Chaos theory contains God of Theism

[Shemjaza]

How come this change in dictionaries:
year 1828: theology is Science,
year 2018: theology is "nonsense".
Is there proof of it?

Theology is based around the presuppositions that certain religious texts or beliefs are true. This is a poor basis for scientific examination of the world.

If religious beliefs could be tested against objective evidence then they can be added to science, but for as long as they work on different principles they should be in different categories.

For much of history religious beliefs have been backed by the state or society and it has been unacceptable or even illegal to question them. This makes appeals to history and tradition less valid for supporting the truth of religious belief.

 

[joinfree]

Theology is based around the presuppositions that certain religious texts or beliefs are true. This is a poor basis for scientific examination of the world.

If religious beliefs could be tested against objective evidence then they can be added to science, but for as long as they work on different principles they should be in different categories.

For much of history religious beliefs have been backed by the state or society and it has been unacceptable or even illegal to question them. This makes appeals to history and tradition less valid for supporting the truth of religious belief.

The faith is faithfulness to KNOWLEDGE, so the Church Dogmas are scientifically PROVEN KNOWLEDGE. Science is quest for knowledge, not a method. Knowledge of any human is the knowledge, which has his God. Any human has God in his heart, atheists have idol of atheism in their hearts.
The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

 

[Shemjaza]

The faith is faithfulness to KNOWLEDGE, so the Church Dogmas are scientifically PROVEN KNOWLEDGE. Science is quest for knowledge, not a method. Knowledge of any human is the knowledge, which has his God. Any human has God in his heart, atheists have idol of atheism in their hearts.
The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

There are a whole lot of declarations, but no clear definitions or examples.

Can you explain how you discern something is true from theology?

The reason I ask is that different varieties of theism in general or even Christianity in particular have mutually exclusive beliefs.

I don't declare with certainty that no god exists, but I doubt it very much, and I have not been presented with satisfactory evidence to change my mind.

 

[joinfree]

There are a whole lot of declarations, but no clear definitions or examples.

Can you explain how you discern something is true from theology?

The reason I ask is that different varieties of theism in general or even Christianity in particular have mutually exclusive beliefs.

I don't declare with certainty that no god exists, but I doubt it very much, and I have not been presented with satisfactory evidence to change my mind.

"God is Spirit" (to my memory, Bible). Therefore, it is not physical. How physical instruments (like a telescope) can detect God of Theism?

 

[Shemjaza]

"God is Spirit" (to my memory, Bible). Therefore, it is not physical. How physical instruments (like a telescope) can detect God of Theism?

It can't, that's rather the point.

Objective measures of spirit aren't presented, so they can't be evaluated by science. The God you have faith in might be real, but his reality isn't a scientific question.

 

[joinfree]

It can't, that's rather the point.

Objective measures of spirit aren't presented, so they can't be evaluated by science. The God you have faith in might be real, but his reality isn't a scientific question.

Perhaps the returning to year 1828 definition of Science would remove this obstacle?
"and if you lost your way, get back for yesterday, remembering the way..."

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps the returning to year 1828 definition of Science would remove this obstacle?
"and if you lost your way, get back for yesterday, remembering the way..."

Then you need to explain how the archaic version it can be practically used:
Why is something true? How can that be used to determine other true things? How can you discern if something is false?

Modern science is very functional but has a narrow scope, your preferred version seems to be less so.

 

[Ophiolite]

1828 dictionary of the meaning of science:




You can continue to parrot the status quo $cience but don't call it science. Look up the definition of science in any old dictionary.


Bible believers don't file their beliefs under science, they file it under religion. You should also file your anti-critical thinking $cience beliefs under religion and not science. We need observable, repeatable results.

That is a highly ill-informed response. Dictionaries are excellent sources for the etymology, pronunciation, spelling and colloquial usage of words. They are practically useless in offering accurate definitions of technical terms. Any competent lexicographer could tell you that.

