Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some people have suggested to me that non-scientific worldviews are dangerous to the mind.But to make a final decision in this, non-scientific matters like the opinion of the politicians (which we hope reflects the opinions of the people in a democracy). Many of these opinions are not and cannot be based on science, but are a result of a certain worldview.
How is this any different then from religion? Both the historian and the religionist are non-scientific. How can I really trust either of them?An historian, for example, performs research, but I don't know that you could call an historian a scientist. Now, history has lots of merit and is a very useful field, but I don't think it necessariliy conforms to the scientific method.
Huh?What are rocks? What is the atmosphere?
Actually, I'm trying to ascertain the differentiations. It is being suggested to me that there are whole fields of knowledge which utterly lack science.Please define how science and ploitics are similar so that we may rationally discuss?
You're welcome.Thankyou.
The Old Testament Canon. There is an Old Testament Canon and a New Testament Canon.which canon?
The council of ancient Jewish authority. Hence, ancient Jewish government.which council?
No. Rather you missed the point. Or I was not making the same point that you may have been searching for yourself.Err, quite!! So giving "interpersonal relationships" as an example of where science doesn't always work was a little pointless of you...
The Old Testament Canon. There is an Old Testament Canon and a New Testament Canon.
The council of ancient Jewish authority. Hence, ancient Jewish government.
I thought all professions were defined by the work that one performs within that profession.VinceBlaze said:Which professions are we referring to? Certainly not all professions.
Dark energy is purely empirical. We haven't yet measured it well enough to say what it is, though. Unfortunately, due to its properties, there is a possibility that we will never find out the precise nature of dark energy (its effects are just incredibly weak). The paper I was involved in was focused on developing a data analysis technique to distinguish between two distinct classes of dark energy models.VinceBlaze said:What is dark energy, and is it empirically perceived? Sounds slightly metaphysical.
I don't see any research being pursued by adherents to religion to further their religion. Though I suppose I could have missed some.How is this any different then from religion? Both the historian and the religionist are non-scientific. How can I really trust either of them?
Following the scientific method to uncover new empirical knowledge.If all scientists are researchers, yet not all researchers are scientists, then what sets apart scientists from the greater body of researchers?
Generally, the important question to ask in this would be whether the research adds to the body of empirical knowledge. Scientists try to do this, people who apply it do not try to do this. Of course, this is giving a more black and white view then is actually present in the real world.I guess that I view not only the research, but also the implementation of methods as science.
For example, I am a corporate manager highly skilled in work ergonomics. I've trained hundreds of employee laborers in the corporate realm, many of whom became super-performers through the implementation of ergonomic principles. I can walk onto virtually any work crew and increase it's overall productivity levels by 10%, and have commonly done so when running other people's crews for them. I consider work ergonomics to be a science, and anyone who works ergonomically to be a scientist. This is perhaps not the strictest definition of science, but it is nonetheless one that I generally hold.
Finding order in chaos could be evidence of God, don't look at it backwards in an attempt to evidence your point of view.And how does finding chaos suddenly equate to finding God?
don't jump to conclusions to quickly.Chaos theory does not mean what you think it means.
This part of the discussion will come later. Right now, we are only talking about the what if God does exist. As a scientific minded individual, you must deal with the what if's in life and that includes but is not limited to God existing.Or God never existed in the first place, which is infinitely more likely.
Again, at the moment we are only dealing with the what if He does exist. The what if nots come later as my post clearly indicates. But on the what if side of your arguement, the point is, the evidence is the same evidence, the conclusion is based on the premises and thus the logical outcome of the same evidnce can be different.So when you ask for evidence of God's existance, it is the same evidence you use to say God doesn't exist. See the problem with logic, is that the outcome is not always consistant.You can't be evil if you don't even exist. Only your believers can be evil in that case. Everything you see as evidence of his being I see as indicating the contrary.
