lose if you just give up the idea?

VA .. everything humans know has been imagined.

When you see a tree, you can say to yourself ..look there’s a tree. But you have no actual knowledge of what that tree is, except what you believe to be there, via your concept of it. That’s goes the same for every known thing. Knowledge is comparable to a mirage in a desert that every human being chases as if it was real.

Common and conventional sense inform there is a tree-as-it-is out there.
However, note the more realistic alternative views to the above:

There is no such thing as 'what that tree is' existing externally by-itself and absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Kant has demonstrated there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself out there, to insist there is, is merely reifying or hypostatizing a thought [idea, abstraction] thus ending with an illusion. To be dogmatic about it would be delusional.

Somehow, 'what that tree is' is co-created by humans themselves emerging within humanity and the individual human from a 13.7 billions of physical and 3.5 years of organic history.
Such an idea of reality defy common sense and generate a cognitive dissonance which is painful to bear.
Despite the pains, it is worthwhile to do a philosophical exploration on this alternative view to common and conventional sense. The reward would eventually erase the pains and bring forth inner peace.

In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the scientific FS is the overriding thing that matters; the other tools are secondary.

No, because experimental testing is no substitute for reading the source code of Almas ATGM or Merkava IV. The scientific method won't tell you more than what a black-box test will tell you, because that is essentially what the scientific method does.

By calling it "scientific FS" you obfuscate what it really is about. Why don't you just use standard vocabulary? The method is known as the "scientific method".

Btw, we are doing philosophy in here which require wider, deeper and critical thinking and you are not doing that? The use of the term "scientific method" to represent science is a narrow and shallow view.

In the past, humans speculated the causes of diseases and human behaviors from outside the black-boxes.
At present, science is opening those black-boxes, in terms of the neurosciences of the inner brain, genetics-DNA, the metabolic system, proteins folding at the molecular atomic level and so on.
So you still insist, the Science FS do not go into the black boxes to study root cases of physical matter and human behaviors??

FYI, see the inside of the black box of the Human Metabolic System:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/commen ... ?rdt=49067

https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/proje ... e00ccb.png

The "scientific method" is one of the processes [albeit the main] within the scientific Framework and System [FS] which comprise other activities such as establishing assumptions, limitations, peer reviews, seeking consensus, whatever necessary for something to be term scientific.
The 'framework' establish its boundaries and limits while 'system' encompass all its inputs, processes and outputs.

As such, the term FS is most effective to encompass whatever is necessary to term something as 'scientific'.
This is a very common term with more emphasis on 'framework' but the 'system' therein is obvious and implied.

That 'water is H20' is so because the typical science-chemistry-FS said so as implied, not you or your father, mother, friends, etc. or merely the "scientific method" said so.
Even then, 'water is not H20' if we qualify a science-chemistry-FS that take "ions" into account.

In the science-physics FS, we have to distinguish between the science-physic-Newtonian FS and the science-physic-Einsteinian FS or science-physic-QM FS.

Your reference of merely 'scientific method' to Science is too narrow, shallow and inefficient especially when we are dealing with more complex philosophical issues as in this case.

Where humans are involved there is the social sciences which is credible and objective but not as much as natural sciences. There is no other more credible methods to understand human behavior.

The scientific method does not deal with human behavior, which is still very much part of physical reality. Hence, the scientific method cannot deal with an important part of physical reality.

Who said that? You seem to be ignorant on this matter.
The science of human behavior is studied within the Social Sciences which must use the scientific method within its specific human-based scientific framework and system [FS].
The qualification to its specific scientific FS is very critical.

We can "prove" scientifically [not mathematically]

You cannot prove anything by means of testing experimentally. Science does not deal with provability. Science only deals with testability.

You missed my note?
I stated "We can "prove" scientifically [not mathematically] ".
This is equivalent to 'demonstrate' justified but I prefer 'prove' [not mathematically].
You don't have the authority to ban the word 'prove' as long as it is sufficiently qualified.

something is scientifically real

Something is "scientifically testable". Can you point to any publication in the relevant literature where they would use the term "scientifically real"?
Science is a method. You are trying to turn it into an ideology.

Reminder.
We are doing philosophy in this Philosophy Forum not doing in a Science-Forum.
In philosophy, there is a topic with reference to the reality of science as in scientific realism vs scientific antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

The related ideology is 'scientism' which we are not discussing here.

the scientific FS

This term is not a legitimate substitute for "the scientific method".

See my argument above and your shallow thinking on this point.

When humans or computers are involved in physical reality, the scientific method is poor at best, if it is not a complete failure altogether.

