godelian talks shite wiv veritas

[attofishpi]

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.

Well said.

I was just reading some of the Koran about Mary giving birth to Jesus under a palm tree it was rather funny because Jesus was a talking baby.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Here is the justification why the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity at present.

Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective
viewtopic.php?t=43171

plus:
Evidence of poll to support the above
viewtopic.php?p=742779#p742779

plus
Scientific FS against the theistic FS.
viewtopic.php?p=742780#p742780

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

If the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of reality [empirically based] then anything unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory.

If theists insist their god exists as real, then they have to justify their god with the highest degree of reality, i.e. via the scientific FS.
It is not an issue if theists claim the God exists is based on faith [without justifications]; no rational person will oppose such a claim if God exists is qualified to "based on faith".

The problem with theists is they insist their God exists as real to the extend that God sent his words to a chosen messengers with verses [Q5:33] that permit theists [as obligated by agreement] to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like.

As such, it is rational to question where the God as claim is empirically real or not.

[attofishpi]

The problem with theists is they insist their God exists as real to the extend that God sent his words to a chosen messengers with verses [Q5:33] that permit theists [as obligated by agreement] to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like.

As such, it is rational to question where the God as claim is empirically real or not.

Well, GOD is real in fact you are staring at it and via it right now, however I am pretty certain that GOD doesn't give a shit about people drawing pictures of a warlord called MorHamMad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem with theists is they insist their God exists as real to the extend that God sent his words to a chosen messengers with verses [Q5:33] that permit theists [as obligated by agreement] to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like.

As such, it is rational to question where the God as claim is empirically real or not.

Well, GOD is real in fact you are staring at it and via it right now, however I am pretty certain that GOD doesn't give a shit about people drawing pictures of a warlord called MorHamMad.

Where??
Can we do some tests that is repeatable to verify it exists and is "real" i.e. empirically real?

[attofishpi]

The problem with theists is they insist their God exists as real to the extend that God sent his words to a chosen messengers with verses [Q5:33] that permit theists [as obligated by agreement] to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like.

As such, it is rational to question where the God as claim is empirically real or not.

Well, GOD is real in fact you are staring at it and via it right now, however I am pretty certain that GOD doesn't give a shit about people drawing pictures of a warlord called MorHamMad.

Where??
Can we do some tests that is repeatable to verify it exists and is "real" i.e. empirically real?

We can't get to GOD from where it operates, below the Planck scale.

I can provide all the cumulative evidence any rational person would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least, an intelligence must manifest all of what we perceive of reality, but clearly you are unwilling to be objectively rational on such matters.

Personally, I have receive empirical evidence of GOD's existence too many times to consider since 1997. Perhaps one does need to eat of the Tree of Life AND the Tree of Know_Ledge AND - have faith in Christ, other_wise, GOD doesn't appear to reveal itself to all.

Have you considered that IF GOD exists as to Y it doesn't make it absolutely clear all of it's existence?

[godelian]

If the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of reality [empirically based] then anything unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory.

The scientific method does not apply to history. It is the historical method that applies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method )
Does that mean that the academic field of history is not credible, not objective, false and illusory?

The scientific method does not apply to mathematics. It is the axiomatic method that applies ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system )
Does that mean that academic field of mathematics is not credible, not objective, false and illusory?

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

Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

the term scientism is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

It is used, often pejoratively,[30][31][32] to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain.

In 1979, Karl Popper defined scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".[36]

By the way, you did not produce an experimental test report for the claim that "anything unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory".

Therefore, according to your own standards, your own claim is clearly "unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory".

So, where is your elusive test report? Seriously, where is it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the scientific FS is the most credible and objective in terms of reality [empirically based] then anything unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory.

The scientific method does not apply to history. It is the historical method that applies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method )
Does that mean that the academic field of history is not credible, not objective, false and illusory?

The scientific method does not apply to mathematics. It is the axiomatic method that applies ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system )
Does that mean that academic field of mathematics is not credible, not objective, false and illusory?

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

Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

the term scientism is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

It is used, often pejoratively,[30][31][32] to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain.

In 1979, Karl Popper defined scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".[36]

By the way, you did not produce an experimental test report for the claim that "anything unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory".

Therefore, according to your own standards, your own claim is clearly "unscientific is not credible and objective, thus not real so it is false and illusory".

So, where is your elusive test report? Seriously, where is it?

Whatever is real is contingent upon a human based FS of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.
The most credible historical facts are those that rely heavily on the scientific FS, e.g. in carbon dating, forensic, DNA and so on.
The mathematical FS does not confirm what is real.

