Atheism

So actually, I concede to your point. In order to become a Christian I must formulate a Christian God hypothesis (x); and then compute the consequences of that hypothesis to see what it would imply and compare these to nature, experience, or experiment, observation etc. to see if it works. If it agrees, I can practice religion until someone else disproves it.

Is the Christian God a real scientifically verified theory like M Theory? No. He's not. Although last night someone tried to tell me two individuals proved that hypothesis, John Clayton and Richard Mead. But neither scientifically proved God.

Originally posted by Oliver North
there is no such thing as an "objectively logical" decision. logic is a construction of human philosophy. something can be logical in a certain context given certain goals, not logical in a sense that transcends human experience or culture.

the line you quoted (from my reply to Bently) was merely an acknowledgement that I believe there is some type objective world distinct from human perception.

The nature of something similar to the Christian God would make it pretty hard to describe in terms of any language, hence pretty difficult to pull off as a scientific theory.

Keep in mind that science is an empiric method, it's meant to describe and communicate experience. To describe is to compare, so if you were to talk about something godly, you'd need to have something that can be measured against God in order to even have any point of view that would validate your experience. And this is just describing, you'd need to have some understanding of God already to even know that it can be meaningfully compared with something else. You'd need to know a whole lot about God already to even begin applying the scientific method.

The scientific method is basically applied common sense and may be summarized in A-B-C fashion:

- A: Action (Do something). Form a hypothesis; acquire whatever knowledge and equipment you need to test it; test it.
- B: Behold (See what happens). Observe and record the results of testing your hypothesis.
- C: Consensus (Have others do what you did, or repeat it yourself). See what you get with multiple trials. Is there consistency, ie, reliability? Then you could be on to something. Validity is trickier, even with empirical data.

Still, this method has proven highly successful when gathering empirical data to learn about the empirical world. But it doesn't have to be practiced solely on an empirical level. What's important is that, in applying scientific method, the tools you use reflect the domain being studied.

Regarding transcendent things, traditionally this is where meditation comes in.

Here's what I'm gathering.

Meditate, be altruistic (selfless), form relationship, bathe in the love (Bentley) - see if I have experiences with the Christian God in particular; then begin to test it. That's where the hypothesis comes in. Find a way to measure X via studying the Bible, find ways to test the Bible in relation to scriptural statements that are falsifiable, test. However, regarding transient things, as Mindship states, there is no current field of science right now for this type of thing, so as I scientist I'd need to conceive my own branch of science that is not transient?

I'm sorry, this is an underpinning I want feedback on, because I don't understand it at the moment. I would like to pursue this line of thought, but I find it dangerously similar to non-scientific endeavors undergone by those who've tried to uncover the truth of certain religions (too many to name); I'm talking a purely scientific way to go about it. I feel I may be merely rambling with meaningless terminologies, something I stated I would no longer do here or anywhere - and I feel I should keep to that. By virtue this study would encompass M theory, and what I'd be trying to reach would be a thing far exceeding 11 dimensional hyperspace, super-symmetry, string theory, multi-verse, etc. in scope and scale. It would go from either what plays the strings that form up the scientifically postulated cosmoses, the very foundation of any existence we've speculated on. Obviously I would need to be a polymath to validly work on it as is is more than physics, evolution, psychology, it is a real cosmology. A bridge that runs through all the sciences. That would be the branch, cosmology (encompassing everything that exists). Any thoughts?

not a topic related to atheism?

.

Originally posted by Dolos
Here's what I'm gathering.

Meditate, be altruistic (selfless), form relationship, bathe in the love (Bentley) - see if I have experiences with the Christian God in particular; then begin to test it. That's where the hypothesis comes in. Find a way to measure X via studying the Bible, find ways to test the Bible in relation to scriptural statements that are falsifiable, test. However, regarding transient things, as Mindship states, there is no current field of science right now for this type of thing, so as I scientist I'd need to conceive my own branch of science that is not transient?