The above makes no sense.
The scientific FS [not method] is the most credible and objective in terms of what is real per se. There is no other better FS to realize, know and describe reality.
Show me what is more credible and objective in terms of reality other than the scientific FS.

The mathematics FS merely produce equations, not reality.
The linguistic and semantic FS merely produce strings of words, not reality
The theistic FS generate the idea of an illusory God not a real God, its objectivity way off from that of the scientific FS
The economic FS produce economicits objectivity way off from that of the scientific FSs facts but less reliable than the science FS.
The historical FS produce historical facts but less reliable than the science FS.
The Miss Universe FS objectify beauty but .
and so on.

Whatever is supposed to be real must be FS-ed real, there is no other way; the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

[godelian]

The use of the term "scientific method" to represent science is a narrow and shallow view.

Look at the definition below:

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

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2]

Science is a database of experimental test reports. These test reports are produced in accordance with the scientific method.

There is no nebulous "scientific framework and system" [FS]. You can use that ambiguous term to justify whatever you like. That is why the term "framework and system" must be rejected. The biggest effort in science revolves around stamping out pseudoscience. That is why the definition must indeed be "narrow and shallow". Otherwise, all kinds of nonsense will start masquerading as science and attempt to piggyback on the credibility of its method. What you are trying to do by using the nondescript term "framework and system" is to make the term "science" include all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is inside the black box of the human metabolic system confirmed by the Science-Biochemistry FS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The use of the term "scientific method" to represent science is a narrow and shallow view.

Look at the definition below:

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

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2]

Science is a database of experimental test reports. These test reports are produced in accordance with the scientific method.

There is no nebulous "scientific framework and system" [FS]. You can use that ambiguous term to justify whatever you like. That is why the term "framework and system" must be rejected. The biggest effort in science revolves around stamping out pseudoscience. That is why the definition must indeed be "narrow and shallow". Otherwise, all kinds of nonsense will start masquerading as science and attempt to piggyback on the credibility of its method. What you are trying to do by using the nondescript term "framework and system" is to make the term "science" include all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense.

I find your above is at a very kindi level in terms of knowledge and reality.
I suggest you do a search re "Framework" "System" or check with AI in this issue.

Here is how Feyman used the term 'Framework'.
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

What is a FS
viewtopic.php?t=31889

I presented your above posts for ChatGpt to comment.
Here's from ChatGpt [can you counter the views therein]:

ChatGpt wrote:
To address your interlocutor's concerns and make a compelling case for the validity and utility of the "Framework and System" (FS) concept, you can employ the following strategies:

1. Clarify What You Mean by "Framework and System" (FS)
Define FS explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. Explain that it [FS] refers to the organized set of principles, methodologies, and tools that guide the production, validation, and application of knowledge within a specific domain (e.g., science, social sciences, philosophy).
Example: "By 'Framework and System,' I mean the structured methodologies and conceptual principles that underpin any disciplined approach to knowledge. In science, the FS includes the scientific method, theoretical models, experimental designs, and peer-review processes. This is not a nebulous term but a way to describe the scaffolding that supports reliable inquiry."

2. Address the Misconception of Ambiguity
Acknowledge their concern about avoiding pseudoscience but argue that FS, far from being nebulous, ensures rigor and structure. You might say: "FS is not ambiguous when defined clearly within a domain. In science, the FS is precisely what safeguards against pseudoscience by demanding adherence to specific methods, such as reproducibility, falsifiability, and empirical validation."

3. Highlight FS as a Commonly Accepted Concept
Point out that "framework" and "system" are widely recognized terms in academia and practice. Cite examples from various fields to show that FS is a standard way of conceptualizing structured knowledge.
Examples:

Science: Theoretical frameworks (e.g., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics) provide systems for organizing empirical data and making predictions.
Social Sciences: Frameworks like Rational Choice Theory or Systems Theory guide research and analysis.
Philosophy: Kant’s transcendental idealism is itself a framework-system for understanding the conditions of possible experience.

4. FS as an Efficiency Argument
Emphasize that FS enables efficiency by organizing knowledge, streamlining inquiry, and preventing chaotic or ad hoc approaches. Without frameworks, the pursuit of knowledge would lack coherence and reliability.
Example: "FS is indispensable because it provides the roadmap for inquiry. Imagine trying to build a scientific database without an FS—it would be a collection of disconnected facts, lacking coherence, purpose, and the ability to test new hypotheses effectively."

5. Respond to Their Narrow View of Science
Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.
Example: "While science relies on experimental data, it is not just a database. Without an overarching FS, the data would have no context, meaning, or applicability. FS gives science its explanatory power, predictive capability, and ability to innovate."

