Re: Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:12 pm
And what would be a justifiable test for God?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:11 amYou are missing the point.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:34 pmVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:04 am
'All-there-is' is open-ended.
'Totality' implied completeness within a boundary which is not open-ended.
You can define your god empirically as totality of all there is, e.g. all there is in that container is 10 marbles. This can be easily verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
If yours is an empirically-based God, then bring your empirical God to be verified and justified Scientifically which is the standard bearer of empirical verification.
False, all that there is contains that which contains the marbles. For any container of being a container exists beyond it where being contains itself through itself where nothing is beyond being except further being. Being as existing through further being necessitates a boundary to being where being contains itself effectively.
There is no universally agreed upon standard for empirical justification, what may exist as proof for some does not apply as proof for all. The standard of what constitutes an accurate test of God falls back on those who ask for proof considering proof is subject to interpretation and interpretation is subjective.
The latest acceptable idea of God as perfection, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and beyond an imperfect-man's comprehension is not empirical.
Beyond comprehension is the totality of matter which forms all empirical phenomenon yet matter is accepted as proof for empirical claims thus a contradiction occurs.
You are using the term 'assumption' irrelevantly and wrongly.
=to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume?s=t
All proofs are subject to further proofs beyond it with the underlying nature of proof resting upon something assumed. There is no proof which does not require something unproven beyond it as accepted.
Proof, as defined through a Google search:
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
Thus all proofs require an abstraction beyond it in order to be justified. Thus evidence or argument thus necessitates proof as an interpretation.
Empiricism of the highest order, i.e. inferring knowledge via scientific knowledge do not rely directly on assumptions.
That 'Water is H20' as an empirical scientific fact is not assumed at all.
False it is an observation of applied boundaries, as a concept, to a phenomenon. The relations of hydrogen and oxygen are defined as the limits of what constitutes water. The fact is an interpretation, the interpretation is a definition. A fact is the application of boundaries to one phenomenon out of many. It is an act of distinction. The distinction is an agreed upon interpretation of where to begin and end in measuring a phenomenon. Facts are deemed as that which is agreed upon, water can easily be defined as a non combustible clear liquid, thus expanding the definition of water. Facts are classifications, classifications are made up.
What is observed via the senses is processed via a reliable framework and system with its mechanisms and processes to reach a conclusion that is testable and repeatable by any one, thus objective.
That the framework & system include certain assumptions, e.g. consistency is secondary.
The process of repeatability to accept something as fact is the same process of repeatability through which a phenomenon manifests itself. The repetition of a particle from point A to point B necessitates the particle as real. Repeatability is the grounding of the totality of being, given being repeats itself through a constant series of fractals. The definition of God as Being, with this being occuring through repetition, necessitates God as existing through the process of measurement employed by man given man is fractal of God due to his (man's) ability to measure. This ability is measure is a repetition of God's definition as measurer. To measure that which measures is to result in further measurements.
Upon the activation of an illusion, some may claim it is real [in a way an assumption] but such claims are never credible at all.
The only way a claim is credible is to ensure it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically, e.g. via Science as the standard bearer of veracity.
You are merely making claims [noises] of an empirical-god [which is a cheapskate anyway] but you are running away from subjecting your god to verification and justification.
There is no universal standard for verification and justification other than repeatability. As mentioned above the same repeatability for what is accepted as true is the same repeatability through which being manifests itself. You lend yourself to a contradiction given the definition of God as the totality of being requires using the very same being to test itself thus a loop occurs. One would be using God to test God.
Dually in forming a test to test God one would have to contain all variables of the totality of being within the framework. Empiricism cannot do this as empiricism is a contradiction. It requires matter as proof yet the totality of matter cannot be observed.
The real question would be:
What would be a justifiable test for God? And would one have to apply a test to make sure this is the right test? Empiricism leaves an incomprehensible open ended standard for what constitutes an appropriate test given anything can be subject to a definition of testing.
What I have been arguing is,
to claim whatever thing [God or whatever] to have real existence, it must be verified and justified empirically [at the minimal] and philosophically where scientific justification is the standard bearer of truth.
There is no exemption for God to be tested differently from any other thing.
I agree, empiricism has its limitation and the scientific method that rely on empiricism also has other limitations but it works in practice due to its justification processes and repeatability.
And btw, whatever are scientific facts being the standard bearer of truth, they are at best, mere polished conjectures.
The point is whatever is claimed as scientifically true is openly qualified to its conditions and limitation, plus the critical minimal it is subject to empirical evidences.
But the difference with the above is, what you are claiming, i.e. that-which-is-beyond-man or a God is real is merely based on noises without any grounds, testing, the minimal empirical evidence, the assurance of repeatability, falsifiability, and other requirements.
Point is anyone can make that noise as a claim of whatever-X is real without the need to justify its truth via a framework and system like the scientific method.