I'm sorry, this is an underpinning I want feedback on, because I don't understand it at the moment. I would like to pursue this line of thought, but I find it dangerously similar to non-scientific endeavors undergone by those who've tried to uncover the truth of certain religions (too many to name); I'm talking a purely scientific way to go about it. I feel I may be merely rambling with meaningless terminologies, something I stated I would no longer do here or anywhere - and I feel I should keep to that. By virtue this study would encompass M theory, and what I'd be trying to reach would be a thing far exceeding 11 dimensional hyperspace, super-symmetry, string theory, multi-verse, etc. in scope and scale. It would go from either what plays the strings that form up the scientifically postulated cosmoses, the very foundation of any existence we've speculated on. Obviously I would need to be a polymath to validly work on it as is is more than physics, evolution, psychology, it is a real cosmology. A bridge that runs through all the sciences. That would be the branch, cosmology (encompassing everything that exists). Any thoughts?

And I understand that now.

Originally posted by Dolos
Here's what I'm gathering.

Meditate, be altruistic (selfless), form relationship, bathe in the love (Bentley) - see if I have experiences with the Christian God in particular; then begin to test it. That's where the hypothesis comes in. Find a way to measure X via studying the Bible, find ways to test the Bible in relation to scriptural statements that are falsifiable, test. However, regarding transient things, as Mindship states, there is no current field of science right now for this type of thing, so as I scientist I'd need to conceive my own branch of science that is not transient?

I'm sorry, this is an underpinning I want feedback on, because I don't understand it at the moment. I would like to pursue this line of thought, but I find it dangerously similar to non-scientific endeavors undergone by those who've tried to uncover the truth of certain religions (too many to name); I'm talking a purely scientific way to go about it. I feel I may be merely rambling with meaningless terminologies, something I stated I would no longer do here or anywhere - and I feel I should keep to that. By virtue this study would encompass M theory, and what I'd be trying to reach would be a thing far exceeding 11 dimensional hyperspace, super-symmetry, string theory, multi-verse, etc. in scope and scale. It would go from either what plays the strings that form up the scientifically postulated cosmoses, the very foundation of any existence we've speculated on. Obviously I would need to be a polymath to validly work on it as is is more than physics, evolution, psychology, it is a real cosmology. A bridge that runs through all the sciences. That would be the branch, cosmology (encompassing everything that exists). Any thoughts?

I think your main problem is idea soup, to borrow the "word soup" phrase. You somehow mash together words, thoughts, and fields that are in no way related, in the same sentence or paragraph. This problem is not related to this post alone.

Make sure you understand the smaller bits first, before working on whatever grand unifying whatever-the-hell it seems like you want to work toward. Frankly, it's hard to even follow your train of thought, much less make sense of it and have any response to it. Maybe this is at least a bit more sober approach to the glib statement I made earlier, that we butted heads on briefly. It's hard to take you seriously about "far exceeding 11 dimensional hyperspace" when it seems like you barely have a layman's grasp of the concept...or if you do, your ability to articulate it is lacking. And you combine it into the same general line of thought as "transient beings" and meditation, and bathing in love (?!), and testing the Christian God/Bible, as if simply alluding to a "bridge" unifying all of this makes it so, and that the bridge is as you imagine it and can be articulated through the physical laws you mention. If I had to draw a comparison, I'd make one with the wide array of New Age pseudo-scientific endeavors that use borrowed scientific words in borderline nonsense ways in order to sell a product or rally to a cause or idea. That's not your intent - I realize - but the language patterns aren't entirely dissimilar.

There is literature on all of the things you talk about. You aren't without avenues of study, as I'm sure you're aware. I'd direct you there above all, because KMC will be of limited use to you otherwise.

I was aware of the fallacies I was making as I was writing that. I'm beginning to see why I stooped for it - I want to put everything together, but I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm sloppy, disorganized in my thought process, I need to learn to file.

