Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing. If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:25 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing. If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

The limits through which the scientific method exists are the same limits through which God exists.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing.
I wouldn't quite call the universe nothing. The universe is a marvelous thing, and I love being star dust. If in fact the universe created us, it's quite astounding that from the inanimate, can spring the animate. As far as we know, we are the pinnacle of it's physics, so far.

If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:31 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

2) To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing.
I wouldn't quite call the universe nothing. The universe is a marvelous thing, and I love being star dust. If in fact the universe created us, it's quite astounding that from the inanimate, can spring the animate. As far as we know, we are the pinnacle of it's physics, so far.

If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away — and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

Eodnhoj wrote:
The limits through which the scientific method exists are the same limits through which God exists

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm 1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

This is a ridiculous statement.
If the Scientific Method assumes God as the origin of all truth and real there is no need to prove God is real.
How can one deduce reality from an assumption, it is non-sequitor.

It is simple:

If the scientific method alone is principly responsible for determining the sole nature of truth, it acts as a universal mediator for knowledge and fulfills the role of "Divine Mediator" in the respect it is a universal means for truth from which all truth is composed and projects towards.

The Scientific Method, if it is to test God must effectively test all definitions of God and effectively test the definition of God, through empirical grounding, as "Origin of All Truth". In these respects it effectively must be the origin of truth and effectively be God, from a secular perspective, as the test of the origins effectively makes the test the origin.

To observe a cycle of axioms as the means of proof as to whether God exists or not, effectively is to observe circular reason as the foundation of God in the respect it is the means through which all truth exists.

3) In these respects the proof of God lies in the Scientific Method itself.

The Scientific Method is contained within the Framework and System of Science and it covers only things that are empirical, testable and falsifiable.

The system and framework of science is an abstract framework which extends through empirical reality. Show me "science" empirically speaking? One may show an experiment, but the reasoning behind this experiment (that which gives boundaries to the physical reality and seeing if these boundaries connect to other boundaries (laws) we understand) in itself as an "idea" can only be approximated empirically.

The Scientific Framework do not give a damn with name of things, i.e. God or whatsoever X is.
What works with Science is if a thing can pass the test and gain consensus within the Scientific Framework then it is accepted as a Scientific truth, note not any truth but a qualified and conditional Scientific truth.
Scientific truths do not has credibility outside its Scientific Framework.

The scientific framework suffers from the fallacy of equivocation where the scientific method is subject to multiple definitions and frameworks, that exists inside one framework of inherent circularity.

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


Note as Popper has asserted, Scientific theories are at best polished conjectures, i.e. basically conjectures but they are nevertheless useful to humanity.

The idea of God is independent of the Scientific Framework.
The idea of God can be either an empirical claim or a claimed based on pure reason.

Considering all empirical claims exist through reason and all reason exists through empirical claims we see an inherent alternation that further extends to the methodology itself. To say "God is independent of" when a definition of God as "ominipresent" effectively observes a contradiction unless one resorts to another definition of God as "Everything and Nothing"...and in these respects the Scientific Method exists as an extension of God, through its form and function, but is not God itself unless used as a means to test the existence of God.

The subjectivity and inherently random nature of proof gives problems to the scientific method as being the sole arbiter of truth in a seperate respect considering "proof" is subjective to subjectivity.

A claim for an empirical God [bearded man in the sky or some empirical entity] can be a scientific hypothesis, i.e. just bring the relevant evidence to be justified within the Scientific Method.

The scientific method, as a system, does not provide a methodology for what would be deemed as an appropriate contruct for how to test God. For example one may use the scientific method, but the tests uses, while subject to the scientific method are still subjective to the imagination of the individual.

But as I have shown in another thread, the default God cannot be empirical due to inherent imperfections within empiricism. Thus the default God has to be based on pure reason.
Then I have proven an ideal God based on pure reason is an impossibility to be real.

The above dilemma and farce is because the idea of God arose not from possible facts but rather from a psychological issue of an existential crisis that compel theists to conjure an illusory God as real.

Prove the problem of God is subject to only an existential crisis scientifically or through reason....otherwise you are pushing personal dogma.

Thus the real attention should be directed to the root cause of the idea of God [illusory and caused evil acts by theists], i.e. the psychological basis within the brain/mind.
It is a waste of time to prove and search for a real God when it is illusory and an impossibility in the first place.

It is a waste of time to try to continually negate the existence of God when a negation can only be observed as a statement of relation to a positive existence or between positives.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:19 pm Not addressing the topic per se, but in some instances, I have no problem with a circular argument if the premises seem sound in general, and leads back reasonably to the first sound premise.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:25 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing. If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

The limits through which the scientific method exists are the same limits through which God exists.

This means science will eventually prove the necessity for a conscious source of creation.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:12 pm1) The Scientific Method cannot prove God without taking the role of God itself as the origin of all truth.

It may be that some god is the origin of all truth, but the thing is, there is no experiment that can support that hypothesis. Take gravity. In science what you do is get a bunch of different weights, drop them from various heights, time their fall and measure the dent they make. Then you analyse the data until you discover or invent some mathematical formula that the data fits well enough to be useful. Carry on using that formula, even if you know it isn't perfect.
In practise, Newton is used a lot more than Einstein, because it's easier to work with and the results are accurate enough for nearly all applications. So science uses tools it knows are not perfect, which goes against many people's definition of god, but science will change the formula if new conditions are discovered which the old idea doesn't account for. On the other hand, it doesn't matter how many weights you drop, nor what the results show; none of it will make the slightest difference to whether god is doing it or not. Believe what you will, but you cannot do anything scientifically meaningful with the concept of god.

Eodnhoj wrote:
If the scientific method alone is principally responsible for determining the sole nature of truth