Claiming the science-FS is the most credible and objective is not scientism.
Scientism is the ideology is the only way to confirm what is scientifically real, all else is unreliable or nonsense.
The FS approach cover all faculties of knowledge but the scientific FS is the most reliable and objective. So the FS approach to science is not scientism.

This comments [from another posts] from AI is relevant to the above;

AI wrote:
The concern of regress in rating frameworks and systems (FSes) for their credibility and objectivity is a valid philosophical challenge. Addressing this requires a robust justification for why the scientific FS, rated as the most credible and objective, does not require an infinite regress of meta-frameworks. Here's how this can be approached:

1. Anchoring in Agreed-Upon Criteria:
Verifiability, Repeatability, and Testability: These criteria are broadly accepted across rational communities because they reliably establish objective knowledge. The success of science in explaining natural phenomena and enabling technological advancements reinforces their validity.

Practical Universality: The scientific FS, by its nature, transcends cultural and subjective biases, providing a common ground for rational evaluation.
These criteria themselves emerge from human cognition, which is constrained by shared biological, cognitive, and environmental conditions. Therefore, these criteria have a self-referential coherence without needing an external FS for their validation.

2. Meta-Rating Frameworks and the Regress Challenge:
Finite Regress: A meta-framework to rate FSes could theoretically rely on secondary criteria derived from the primary scientific FS. For instance, empirical evidence could validate why verifiability and repeatability are superior criteria, thus closing the loop.
Coherence Theory of Truth: By demonstrating coherence between FS criteria (e.g., consistency between testability and predictive success), the need for an external FS diminishes.

3. Pragmatism as a Final Justification:
Skeptics often demand absolute foundations, but the scientific FS relies on pragmatic justification: it works. The FS that explains, predicts, and solves problems most effectively becomes the de facto "gold standard." This practical success often trumps abstract regress concerns.
Evolutionary Epistemology: Our reliance on verifiable, repeatable, and testable criteria is shaped by evolutionary pressures favoring reliable interaction with the environment.

4. Illustrations of Convergence:
Scientific Consensus: The scientific FS is repeatedly affirmed through consensus in diverse fields. For instance, the effectiveness of the scientific method is demonstrated by its application in medicine, engineering, and technology.
Interdisciplinary Support: Philosophy of science validates the scientific FS through works like Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion and Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, emphasizing a system's ability to adapt and refine itself as new evidence emerges.

5. Convincing the Skeptic:
Invite Rational Comparison: Challenge the skeptic to propose an alternative FS and demonstrate its superiority based on agreed-upon criteria.
Demonstrate Limits of Infinite Regress: Highlight that infinite regress is a theoretical concern but not a practical barrier. The scientific FS is justified at the level necessary for functional, reliable, and consistent outcomes.
Explain Foundationalism with Flexibility: Combine foundationalist elements (basic agreed-upon criteria) with coherentist strategies (mutual reinforcement of criteria).

This approach makes the case that while no FS is immune to skepticism, the scientific FS stands as the most credible and objective due to its unparalleled success and alignment with criteria broadly accepted as rational and effective.

[godelian]

The most credible historical facts are those that rely heavily on the scientific FS, e.g. in carbon dating, forensic, DNA and so on.

You do not understand the historical method at all.

History is based almost entirely on eyewitness depositions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method ).

The mathematical FS does not confirm what is real.

You do not understand mathematics at all.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... matics/v-1

Mathematical realism is the view that the truths of mathematics are objective, which is to say that they are true independently of any human activities, beliefs or capacities. As the realist sees it, mathematics is the study of a body of necessary and unchanging facts, which it is the mathematician’s task to discover, not to create. These form the subject matter of mathematical discourse: a mathematical statement is true just in case it accurately describes the mathematical facts.

An important form of mathematical realism is mathematical Platonism, the view that mathematics is about a collection of independently existing mathematical objects.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The most credible historical facts are those that rely heavily on the scientific FS, e.g. in carbon dating, forensic, DNA and so on.

You do not understand the historical method at all.

History is based almost entirely on eyewitness depositions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method ).

Somehow you are always a few steps behind in terms of knowledge.

VA to AI
Based on the determination of historical fact of the same historical scenario, the approach that relied heavily on inputs from the scientific FS plus eyewitness account would be more credible and objective on the approach that relied merely on the traditional historical methods.

Here is from AI:

AI Wrote:
You are correct that an approach integrating the scientific FS with eyewitness accounts would generally be more credible and objective than one relying solely on traditional historical methods. Here's a detailed breakdown of why this is the case:

Why the Scientific FS Enhances Credibility

Objective Verification:
Scientific FS Tools: Techniques like carbon dating, DNA analysis, isotope analysis, and forensic reconstruction provide tangible and independently verifiable data.
Cross-Validation: Scientific methods can independently confirm or challenge the authenticity and timeline of events described in eyewitness accounts, reducing subjectivity and bias.