Wow so many issues and so little time. I am guessing that the heart of your problem here is that religious beliefs are not based on empirical evidence but on spiritual evidence. The problem however, is that as demonstrated above, yours, that is that there is no god, is based on the very same lack of empirical evidence. We can look at the empirical evidence and question it, and study it and come to a logical conclusion but in the end, it still comes down to what you believe, whether that be what you have been taught, indoctrinated to believe, or rebellious or some other all together, one's religious belief no matter what it is, comes from the heart or soul/spirit if you will and not some science book or experiment. Some, as I personally have done, look at empirical evidence and draw a conclusion based on a logical progression of evaluation. I am guessing you have done the same though I am not sure as I see no logical progession of your ideas being put forth. The point is, one belief is equal to another scientifically speaking, so in order to find truth in religious matters, we cannot attack it scientifically. There are those who are uncomfortable with this, but it is how our spiritual side functions. Don't be too quick to dismiss what the empirical evidence suggests on both accounts, the existance and the none existance of god.But more than that, since there never was any positive evidence of such a thing, since people often admit they believe in gods for no other reason than their emotional need (which I don't understand because I don't share it) and since there are hundreds of conflicting denominations just within Christianity -to say nothing of all the other religions, and while everyone claims theirs is the "absolute truth" (a logical impossibility) and none among them ever had any way to verify if their beliefs were any more accurate than anyone else's -and since no one can even show that their religious beliefs weren't simply made up out of nothing, then I have no reason to believe in gods and plenty of good reasons not to.
I think you are looking at my post backward. If God exists, then the chaos in this world isn't chaos at all, just order that we don't understand.So you agree then that if God exists then nature makes no sense anymore.
I'm not, I'm just trying to decipher your reasoning, which seems a bit confused.Finding order in chaos could be evidence of God, don't look at it backwards in an attempt to evidence your point of view.
Razzelflabben earlier post said:I am not suggesting there are NO absolutes in that there is nothing we can rely on, but rather that there is always a chance? of that absolute not being absolute at all. This is true in both situations, but one allows for chaos the other, disorder in the midst of order which is exactly what you seem to be looking for as a scientist. Therefore what you are looking for is God without ever accepting the fact that God exists.
Now where did I suggest that the evidence was conclusive, well done, or anything else along that line, in fact, if you had asked, I could have cut your time down in your reply. The point is not that the evidence is conclusive, only that the evidence exists. It seems that you want to argue the evidence instead of the point I am making that evidence does exist. As is always the case, our logical conclusion of the evidence depends on the premis we use when we review the evidence. To claim there is no evidence is a false statement as I have demonstrated to you. To aregue about whether or not the premis is correct is a totally different discussion. So if you are ready to admit that evidence does exist, we can move on to the premis, but it seems you still don't accept that the evidence exists. One step at a time, a progression of truths. Does the evidence exist?This study was done about 90 years ago, so a red flag should immediately go up right there. Here's the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Attempted_demonstrations_of_the_soul_as_distinct_from_the_mind
The researcher's methodology was flawed, the results were inconsistent, and though he promised to do follow up work, the follow up never came. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the work was anything but utterly false.
I have shown you much evidence to point to support my claim. What you are questioning is the premis and conclusion of which I have not yet discussed and so I don't totally understand what you are trying to get at here. I have shown you how the empirical evidence and be used to draw the logical conclusion of a God, when you understand what evidence is being used we can get into the knitty gritty of the premises and conclusions, but first you must understand that the evidence does exist and what evidence exists or our discussion of premis and conclusion will go round and round without meaning.It'd be nice if you would try, because so far you're 0 for 1.
Ah, but that is a falacy, there is much about our universe that science understands but can't explain, and that is where God comes in, God puts explaination to what we understand, at least for many people in this world. Our understanding of the universe helps us to comprehend and understand God and vise versa. They are connected in ways that man can only hope to understand which is exactly why there are always more questions than answers.Except that modern science has provided explanations for the existence and nature of our world. There is, quite simple, no need for any god to exist to explain one single thing about our universe. Though you're welcome to try pointing something out.
