Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 5. (Read 7917 times)

1)  First bolded reference should read, "...it can not at *any* time falsify..."  You cannot falsify the assumption of a Positivist Universe while using methods that already assume the existence of a Positivistic Universe.  Shortly put, if at any time someone finds a way to falsify a Positivistic Universe (hint: people have), then it's not via the scientific method (e.g. logic).

2)  What about feelings, e.g. warmth?  We know that something is warm if we feel it, but science cannot make any claims about warmth, only degrees of temperature.

3)  Stating "God is ignorance" is a nonsensical statement.  I think you meant something more along the lines of, "Any attempt at gaining knowledge outside the scientific method can only lead to ignorance."  This wouldn't be a nonsensical statement, but just a dumb one since even you, right now at this very second, are using other means to acquire knowledge.

I'd also like to point out that, if what you are saying is true, then nobody knew anything at all prior to the development of the scientific method.

Even if science currently carries assumptions that it can not at this time falsify due to our experimental limitations this does not mean that they are not falsifiable and could be tested in the future. Everything we know literally is science, god is ignorance ..everything we do not know or understand is contributed to god.

I believe that we're surrounded by invisible unicorns at all times. You can't disprove their existence.Hey, don't try to tell me I'm wrong, I'm just trying to understand the Universe.This is the argument made in the above article.

So we have the intelligence to create technologies that are capable of measuring the reality that is far beyond our biological limitations, but you are proposing what, exactly? That because there are aspects of the Universe that are yet to be fully understood . . .therefore God?

Or what? Therefore . . .something you want to arbitrarily claim is possible based solely on your imagination? Not exactly reasonable, is it?

Doesn't define the additional knowledge and sensory capabilities this 'being' might have, so the question is worthless. As it currently stands, everybody has a different perception of reality, namely, theirs.

Hell, no. Evolution now, in our case, is going to happen not from genetic mutation as erroneous gene replication, because we are pretty much all over that medically but, rather, from intellectually-driven advances in technology that will supplant the limitations of our wetware. The question is whether we, as sentient beings, will be able to survive the the process.

Stephen Hawking only recently addressed the inherent dangers of the coming 'AI' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html

Personally, I struggle to see how we will. When AI can advance exponentially and near-instantaneously, without limitation, the 'artificial' aspect becomes irrelevant and a self-aware AI would likely reason that our limited capabilities make us irrelevant to it. But, on the positive side, dysfunctional systems are doomed to failure, therefore a balanced and functional AI super-being would probably be a lot more consistent and reasonable than we could ever hope to be.

Resistance actually is futile.

I, for one, welcome our new AI overlord! - Note the singular?

I think that sana8410 believes that the internet is only available in "America". 

Bitcoin is a digital payment protocol secured with encryption and computing power. Bitcoin is the worlds #1 most powerful computing network and it looks like the god of Bitcoins has many followers.

You get up in the morning, you point your browser at bitcoinwisdom to your horror to find that over night the bitcoin god became less happy. You then spend your day thinking about how the world needs to change its behaviors in order to make the god happier, and you conspire and plot with others to make this happen. Your only solution, the give more of your hard earned dollars to the beast.

Some of you are mono-coinistic, others spread their faith across many gods of both the SHA-256 and SCRYPT religions. Prophets rise out of the sea to either spread the bitcoin gospel, or prophesy its doom, and you bow daily before the multi-headed beast in your basement that is your mining rig.

Amyn.

My favorite unfalsifiable scientific assumption is that light has 0 rest mass. Making this assumption allows scientists to go hog wild in fairy tail land.

The point is that science carries assumptions that it cannot falsify via its own methods.

Science is not religion all experimental science is falsifiable, being wrong is a good thing. Unlike Religion where it must be correct and is in fact wrong about almost everything.

There's also zero evidence for a Positivistic Universe, but scientists don't seem to mind.

How can you disprove something with facts that is not based on fact but faith. There is 0 evidence of any god.

Thank you for my feeling more stupid myself before going to bed after reading that

Some animals can count beyond the number 3, and yet their reality is incompatible with ours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzPiTwDE0bE

So reality is deigned by human perception - if we can form a gestalt then that's the truth.
Failure to form a gestalt is the test for reality?
Reality is a function of human perception?

It seems your vision of reality is human centric (because you happen to have been born human).

Most animals can't count to 3.  For them, numbers do not exist.

I suspect as humans we are blind to much of reality like most animals are oblivious to things that seem obvious to us.

What if reality is beyond our human minds simply because we are just not clever enough?

Would a being 10 times as intelligent as you have a different and more advanced perception of reality?

Do you think the human brain is the pinnacle of intelligence? That at some point in our evolution we passed a point of 'all knowing possibility'?

The truth is, we're just apes grunting at each other.

My argument is that numbers have an existence that supersedes the tangible.

Numbers don't change over time nor do they take up any space. Representing tangible 'things' that take up space and change over time as a prerequisite for their existence seems unnecessary.

I said that numbers were an abstraction rooted in the literal in that they ultimately represent a tangible thing, even though they can still be used without needing to define 'thing'.

So, while the mathematician can run through no end of number-based processes that aren't simplistic counts of a quantity, the fact that the numbers themselves are defined as having a tangible meaning, denotes their abstraction as being from the literal. This is why math makes the most sense as being the language of the Universe because any sound or image can be used as the label that describes 'thing', 'thing and another thing', 'thing and another thing and another thing', otherwise known as 1,2,3.

If numbers are just abstraction then how is it they have properties i.e. association, cumulation and distribution? Seems to me numbers themselves can be classified as a 'thing' i.e. quite literally some'thing' with properties.

The concept of an absence of any'thing' is the abstraction IMO.

This is my point about abstraction derived from the literal is a basis for reasoning, while abstraction derived solely from the figurative is not.

You cannot measure the temperature of the number 2, nor can you measure it's width, height or pretty much anything else about the number two, because it is an abstraction meant to represent *something*.

What does it represent? It represents a quantity of 'thing'. In that 1 represents a 'thing', 2 represents that 'thing' and another 'thing' and so on. We don't need to define that 'thing' unless we are actually using numbers for the simplistic task of establishing a quantity of [insert things here]. But, and this is the difference between abstraction related to math and that related to 'God', while numbers can be employed entirely without need to reference any particular 'thing', their root basis is as the abstract  representation of something literal.

Zero, is a representation of the absence of 'thing'.

'Thing' is literal without needing to be defined, therefore its use for mathematical abstraction purposes is objective and reasonable.


You cannot measure the temperature of 'God', nor can you measure it's width, height or pretty much anything else about the notion of 'God', because it is an abstraction meant to represent *something*.

What does it represent? It represents a figurative abstraction. It has no objectively definable qualities.

Its use in hypothesis renders such tainted and arbitrary. Its use in argument voids claims towards the process being one of reasoning.

I don't get what point you're trying to point with that Mule? Evolution? I don't think science or evolution necesarily disprove god, but I don't see why the idea of god is needed to prove or explain things anymore.