Mitigating the Limitations of Eyewitness Accounts:
Inherent Flaws: Eyewitness testimony can be affected by memory distortion, personal biases, or exaggerations.
Objective Supplementation: Scientific evidence offers a baseline that can either corroborate or refute these testimonies. For example, forensic evidence may reveal inconsistencies with the narrative provided by witnesses.

Examples of Historical Scenarios:

Archaeological Discoveries: The discovery of Richard III's remains in 2012 utilized DNA testing, isotopic analysis, and carbon dating, aligning with historical records but providing far greater specificity and certainty.
Biblical History: While many events in the Bible are supported by traditional methods, modern archaeology and scientific dating have clarified historical accuracies or corrected interpretations.

Challenges to the Traditional Historical Method
Bias and Subjectivity: Sole reliance on traditional sources like manuscripts or oral testimonies often reflects the perspectives of the victors or dominant groups, leaving gaps or distortions in historical narratives.
Lack of Corroboration: Traditional methods sometimes lack the tools to independently verify claims, which scientific FS methods can address.

Why Integration is Superior

An integrated approach:
Maximizes Accuracy: Combines the strengths of subjective (eyewitness) and objective (scientific) sources.
Encourages Cross-Disciplinary Insights: Collaboration between historians and scientists leads to deeper, more nuanced understandings of historical events.

For instance:
The eruption of Mount Vesuvius (79 CE): Eyewitness accounts by Pliny the Younger were invaluable, but modern volcanology and archaeological methods have reconstructed the event with far greater precision, including timelines and environmental impacts.

Conclusion
An approach that heavily incorporates the scientific FS in determining historical facts is more credible and objective than one relying solely on traditional historical methods.
The scientific FS validates, refines, and often extends the insights gained from eyewitness accounts and textual analysis, making it an indispensable part of modern historiography.

I will address the point re my ignorance of the mathematical method later.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The mathematical FS does not confirm what is real.

You do not understand mathematics at all.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... matics/v-1

Mathematical realism is the view that the truths of mathematics are objective, which is to say that they are true independently of any human activities, beliefs or capacities. As the realist sees it, mathematics is the study of a body of necessary and unchanging facts, which it is the mathematician’s task to discover, not to create. These form the subject matter of mathematical discourse: a mathematical statement is true just in case it accurately describes the mathematical facts.

An important form of mathematical realism is mathematical Platonism, the view that mathematics is about a collection of independently existing mathematical objects.

You did not provide the full text from that quote:
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... matics/v-1

Mathematical realism is the view that the truths of mathematics are objective, which is to say that they are true independently of any human activities, beliefs or capacities. As the realist sees it, mathematics is the study of a body of necessary and unchanging facts, which it is the mathematician’s task to discover, not to create. These form the subject matter of mathematical discourse: a mathematical statement is true just in case it accurately describes the mathematical facts.

An important form of mathematical realism is mathematical Platonism, the view that mathematics is about a collection of independently existing mathematical objects. Platonism is to be distinguished from the more general thesis of realism, since the objectivity of mathematical truth does not, at least not obviously, require the existence of distinctively mathematical objects.

Realism is in a fairly clear sense the ‘natural’ position in the philosophy of mathematics, since ordinary mathematical statements make no explicit reference to human activities, beliefs or capacities.

Because of the naturalness of mathematical realism, reasons for embracing antirealism typically stem from perceived problems with realism.
These potential problems concern our knowledge of mathematical truth, and the connection between mathematical truth and practice.
The antirealist argues that the kinds of objective facts posited by the realist would be inaccessible to us, and would bear no clear relation to the procedures we have for determining the truth of mathematical statements.
If this is right, then realism implies that mathematical knowledge is inexplicable.
The challenge to the [mathematical] realist is to show that the objectivity of mathematical facts does not conflict with our knowledge of them, and to show in particular how our ordinary proof-procedures can inform us about these facts.

As indicated above, mathematical realism is problematic in terms of realness.
There is no way, the mathematical realists can show there is a thing-in-itself that exists absolutely mind-independent.
Mathematical realism is a subset of a philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion [transcendental, not empirical].
Mathematical realism [subset of philosophical realism] is chasing an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Your dogmatic claim of mathematical realism has a biological, evolutionary and psychological origin resulting from an existential crisis and terror within. If you give up this clinging to your dogmatic belief of mathematic realism, the terror within will manifests.