You are free to continue to parrot nonsense on this forum. I am free to laugh at it.

 

[joinfree]

Then you need to explain how the archaic version it can be practically used:
Why is something true? How can that be used to determine other true things? How can you discern if something is false?

Modern science is very functional but has a narrow scope, your preferred version seems to be less so.

The theory of knowledge. 1) Knowledge is proven to exist. 2) Knowledge defined as sensual observation (even through the instruments) is not reliable definition. Due to mass-psychosis and hallucinations.

 

[Shemjaza]

The theory of knowledge. 1) Knowledge is proven to exist. 2) Knowledge defined as sensual observation (even through the instruments) is not reliable definition. Due to mass-psychosis and hallucinations.

You haven't explained how knowledge that is not based on any sensual observation is reliable, or even describable.

Surely something internal is much more susceptible to being a psychosis or hallucinations?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"God is Spirit" (to my memory, Bible). Therefore, it is not physical. How physical instruments (like a telescope) can detect God of Theism?

Ah yes, the 'Problem of Interaction' in a nutshell. If God is non-physical and therefore cannot interact with physical instruments, how then can He interact with the physical world at all? It seems God is not omnipotent but impotent...

 

[Ophiolite]

You haven't explained how knowledge that is not based on any sensual observation is reliable, or even describable.

Surely something internal is much more susceptible to being a psychosis or hallucinations?

In addition knowledge based on observation is subject to a multitude of controls to ensure its veracity and repetition of the results is a prerequisite for acceptance. Neither of these are possible for he non-physical resources joinfree appears to favour.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In addition knowledge based on observation is subject to a multitude of controls to ensure its veracity and repetition of the results is a prerequisite for acceptance. Neither of these are possible for he non-physical resources joinfree appears to favour.

Of course, it doesn't matter if, as he suggests, the non-physical cannot influence the physical

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course, it doesn't matter if, as he suggests, the non-physical cannot influence the physical

But my wife's foolish non-physical ideas routinely effect my blood pressure, so I know he's wrong about that!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But my wife's foolish non-physical ideas routinely effect my blood pressure, so I know he's wrong about that!

Unless ideas themselves are physical - e.g. patterns of brain activity, patterns of neural connectivity, patterns of sound waves, patterns of ink on paper, patterns of magnetism on magnetic media, etc.

Given that many here like semantic games, one could reasonably say that the non-physical doesn't exist

 

[Ophiolite]

Unless ideas themselves are physical - e.g. patterns of brain activity, patterns of neural connectivity, patterns of sound waves, patterns of ink on paper, patterns of magnetism on magnetic media, etc.

Given that many here like semantic games, one could reasonably say that the non-physical doesn't exist

True, but is the map the territory, and if so is Korzybski a figment of my imagination?

As to semantic games, those who do not favour them seem to lean to some antic games, or even some antique games.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True, but is the map the territory, and if so is Korzybski a figment of my imagination?

The idea of Korzybski is real enough

As to semantic games, those who do not favour them seem to lean to some antic games, or even some antique games.

Nice one!

 

[Larniavc]

Because any slight change in conditions (like the positions of the atoms) in billion years prior to the first cell creation

But there was no change. It all happened the way it did.

You can’t say ‘but if things happened differently we would not be here’ because things did not happen differently.

Your point makes no sense.

I guess if you had a time machine you could go back and change history so that life did not start the way it did but what kind of monster would want to do that?

 

[Larniavc]

Is there a book of atheism that all atheist adhere to?

There is the Atheistical Bible (which is a normal Bible of your choice) but with ‘not’ written at the end of every sentence.

So you see: Atheisticalism specifically anti Christian.

 

[Larniavc]

Perhaps the returning to year 1828 definition of Science would remove this obstacle?
"and if you lost your way, get back for yesterday, remembering the way..."

When I see someone posting music videos on a forum not related music my ‘mental health sense’ starts tingling.