6. FS as a Shield Against Pseudoscience
Turn their argument around by showing that FS is precisely what protects science from pseudoscience: "FS ensures that scientific knowledge adheres to rigorous standards, separating legitimate inquiry from pseudoscience. It is not a loophole for nonsense but a safeguard against it. Any credible FS would reject pseudoscientific claims due to their lack of coherence, testability, or empirical support."

7. Analogies to Reinforce FS
Use analogies to make the concept more relatable:
Blueprints for Building: Just as a blueprint guides construction, an FS guides knowledge creation.
Operating System for Computers: FS is like an OS that manages processes, enabling efficient functioning and preventing chaos.

Example of a Refined Response:
"Your concern about pseudoscience is valid, but the concept of 'Framework and System' (FS) is not nebulous or ambiguous. It describes the structured methodologies and principles that underpin knowledge creation and validation in any field, including science. In fact, FS is what ensures rigor and protects science from pseudoscience by demanding adherence to clear, testable, and reproducible methods.
Without FS, science would be a disorganized collection of data without coherence or predictive power. Far from being a gateway for nonsense, FS is the most efficient way to deal with reality and knowledge across disciplines, providing structure, context, and reliability."

[godelian]

Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.

The discussion about the "database of experimental reports" is arguably also part of science, even though it is often rather philosophy, which is obviously also legitimate. Still, every claim must ultimately still be backed by an experimental test report and not by just a word salad.

Linus Torvalds famously quipped concerning software, "Talk is cheap. Show me the source code."
Concerning science, this translates into, "Talk is cheap. Show me the experimental test report."

Furthermore, if people complain about the anti-spam measures, it just means that they are working.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.

The discussion about the "database of experimental reports" is arguably also part of science, even though it is often rather philosophy, which is obviously also legitimate. Still, every claim must ultimately still be backed by an experimental test report and not by just a word salad.

Linus Torvalds famously quipped concerning software, "Talk is cheap. Show me the source code."
Concerning science, this translates into, "Talk is cheap. Show me the experimental test report."

Furthermore, if people complain about the anti-spam measures, it just means that they are working.

The argument is whether an Framework and System [FS] is necessary to support what is reality and therefrom truth.
You do not agree a FS is necessary.
In that case, how do you justify what is real?

Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

[godelian]

In that case, how do you justify what is real?

A justified true belief (JTB) has a justification for what is "true". Such belief does not have a justification for what is "real". Epistemology is the theory of knowledge in terms of justified true beliefs. There is no knowledge field, similar to epistemology, that deals with what is supposedly "real".

Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

There is physical reality and non-physical reality. Truth is about both. Truth is the correspondence between an abstraction and a physical fact or between an abstraction and another abstraction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In that case, how do you justify what is real?

A justified true belief (JTB) has a justification for what is "true". Such belief does not have a justification for what is "real". Epistemology is the theory of knowledge in terms of justified true beliefs. There is no knowledge field, similar to epistemology, that deals with what is supposedly "real".

As I had stated in the other post, you are lost on this philosophical issue.
JTB is epistemology, i.e. merely knowledge, what is critical is knowledge of the real.

Justified true belief (JTB) implies you still need some sort of justification method to confirm a true belief of what is real.
The justification from the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, i.e. the gold standard at present.
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

I mentioned 'what is real' is dealt within 'ontology' [not speculative metaphysics].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

There is physical reality and non-physical reality. Truth is about both. Truth is the correspondence between an abstraction and a physical fact or between an abstraction and another abstraction.

Despite me presenting the generally accepted definition of what is truth:
"Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
-you are somehow blinded that it is reality that is critical.

Truth itself is problematic:

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians.[2][3]
There are many different questions about the nature of truth which are still the subject of contemporary debates.
These include the question of defining truth;
whether it is even possible to give an informative definition of truth;
identifying things as truth-bearers capable of being true or false;
if truth and falsehood are bivalent, or if there are other truth values;
identifying the criteria of truth that allow us to identify it and to distinguish it from falsehood;
the role that truth plays in constituting knowledge; and,
if truth is always absolute or if it can be relative to one's perspective.

What is true may not be real [physical and non-physical].
It is true as observed there is an oasis in the middle of desert-X at GPS location 123..
But there is still the question of whether what is observed is real?
The mental process of observing the "oasis" within the brain is real but what is represented
as a supposed oasis is not real, it is a real mirage.
As such, the consideration of reality is more critical than truth.

Something is wrong with your intellectual and philosophical cognition on this issue??
You are like those suffering from 'selective attention' and not seeing the 500 pound gorilla in front of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

[godelian]

Truth itself is problematic:

That does not matter, because the truth is still what people want to know.