Theistic realism [God exists as real] as with mathematical realism is a subset of philosophical realism. This is why when theistic realism is threatened, the pains and terror is so terrific that they have use terror to stop the self-invented threat to relieve the subliminal terror & pains within.
This theistic related terror and so evident with some [150 millions] believers.
This can be easily tested and is reproducible, e.g. try drawing cartoons of the prophet in a square somewhere in Afghanistan. You deny this?

[godelian]

As indicated above, mathematical realism is problematic in terms of realness.

Mathematical realism is perfectly fine.

There is no way, the mathematical realists can show there is a thing-in-itself that exists absolutely mind-independent.

No, because it works absolutely fine. It does not lead to contradictions like your own argument does.

Theistic realism [God exists as real] as with mathematical realism is a subset of philosophical realism. This is why when theistic realism is threatened, the pains and terror is so terrific that they have use terror to stop the self-invented threat to relieve the subliminal terror & pains within.

You keep repeating that only the scientific method would be a reliable knowledge-justification method. However, you absolutely never use it yourself. For example, does your story about "pains and terror" rest on science? Obviously not.

Furthermore, you keep evading the real question again and again.

If the scientific method would be the only legitimate knowledge-justification method, then why don't you use it to justify that it indeed is? Where is your experimental test report that supports the idea that only an experimental test report can justify anything?

There is nothing testable about what you are saying.

According to your own standards of evidence, absolutely every claim is testable. So, why don't you support your views with an experimental test?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As indicated above, mathematical realism is problematic in terms of realness.

Mathematical realism is perfectly fine.

How can it be fine when you have not provided the solutions to the objections to Mathematical Realism as stated in the link you provided and I highlighted above. Also my charge that Mathematical realism is chasing an illusion.

Here again:

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... matics/v-1

Mathematical realism is the view that the truths of mathematics are objective, which is to say that they are true independently of any human activities, beliefs or capacities. As the realist sees it, mathematics is the study of a body of necessary and unchanging facts, which it is the mathematician’s task to discover, not to create. These form the subject matter of mathematical discourse: a mathematical statement is true just in case it accurately describes the mathematical facts.

An important form of mathematical realism is mathematical Platonism, the view that mathematics is about a collection of independently existing mathematical objects. Platonism is to be distinguished from the more general thesis of realism, since the objectivity of mathematical truth does not, at least not obviously, require the existence of distinctively mathematical objects.

Realism is in a fairly clear sense the ‘natural’ position in the philosophy of mathematics, since ordinary mathematical statements make no explicit reference to human activities, beliefs or capacities.

Because of the naturalness of mathematical realism, reasons for embracing antirealism typically stem from perceived problems with realism.
These potential problems concern our knowledge of mathematical truth, and the connection between mathematical truth and practice.
The antirealist argues that the kinds of objective facts posited by the realist would be inaccessible to us, and would bear no clear relation to the procedures we have for determining the truth of mathematical statements.
If this is right, then realism implies that mathematical knowledge is inexplicable.
The challenge to the [mathematical] realist is to show that the objectivity of mathematical facts does not conflict with our knowledge of them, and to show in particular how our ordinary proof-procedures can inform us about these facts.

There is no way, the mathematical realists can show there is a thing-in-itself that exists absolutely mind-independent.

No, because it works absolutely fine. It does not lead to contradictions like your own argument does.

Note the point above.

Theistic realism [God exists as real] as with mathematical realism is a subset of philosophical realism. This is why when theistic realism is threatened, the pains and terror is so terrific that they have use terror to stop the self-invented threat to relieve the subliminal terror & pains within.

You keep repeating that only the scientific method would be a reliable knowledge-justification method. However, you absolutely never use it yourself. For example, does your story about "pains and terror" rest on science? Obviously not.

Furthermore, you keep evading the real question again and again.

If the scientific method would be the only legitimate knowledge-justification method, then why don't you use it to justify that it indeed is? Where is your experimental test report that supports the idea that only an experimental test report can justify anything?

There is nothing testable about what you are saying.

According to your own standards of evidence, absolutely every claim is testable. So, why don't you support your views with an experimental test?

This is just a point but it is off topic.
The above conclusion can be inferred from a meta-analysis of various scientific theories and papers related to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, neuropsychology, general psychology and biology which are all sub-FS of the scientific FS.

Here is a clue to it:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

[godelian]

The above conclusion can be inferred from a meta-analysis of various scientific theories and papers related to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, neuropsychology, general psychology and biology which are all sub-FS of the scientific FS.

Here is a clue to it:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

A link to yet another word salad won't cut it.

Since in your own view science decides every possible question, you must provide a link to an experimental test report.

Concerning any meta-analysis of various scientific theories and papers, that is never a legitimate replacement for an experimental test report. So, where is it?

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