Re: Fundamentals of Science
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:11 am
Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Oh, you know, its not and wont be "dead". For sure people wont stop wondering "why", tho the q. may get framed around different assumptions and understandings.PaulSacramento wrote:Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".
yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.1over137 wrote:[]
Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."
You're too hung up on 2 words taken completely out of context. Let me rephrase my original statement to make it crystal clear what I meant:Audie wrote:I never heard of a "general scientific proof", math in not science, and it is my understanding that science does not "do" proof, so, I really dont know where you are coming from in this.Byblos wrote:Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"
I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.
In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.
Better? Can we move on now?Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs knowledge.
Made up your mind already? I'm ready to back up my assertion. Waiting on you to specifiy whether or not you want to go ahead with proof from philosophy or evidence from science.Audie wrote:yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.1over137 wrote:[]
Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."
Context or no context, scientific proof is an oxymoron. Whether philosophy can claim jurisdiction over all of rationality is open, I suppose, to philosophical discussion.Byblos wrote:You're too hung up on 2 words taken completely out of context. Let me rephrase my original statement to make it crystal clear what I meant:Audie wrote:I never heard of a "general scientific proof", math in not science, and it is my understanding that science does not "do" proof, so, I really dont know where you are coming from in this.Byblos wrote:Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"
I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.
In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.
Better? Can we move on now?Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs knowledge.
If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.Byblos wrote:Made up your mind already? I'm ready to back up my assertion. Waiting on you to specifiy whether or not you want to go ahead with proof from philosophy or evidence from science.Audie wrote:yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.1over137 wrote:[]
Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."
Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.
i've seen a number of tries at proving God, and I've seen proof, so presented anyway, that its impossible to prove the existence of God.Byblos wrote:^ I corrected my statement. I have nothing else to say about that.
So you're not interested in philosophical proofs, fine. I just thought for someone who rejects God's existance as you seem to be, they'd absolutely jump at the chance to correct so-called 'proofs' considering they are much stronger than evidence. But such is the case, so let's move on.
Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.
Where do you stand vis-a-vis cosmogony and its various subjects? I.e. origin of the universe, multi-verse, cyclical, oscillating, etc. etc.
You state this and yet affrim that:As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.
I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.
You may not be a theoretical astrophysicist but if you are, then you know more than I; still, I dont think anyone exactly has it nailed down, not by a long shot. So as it is, neither of us knows the origin of the universe. I dont know that it disqualifies me from having an opinion such as that I dont think some god did it.PaulSacramento wrote:You state this and yet affrim that:As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.I am confused because if openly admit that you can't understand the concept pf physics as it relates to the origin of the universe, how can you make a statement insinuating that there is NO evidence for God other than philosophy ( if that)?Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.
You admit that you can't understand the physics of the universe BUT don't believe there is a God because the physics of the universe show there isn't one?
Is that your argument?
But that is simply unture. It absolutely IS possible to prove the existance of God, only philosophically. Are we going to keep going in circles here? If you don't want to discuss the proof you don't have to but at the same time you can't keep asserting there's no proof.Audie wrote:i've seen a number of tries at proving God, and I've seen proof, so presented anyway, that its impossible to prove the existence of God.Byblos wrote:^ I corrected my statement. I have nothing else to say about that.
So you're not interested in philosophical proofs, fine. I just thought for someone who rejects God's existance as you seem to be, they'd absolutely jump at the chance to correct so-called 'proofs' considering they are much stronger than evidence. But such is the case, so let's move on.
Good. Before we begin, I'd like to ask you a question or 2 so we both have a better pciture of the other's stance. If you have questions also, I'd be happy to answer them.Audie wrote:If you feel you have evidence for God, from science, sure, lets hear it.
Where do you stand vis-a-vis cosmogony and its various subjects? I.e. origin of the universe, multi-verse, cyclical, oscillating, etc. etc.
I don't know if you've read my comments on the same subject in the Flying Spaghetti Monster thread. What you've stated above is simply assinine since God's existance can be shown from reason alone, as it can equally be shown that there can be one and only one God who is eternal, timeless, changeless, omniscient, and omnipotent. All of these characteristics can be shown from reaon alone (particlularly the oneness) to the exclusion of all other so-called gods such as the ones you mention above.Audie wrote:I dont 'reject" God's existence any more than i do Bigfoot, or the elusive megaladon shark as a living thing. i dont believe any of those exist. i dont reject them.
How it seems to you, and how it actually is with me, are not the same here.
Lol, ok. You should get familiar with the Latin phrase then: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."Audie wrote:Regarding stronger than evidence, it may well be that a phil. proof would do better than any physical evidence for a god, there being none, in of course, my opinion.
Alrighty then, I guess we're done here. Good luck to you.Audie wrote:As for origin or destiny of the universe, I do nt concern myself with that. I've listened to physicists, and i really cant wrap my brain around some of the concepts. I dont know if any of us could without a lot more math than I can bring to bear. Im inclined to think the universe is stranger than we are capable of grasping. We may possibly be better off or further along than is the cat trying to figure out the origin of catfood, thro' observation of philosophy, but then, maybe not.
I dont have an opinion on the origin of the universe
While Paul and I are definitely not theoretical atrophysicists, we do have one on board but she is a queen, she doesn't engage mere peasants unless absolutely necessary (just kidding Hana ).Audie wrote:You may not be a theoretical astrophysicist
It may not be nailed down because it's science, which is never in the business of nailing anything down. That's why I went to great lengths to call it evidence. But the proponderance of the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a creator.Audie wrote:but if you are, then you know more than I; still, I dont think anyone exactly has it nailed down, not by a long shot.
You can certainly have an opinion but as it stands now you're just a mere skeptic without one.Audie wrote:So as it is, neither of us knows the origin of the universe. I dont know that it disqualifies me from having an opinion such as that I dont think some god did it.
That to me dear sir is like writing "the alphabet is dead".PaulSacramento wrote:Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY".