Originally posted by queeqSpecifically, it automatically falls outside the realm of empirical science but not necessarily scientific method.
Science can only measure empirical data, only thing from the material realm. Anything that might exits under the concept of spiritual therefore automatically falls outside of the realm of science.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
😬Any God that created the universe (especially the mono-theistic gods of human religions) is nigh-infinitely complex, and they get around the problem of his creation by using a priori arguments of his perfect and everlasting nature.
Ok, but it's still logically impossible for something to exist without prior cause. That definition may work for the faithful, but fails utterly when presented to anyone else. I'm always surprised that while theists can imagine a God that has no time scale and "always is," they shun the idea that the eternal entity is the universe itself (due to warped time at the singularity point pre-Big Bang).
Beyond that, let's assume a force (we'll call it God) created the universe from nothing, instead of natural forces. The God of any earth religion is one who intervenes on Earth in various ways (paranormal phenomenon, prayer, etc.) and so we should be able to detect evidence of it's existence. That's where it falls apart into sheer faith, because no such evidence exists outside of suspect anecdotes.
If you want to assume a Creator made the universe instead of having rational scientific explanations (which exist and can be defended), go ahead. Personally, I see that as such an unlikely event as to be effectively ignorable.
....
Shakya, if you ever find that article on the creation of matter from nothing, send it along to me. I know of similar findings in quantum sciences, but have never read anything on it in depth.
digi it is the duty of the faithful to ignore logic. just look at ushomefree he's a PERFECT example
Originally posted by queeqScientific method is "applied common sense," and common sense dictates you use tools and collect data which reflect the domain being studied. This is why you wouldn't use, say, a microscope to study the meaning of a sentence. Further, to take the stance that "Only empirical evidence counts," is self-contradicting, as there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence "Only empirical evidence counts." For that matter, there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of any sentence or any action of Mind. Please don't say, neurochemical activity, because that is empirical evidence for Brain functioning (to confuse the two is to commit what's called a category error). We assume it reflects mental activity, but since "assumption" itself is a mental activity, that assumption is not allowed, otherwise you're now engaging in bootstrap reasoning.
What method if there's nothing to measure, replicate, test or predict... ?
Has nothing to do with assumptions but with definitions. Science defines things to make them measurable.
And there IS empirical data to both your examples. Your sentence "Only empirical evidence counts"has a) words b) that can be replicated and c) that have defintions i.e. a dictionary for instance. One can therefore use that sentence in various parts of the English speaking world and test waht people understand in reading that line. That particular experiment surrenders data that can be processed. Plus that process can be repeated.
Neurochemical activity may be defined as scientific mental activity.. but then it's never called that, it's called brain activity. And that's a fine definition. It's the definition that creates the possibility to test, PLUS by asking the subject who's brain activity is measured one can link it to mental activity (once that is defined properly). So again, measurable variables that can be tested and retested using the same defintions.
Try doing that with spirituality.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
😬Any God that created the universe (especially the mono-theistic gods of human religions) is nigh-infinitely complex, and they get around the problem of his creation by using a priori arguments of his perfect and everlasting nature.
Ok, but it's still logically impossible for something to exist without prior cause. That definition may work for the faithful, but fails utterly when presented to anyone else. I'm always surprised that while theists can imagine a God that has no time scale and "always is," they shun the idea that the eternal entity is the universe itself (due to warped time at the singularity point pre-Big Bang).
Beyond that, let's assume a force (we'll call it God) created the universe from nothing, instead of natural forces. The God of any earth religion is one who intervenes on Earth in various ways (paranormal phenomenon, prayer, etc.) and so we should be able to detect evidence of it's existence. That's where it falls apart into sheer faith, because no such evidence exists outside of suspect anecdotes.
If you want to assume a Creator made the universe instead of having rational scientific explanations (which exist and can be defended), go ahead. Personally, I see that as such an unlikely event as to be effectively ignorable.
....
Shakya, if you ever find that article on the creation of matter from nothing, send it along to me. I know of similar findings in quantum sciences, but have never read anything on it in depth.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
respect a....nonliving thing. honestly shaky i expected more. the universe did not know. even if it didnt HAVE to, which is in any case irrelevant, it still didnt know. therefore we CAN check the random chance box. and it being real to us is truly all that matter. there is no other perspective, at least not currently other than humans
I absolutely disagree. Chance is only us small humans not understanding. Chance does not exist in nature.
Originally posted by queeq
Exactly. Which also shows the limitations of using science as a search tool for truth.
this supposition is based on the idea that there is something beyond the material universe, a proposition that has no evidence.
In fact, untestability can be viewed as a worse condemnation than falsehood.
One must first assume that God exists for the lack of the ability to test him to be a limitation. The inability to test something that doesn't exist is surely not a limitation.
Well, yeah, but a materialistic view on the world in one limited to the Western World... and who says that's the only possible view?
And untestability is limited. Witness reports are used in the court of law and serve as evidence. Yet, they are not empirically testable because a crime situation cannot be repeated.
So if people witness of their spirituality and one finds many similarities, one tries to find the answer to taht in a materialistic world view. Somehow, what is valid in the court of law, suddenly doesn't count anymore when it comes to spirituality.
The existence of God is one assumption, the non-existence of God is another. The point is, science is bound to many many laws for sound research. It binds it that many non-material things kinda escape his graps. One such field is psychology... very little is properly testable and when it is, it often gets replaced by another approach with new assumptions.
Re: god didn't create the universe
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?
Well, then what created the big bang? One will never know for sure what created what and how it all started, but I guess it gives us something to do, spending our time trying to figure it all out.
Re: Re: god didn't create the universe
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Well, then what created the big bang? One will never know for sure what created what and how it all started, but I guess it gives us something to do, spending our time trying to figure it all out.
well not know what created the big bang is better than believing in an unseeable unknowable and untouchable god. you cant do anything to prove that he exists. at least we have proof of the big bang....
Originally posted by inimalist
this supposition is based on the idea that there is something beyond the material universe, a proposition that has no evidence.In fact, untestability can be viewed as a worse condemnation than falsehood.
One must first assume that God exists for the lack of the ability to test him to be a limitation. The inability to test something that doesn't exist is surely not a limitation.
👆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove what?You know that no one can prove a negative. You should try to prove that chance is a reflection of nature not knowing what to do.
a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser
Originally posted by chickenlover98
a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser
Just because our intellects can't predict something doesn't mean that it is "chance", or randomness. All things follows natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict them or not.