So if we can't define reality without making assumptions - assumptions which could all be possibly wrong, we can't say anything about reality - or what it is, and whether god is there either way?
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
So if we can't define reality without making assumptions - assumptions which could all be possibly wrong, we can't say anything about reality - or what it is, and whether god is there either way?
I know your definition is wrong. Science is a quest to predict observations. Truth doesn't enter into it unless you're adding some of your own faith into the mix, which is fine, but not something you can demand others do.
Last edited:
We can say quite a bit about reality when the context is set, or at least what our observations of reality will be. Whether our predictions are accurate at defining, as opposed to describing reality is a different thing.
With regards to gods, Science can tell you if a god is necessary, but not if one exists, or acted to create something that could have occurred another way.
From what I've seen thus far, any argument or suggestion that god did something, or was responsible for something, could just as reasonably be argued that my cat did it?
There is no differentiation in evidence and therefore likelihood. And to be honest, one is slightly more likely in my book because at least I can actually see some evidence for my cats existance.
I know this sounds as if I'm trivialising it, or mocking, but I'm trying to make a valid point. The evidence of a "God" seems so non-existant to me I place it in this sort of category of likelihood.
There is no differentiation in evidence and therefore likelihood. And to be honest, one is slightly more likely in my book because at least I can actually see some evidence for my cats existance.
I know this sounds as if I'm trivialising it, or mocking, but I'm trying to make a valid point. The evidence of a "God" seems so non-existant to me I place it in this sort of category of likelihood.
What I said was, a possibility found through the scientific method is more likely to be correct than a possibility which doesn't involve the scientific method.
The axiom of equality within mathematics is an a priori, not a reality based rule. Within the mathematical context, this is irrelevant to the validity of the model, but when you expand from the internal consistency of mathematics to wider philosophical contexts the difference is very important. Fancy, uh? Mathematics, like the scientific method, can't be used to prove itself. So what? It works, it provides answers and it's where we should look for answers, rather than wasting time with every abstract mumbo jumbo idea out there.
I don't care about Universal philosophical truths. What I care about are questions such as 'how?' and 'why?' and science has done a good job at providing answers so far. I therefore politely dismiss ideas that have no basis in science, even if I'm commiting a philosophical sin.
Castiel said:
I'd be very interested in reading the definition of the philosophical 'nothing'.
Castiel said:
Dolph said:
This is like the famous 'What if you're wrong?' Christian question except you go to Philosophical Hell if you are indeed wrong.
You two need to show that there's such a thing as a non scientifical context. What is this mysterious 'thing' or 'nothing' or whatever, science can't touch? In other words, are you by any chance just making it up or are there reasons why you think it might exist?
So you dismiss the underpinnings of modern science? Does that not introduce bias into your philosophy?
And philosophical sin? What are you talking about?
It seems that you offered what you thought was evidence that the Universe came from Nothing, but after being informed that the evidence you supplied doesn't actually say that, only your interpretation and bias does, you are trying to extricate yourself by saying you don't care or redefining your argument by saying that you were only talking about the scientific method in the abstract.
I'd be very interested in reading the definition of the philosophical 'nothing'.
This is like the famous 'What if you're wrong?' Christian question except you go to Philosophical Hell if you are indeed wrong.
You two need to show that there's such a thing as a non scientifical context. What is this mysterious 'thing' or 'nothing' or whatever, science can't touch? In other words, are you by any chance just making it up or are there reasons why you think it might exist?
Oh dear!, I'm sorry but you rely upon a method to define your argument, yet you are ignoring the very basis of that methodology by adding bias and subjective conclusions to the results. You are at best attempting to answer an abstract idea with scientific methodology, however by doing so you are introducing a redefinition and alteration of the context of the philosophical question you are trying to answer in order to validate the use of the Scientific Method through its results...none of the links to research you supplied actually say what you applied them to.
Asking the question "where did the Universe come from?" Is not the same as asking "Can Something come from Nothing?" You are using hypotheses and conjectures to the first question, to answer the second and them wondering why people are questioning you on it!
That you think Nothing can be defined as existing misses the entire nature of what Nothing is and if Nothing exists then it becomes Something...as simply put Nothing has no existence, the moment it does, it becomes Something. It's not a philosophical definition either, it is simply what Nothing means. Nothing similar to Zero and Infinity are effectively abstracts, designed to convey an abstract value or absence thereof.
And since when has 'what if you're wrong?' Become a Christian question? ...it is one of the most basic questions in the Scientific Method. Again you are introducing personal bias to your reasoning.