Originally posted by Mindship
The scientific method is basically applied common sense and may be summarized in A-B-C fashion:

- A: Action (Do something). Form a hypothesis; acquire whatever knowledge and equipment you need to test it; test it.
- B: Behold (See what happens). Observe and record the results of testing your hypothesis.
- C: Consensus (Have others do what you did, or repeat it yourself). See what you get with multiple trials. Is there consistency, ie, reliability? Then you could be on to something. Validity is trickier, even with empirical data.

Still, this method has proven highly successful when gathering empirical data to learn about the empirical world. But it doesn't have to be practiced solely on an empirical level. What's important is that, in applying scientific method, the tools you use reflect the domain being studied.

Regarding transcendent things, traditionally this is where meditation comes in.

Indeed. There is a difference between applying a scientific approach to understand experience and to seek for scientific proof, my comment was meant to discourage the idea of postulating God as a scientific truth, because I found that conceptualisation of God pretty meaningless -if you must know God well already to make it a scientific truth, you already know God, so from a spiritual standpoint the proof is moot-.

Originally posted by Bentley
Indeed. There is a difference between applying a scientific approach to understand experience and to seek for scientific proof, my comment was meant to discourage the idea of postulating God as a scientific truth, because I found that conceptualisation of God pretty meaningless -if you must know God well already to make it a scientific truth, you already know God, so from a spiritual standpoint the proof is moot-.

@Dolos: Imo, Digi stated your situation nicely with his word soup statement. The only thing I would add is about meditation. Don't attach preconceived notions to it. Just think of it as attention training, pure and simple, and take it from there (should you be so inclined).

Originally posted by Dolos
JIA, if there is a multiverse - like M theory suggests - than the creation of the universe is a very small part of creation. The cycle goes on and on. It never ends. Even if God were scientifically validated, with everything written on the necessity of a God by scholarly and educated individuals like Patrick Mead, in the end - even the evidence for God is subject to scientific scrutiny.

I have yet to make a life-changing decision, and I just don't know if I should or shouldn't. But I do know that if I do become a true Disciple, it won't be about the scientific facts, it will be about whether or not the choice, and the sacrifices entailed, are worth the risk of me being wrong about this one truth.

Faith is not necessarily following blindly, but it is following the incomprehensible plan of God. To know God through science is to know everything there ever will be to know, for as long as there is the unknown science says God is potentially falsifiable. We are not omniscient.

M-Theory creates questions, it doesn't answer them.

It is a metaphysical approach to explaining the origin of the universe that requires more faith to believe in than the God of the Bible.

Besides, most of the strings (or dimensions) are not empirically provable.

However, the Bible provides answers to a plethora of life questions, including the origin of the universe.

Still debating the existence of God?

I thought you said that you had faith?

To know God through science is not to know everything there ever will be to know. It is to know what things God has chosen to reveal to us through the things that He has made.

Just remember though...you cannot examine God with a microscope because He's too big.

YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rSA983V34Y

Disclaimer: I do not believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old as my brother in Christ Hugh Ross does.

http://proofforgod.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/m-theory/

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=129#post14471552

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14471905#post14471905

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=130#post14472729

All this talk of answering/creating questions reminds of a recent TED talk. Stuart Firestein makes the point that science and the scientific method aren't about answering questions or alleviating collective ignorance. It's about creating more questions and proliferating ignorance. For the betterment of everyone.

YouTube video

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=132#post14482589

Well when all else fails, just post a link to another thread.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought you said that you had faith?

You talked me out of it with your "pseudo-scientific method" and spooked me out by claiming Christianity is not a theism, but a, as you put it, "a personal relationship with a man [Jesus]". Believe it or not, it is very unscientific to assume there's a supernatural being interacting with you from day to day.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=429#post14483458

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
All this talk of answering/creating questions reminds of a recent TED talk. Stuart Firestein makes the point that science and the scientific method aren't about answering questions or alleviating collective ignorance. It's about creating more questions and proliferating ignorance. For the betterment of everyone.

YouTube video

I agree that TED talks are good for breeding conformism and ignorance 👆

Originally posted by Bentley
I agree that TED talks are good for breeding conformism and ignorance 👆

😂

But really, wut.