I am somewhat unclear as to what you are really asking, so I will stab in the dark here. Our "religious" perspective will "color" our understanding of what we discover scientifically. Doesn't matter what our religious belief. For example, the people of "old" believed in many gods, therefore their understanding of furtility, sun, moon, etc. was very different, in fact, the Hebrew understanding of the world was much more in line with our current understanding than many of the other people groups of the time, simply because their religious beliefs colored their understanding. What your belief is, will color your understanding, and that can be as individual as you and I are or as general as a specific religion or denomination. Depends on many factors.What I am saying is that if there is a God, chaos isn't chaos at all. What we deem disorderly, is really order. What we see as chaos is'nt chaos at all, it provides a different mindset, a different set of options to the world and our understanding of the world.
even from an orthodox Christian POV is this true?
is quantum indeterminism determinant for God?
are non linear dynamical systems nonchaotic to God?
or is this just another modern rephrasing of the free will v. foreordination of God discussion?
justify your answer.
I don't want to start another discussion, but I need to ask a question here, if someone would give me aquick but accurate answer, I would appreciate it.Dark energy is purely empirical. We haven't yet measured it well enough to say what it is, though. Unfortunately, due to its properties, there is a possibility that we will never find out the precise nature of dark energy (its effects are just incredibly weak). The paper I was involved in was focused on developing a data analysis technique to distinguish between two distinct classes of dark energy models.
Fair enoughI'm not, I'm just trying to decipher your reasoning, which seems a bit confused.
Right, but what if an accurate description of the world is found in God? If you refuse to accept the possiblity, you can not hope to find accurate descriptions of the world much less understand those descriptions that you do uncover. Point being that as a scientist, you cannot remove any possibilities until such time as you have conclusive reason to do so. If you can't even test for God's existance, you can't discount His existance and His potential existances influence on our understanding of the empirical world.[/size][/font]
The bolded part seems very confused to me at least. As a scientists, I'm not looking for God. I'm just looking for an accurate description of the world.
No, it doesn't exist. It was a bad experiment, and should be completely discounted.Now where did I suggest that the evidence was conclusive, well done, or anything else along that line, in fact, if you had asked, I could have cut your time down in your reply. The point is not that the evidence is conclusive, only that the evidence exists.
So, just because we don't yet have the experimental data to infer every little detail of our world, we must insert God? I'm sorry, but no, that makes no sense whatsoever. I, for one, will not make the leap to saying that God gives particles their mass just because we haven't yet created the Higgs boson in the laboratory.Ah, but that is a falacy, there is much about our universe that science understands but can't explain, and that is where God comes in, God puts explaination to what we understand, at least for many people in this world.
Dark energy is scientific because it is empirical. Dark energy is a theoretical model used to explain why the expansion of the universe does not conform to the energy density of the universe as inferred by the matter that we can measure (both dark matter and normal matter). Another possibility is a modification of gravity on very large scales, and this possible modification is placed under the umbrella of dark energy for ease of communication.The above sounds much like our "measure" for the existance of God, yet I have repeatedly been told that any "religious" study is not scientific because it can't be conclusively evidenced. But dark energy is because? What makes dark energy scientifc when we will not be able to have conclusive results, but testing for God is not scientific?
Dark energy/matter is currently little more than a place-holder for a series of reliable observations that essentially demand a universe containing a decided minority of ordinary matter.The above sounds much like our "measure" for the existance of God, yet I have repeatedly been told that any "religious" study is not scientific because it can't be conclusively evidenced. But dark energy is because? What makes dark energy scientifc when we will not be able to have conclusive results, but testing for God is not scientific?
When I read this reply, I suspected you weren't really reading or at least understanding my posts, after reading the entire reply, I am sure of it. The evidence exists, the quality, premis, conclusion, etc. is what you are questioning. That is a different discussion all together, the question I am dealing with at the moment is what evidence exists, we can discuss the sugnificance of the evidence at length after we determine what evidence exists.No, it doesn't exist. It was a bad experiment, and should be completely discounted.
I am not suggesting that at all, what I am suggesting is that we cannot remove the possibility of God simply because we have no more evidence for His existance than we have for his lack of existance. In short, it's an "even handed" approach to our understanding of the spiritual part of our world. Which in turn can help us in our understanding of the empirical world.So, just because we don't yet have the experimental data to infer every little detail of our world, we must insert God? I'm sorry, but no, that makes no sense whatsoever. I, for one, will not make the leap to saying that God gives particles their mass just because we haven't yet created the Higgs boson in the laboratory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?