What is your point?
That the pop pseudoscientific atheists claimed to justify their philosophical position from an experiment which does not in fact tell us anything useful about the philosophical question.
In general, the popular claims of âscientificâ atheism reflect uncritically accepting a naive Enlightenment philosophy that assumes that everyone sensible agrees with what seems most rational to me. In reality, they are accepting those principles from Christian and other sources that they happen to like and rejecting the ones that they donât like, without any real justification beyond personal preference. You can get away with that when a culture generally accepts similar values, but not when there is disagreement.
Likewise, quantum indeterminism tells us nothing about whether classical determinism is true. Whether one accepts determinism is a matter of whether they happen to be predestined to favor free will or deterministic positions. (Of course, that statement reflects a particular theological position, not something verifiable scientifically.)
2 Likes
We canât know God, but we do get evidence, through our experiences, that God exists, that God is loving and Just. It is not important to know God. If you are a Christian and believe that Jesus is God then you have something to hold onto. I am a Muslim. I believe that God is unlike anything else that we can point to or consider. But it is not important to me to know God. I am still a lover of God and that is all that is important.
1 Like
People use the word, God as if the meaning is known. Therefore everyone uses, âGodâ as if every diety is the same, but it usnât. The word God is specific in meaning. To be a God requires 4 things. 1) Will 2) the ability to carry out the Will.3) To have the Will bare fruit. 4) nothing can prevent the Will from baring fruit. This means that God is a real being and there can be only one God.
Weâre like God in that we have a will, we carry out our will, and our will bares fruit, but weâre missing the 4rth law. Our will doesnât always bare fruit. So now you how what your talking about when youâre talking about God.
This reminds me of the Walrus and the Carpenter. The proposition that there is a nonphysical component to the human mind is as philosophical as asking why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
It can be an honest question, though, canât it, whereas your counterparts cannot.
Itâs an utterly superfluous question that science has no need to ask let alone answer. As in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nature lacks nothing, nothing at all. Orthogonal to it is one claim worth pursuing; nature has a creator who got Himself born in to it.
Of course not. But you werenât talking about science.
Itâs all the same. Philosophy has no more need than science. [And the proposition that the human mind has a nonphysical component is not just a non-philosophical one, it is a non-scientific one.]
Philosophers may differ.
No they donât. Breaking my rule, so thatâs that.
1 Like
Your rule:
1 Like
The most common scientific answer to âwhy is the sea boiling hot?â would be volcanism, though the occasional asteroid can cause it as well, ignoring various human activities that can cause some local heating. One might also philosophize about exactly what is meant by boiling hot, given that the boiling temperature depends on pressure - do we consider 600K hydrothermal vents to be boiling hot with reference to boiling at 1 atm?
Unless we specifically define âmindâ as only being the brain and its associated anatomical and biochemical components, it is possible to wonder if there is a non-physical aspect as well. As science can only measure the physical, that question is outside the realm of science, but is something that can be pondered by philosophy or religion. Such a non-physical aspect could be a non-supernatural emergent property, or a supernatural component - there are various possibilities that can be envisioned and pondered.
In doing science, you make many philosophical assumptions. You are assuming that there really is something out there to study, that we can meaningfully study it, that it behaves in regular ways, that honestly reporting the results is important, etc. Yes, those seem like common sense, but common sense is not always right and not always as common as one might hope.
1 Like
Nothing in philosophy beyond and as for its empirical handmaiden science considers the supernatural. Why would it? Philosophy rightly points out that rationality is a construct and there are tools for addressing that, so Iâm led to believe, like Lacanian analysis, phenomenology. Not magic.
Deities are not God. Deities are only representative of some attribute of God.
We can talk about the Will of God and that there is only one God, but that doesnât tell us anything about God. We cannot know God. My Guru used to say âto try and define God is to deny Godâ and she was right.
actually, you can by reading the Bible and understanding whatâs it saying. And whatâs it saying is that God is unique, for itâs the ONLY being that can bare fruit from his will at ALL times.
If you follow science, you would know that to control all of reality is beyond anyoneâs capability, and yet this being can do that.
The only thing that you said that I disagree with is the very first thing you said âactually, you canâ. Reading the Bible does not allow any one of us to know the Divine Being. In Islam we say âthere is nothing like unto Godâ, which is what you are saying, in saying âGod is uniqueâ.
Yes we can see that Godâs Will is always fruitful, but that does not give us any insight into what God is.
Science, IMO, does give evidence that this physical Universe is Godâs creation, but that is not the official view of the majority of scientists. And I would also say God not only brought this reality into being, God sustains this reality. All of our life processes are sustained and guided by God. Even with all that What is God? We cannot know.
Actually, your correct and incorrect at the same time. Thereâs ONE BEING that knows and understands who.God is, and thatâs the Spirit of God. Your correct in that by my own power, I cannot know God, but if the Spirit wills it, I can learn who Gos is through revelation. Now I can say that God has given me revelation, but that may not be true. I might say this in order to
make myself look better In your eyes, but all that would prove is that Iâm lost. But I tell you the truth, I have seen who God is, through Christ Jesus.
Man has been corrupted by the serpent which he taught the woman controversy, conflict and rebellion. But Christ has no conflict in him, for he and the Father through the Spirit is ONE. I see the truth in this for the Spirit has revealed it to me. Goodness, kindness, love, truth, justice, mercy, forgiveness, faith, trust, caring, grace, mercy, compassion and others are what makes up God. He is pure order and has no disorder in him.
What you see here is NOT the church of Christ. When Christ returns, he will select those are are of his church. When he does this, I hope to be selected, but thereâs no guarantee that I will.
As I have said, I have the serpents mark on me, but by the grace of God through Christâs sacrifice and the power of the Spirit, I can be saved if it pleases God. I cannot prove to you what I say is true, just like I cannot prove the beauty of a flower to a person born blind, but believe what I say is true.
We have different views so it is hard to discuss this further. I believe that God is One. There is no other god but God.
You believe in a Trinity. I have debated with Christians before and the same views come through. They talk about God is One but then there are three Persons. When one can know the other, I find it had to accept that this is One God.
Anyway that aside, this to me is still not enough.
No matter how many attributes we can cite, in Islam we have the 99 Names of God, in Hinduism there are 33million deities, which are all attributes of God, we still canât know God. We are elements within the system. An element within a system canât know the system and its creator.
Maybe you have been given such revelation. I canât dispute that. IDK. But for me, God is always going to be a mystery, even after an enlightenment experience (1994) with the experience of union with the Divine, God is still beyond my understanding and always will be.
No. Perhaps it is an example of where God chose the foolish things to shame the wise. And perhaps in part is is because scientists (with larger egos) are more immune to familial and cultural pressures and are therefore simply more honest and comfortable in declaring their unbelief. Maybe their numbers, less impacted by these pressures, are representative of the whole population.
EDIT: typo
3 Likes