As for a non-scientific context....aside from dolph's example, making an assumption that Quantum Fluctuation negates God or is Something from Nothing. That is an unscientific assumption as it introduces personal bias and context to the conclusion.
Last edited:
If a tool is one day developed that can accurately interpret and/or manipulate all of the brain's electric signals, it can be used to access the neurons/synapses where memories are stored and confirm it.
Perhaps, however a tool like doesn't currently exist and neither is there evidence that such a tool would give the results you require as we do not have enough knowledge of the brain to make a prediction of any value. That is basically only an assumption. Scientific methodology would demand far more than what you have said in order to make any valid predictions regarding such a conclusion.
So can you answer Dolph's question without 'making stuff up' as you succinctly put it earlier?
Last edited:
What an amazing piece of whataboutery...
The answer is no, Science cannot confirm if I can play the piano if I refuse to cooperate because it cannot be verified by repetition, which is a fundamental of the scentific method.
So there is your answer to something that the scientific method couldn't measure.
But all this seems to achieve is the creation of a bulletproof vague idea which can't be disproved, can't be questioned - even thought about properly, because as Castiel has pointed out - all questions are meaningless on the existence of things like god.
I mean - I can't argue against what you're saying, as far as i'm concerned there is no counter argument to that position, but at the same time I don't see where it gets us, other than a deeper understanding of a rather long-winded philosophical thought experiment.
you were trying to trivialise and downplay the significance of an alleged encounter with the Divine as if it were comparable to what otherwise would have been considered by the "evidence/literature" as mundane. I dare say you've never looked at any of the information regarding such events, otherwise you might not have made the comparison?
Last edited:
I've looked at enormous amounts.
I have never seen anything, written or spoken by a human being, which has suggested in any way at all, that they have had an actual godly experience of a supernatural nature, which wasn't the result of something with a far more reasonable, natural and local explanation.
In terms of making the comparison, I did so because human beings are experts at fooling themselves - people love to assume there are "fancy" reasons behind the things they experience, such as euphoria or "feelings of god" and I extended an anecdote simply to convey that I've experienced things similar to that, in entirely different circumstances.
Last edited:
That's my point. You have never seen anything written or spoken so you trivialise as you have done so throughout this thread. I am using a phone at the moment so cannot really go in to specifics regarding the evidence usually associated with such things but maybe others will pick this up or I will get a chance to do so later.
The problem is in ascribing universal context to subjective experience. While it may appear to your subjective perception that your experience is comparable to another's, it is subject to your own perception and the bias that incurs. As you said, People are expert at fooling themselves...that can apply to both your experience as well as theirs.
I don't think there is any evidence.
If there was evidence that pointed in any way that a supernatural miracle had occurred, then the world and our knowledge of it would be drastically different to how it is now.
Consider this - it is a known inescapable fact that human beings can behave irrationally and will choose a supernatural explanation, in the face of far more reasonable and obvious one.
Remember this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17803653
The next day people were claiming it was an act of god, that the whole stadium praying for the guy brought him back to life - screw the doctors, the cardiologists and the entire medical team that worked on him, many people were saying it was an act of god - a miracle.
And this is what I'm saying - in the face of simple and reasonable explanations, human beings will ignore it and be convinced it was something else responsible.
I could be wrong, god may have been responsible for re-starting his heart, but come on....
Last edited:
So their subjective experience is "fancier" than mine - and my position is biased, and the result of my own perception, so basically I can't say anything, I can't argue anything - because you've locked it down with philosophy.
No, because the underpinnings of modern science consist of observation followed by hypothesis. I dismiss that which has no observation at it's basis.
I said there's evidence supporting the possibility (quite a different matter) of the Universe coming from a quantum fluctuation in a quantum mechanical vacuum, which is what i considered Nothing to be.
In my opinion, this possibility is more likely than 'God did it'.
This, along with,
Means the propositions are not just equal, they are the same because the moment we consider the proposition The Nothing ---> Universe, then The Nothing becomes The Something.
In other words, we have a similar position in the sense that Something for me is a fluctuation in a vacuum while for you, it could be anything, including a Creator.
It was a Dawkings reference, not a claim regarding the origin of the question..
It doesn't negate God, it's just a better idea than the boring, primitive idea of a Creator. And yes, there's bias in this opinion so watch out, it's just as bad as Noah forgetting about the dinosaurs during the Flood.
Either that or you are mistaking a feeling of euphoria at a concert for just getting involved in the music when in reality it is God trying to talk to you through the medium of music!