Furthermore, concerning reality, Das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekaenntes.

Reality is represented by some invariably flawed perception of it shadows.

Physical reality is just a shadow of part of the truth.

It is the truth that matters and not its shadows.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Truth itself is problematic:

That does not matter, because the truth is still what people want to know.
Furthermore, concerning reality, Das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekaenntes.
Reality is represented by some invariably flawed perception of it shadows.
Physical reality is just a shadow of part of the truth.
It is the truth that matters and not its shadows.

My principle:
Whatever is reality [all there is] is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. Philosophical Realism's absolute mind-independent reality
2. FS based relative mind-independent reality.

Philosophical realism – ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind [humans] perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. -WIKI

Philosophical realism's reality is not even considered as shadows but are merely illusions [transcendental], i.e. chasing illusions.
It is the same with scientific realism which is also chasing after t-illusions.
Philosophical realists claim their claims are true but they still have to justify what they claim as true is real.

Philosophical antirealism rejects the claims of philosophical realism. In this case, philosophical realists has the onus to justify their positive claims.
Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] deny philosophical realism and claim that reality is somehow relative mind-independent, i.e. NOT ABSOLUTELY independent; this meant that reality is somehow entangled with the human conditions.

What is critical is reality not truth.
To establish the reality and the truth-of-reality we have to rely on a specific human-based FS of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Re OP:
The claim that "God exists as real" is true is not "credible", "objective" and tenable,
because,
Whatever is reality [all there is] is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
The truth of "God exists as real" cannot pass the scientific test of credibility and objectivity based on empirical evidence and rational analysis.
There is the theistic-FS but its "credibility" and "objectivity" if considered is negligible [0.001] in contrast to those of the scientific FS as the gold standard [indexed at 100/100].

Why you are so dogmatic and clingy to your claim in opposition to mine is due to an inherent and unavoidable psychological problem.
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

[godelian]

What is critical is reality not truth.

No, it is truth that matters.

Every decision a computer makes, is based on the truth of a particular boolean expression. It is the truth of such expressions that decides everything in the running process. Not their reality.

Knowledge is about justified truth (and not about justified reality).

People are in search of truth.

[attofishpi]

[godelian]

The claim that "God exists as real" is true is not "credible", "objective" and tenable, because,
Whatever is reality [all there is] is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
The truth of "God exists as real" cannot pass the scientific test of credibility and objectivity based on empirical evidence and rational analysis.

If science is the gold standard for credibility and objectivity, then by all means feel free to support your claim by means of an experimental test report.

That is, however, not what you are doing. All I can see, is a nebulous word salad.

Why don't you eat your own dog food and use the scientific method to produce an experimental test report for what you are claiming?

Seriously, where can we find it?

By the way, if people complain about the anti-spam measures, it just means that they are working.

[godelian]

The truth of "God exists as real" cannot pass the scientific test of credibility and objectivity based on empirical evidence and rational analysis.

Look at what ChatGPT says about this:

Can science answer the question if God exists?

Science and the question of God's existence operate within different frameworks, and while they can interact, science alone doesn't provide a definitive answer to this question. Here's why:

1. Nature of Science

Science relies on empirical evidence, observation, and testable hypotheses. It focuses on explaining natural phenomena through measurable means. The concept of God, as often defined, involves metaphysical elements beyond the physical universe, which fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

2. Testability and Falsifiability

For a question to be scientifically answerable, it must be testable and falsifiable. Since most definitions of God are supernatural, they cannot be directly tested or measured, making it difficult for science to prove or disprove God's existence.

3. Philosophical and Theological Contexts

The existence of God is often considered a philosophical or theological question rather than a scientific one. Different belief systems and philosophical arguments (like the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments) address this question in ways science doesn't.

4. Indirect Scientific Insights

Some people interpret scientific findings as supporting or challenging the idea of God:

Fine-tuning Argument: Some argue that the universe's complexity and the fine-tuning of physical constants suggest a designer.

Materialism: Others believe that scientific explanations for phenomena (like evolution) reduce the need for a divine explanation.

Conclusion

Science doesn't confirm or refute the existence of God because it deals with the natural world, while questions about God often involve the supernatural. The question remains a matter of personal belief, philosophical interpretation, and theological exploration.

Hence, what you write amounts to an attempt at scientifically deciding a scientifically undecidable question.

In fact, you are not even doing that because that would require that you support your argument with an experimental test report, which you undeniably don't.

So, instead of using the scientific method, you are trying to support your argument with a nebulous word salad. That, in turn, is in violation of the scientific standards of evidence and triggers its anti-spam measures.