Define God

[steve_bank]

^Do you listen to dead musicians? Do you think that wheels are old technology? Do only living scientists have a bearing on science today? As a great scientist once said, "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Fish and visitors stink in three days.

Slow and steady wins the race.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Don't bite the hand that feeds the golden goose, because a watched pot saves nine and a zebra cannot change its spots. (My grandpa said this to me over and over. He was in the nuthouse.)

 

[lostone]

I'll drink to that. OTOH, I'll drink to almost anything. May God, who created this nuthouse, but does not exist, forgive us.

 

[DBT]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

 

[steve_bank]

Don;t eat the yellow snow.

 

[Learner]

I'll drink to that. OTOH, I'll drink to almost anything. May God, who created this nuthouse, but does not exist, forgive us

(Keeping with the sense of humour of the thread)

I think you must mean the nuthouse is a causation of evolution, coz God does not exist (in your paradigm).

Natural selection are biological adaptations through time.

An adaptation is a physical or behavioural characteristic that helps an organism to survive in its environment.

Nuttiness therefore exists because it is either, a "survival" characteristic,or....

... its the total opposite. Which therefore means: "natural selection" ain't doing a very good job keeping 'nuttiness' out of the survival pool.

 

[DBT]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

 

[lostone]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

Good a guess as any. IMO, more likely he is incompetent, insane, or non-existent. But those are boring options.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Learner]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

It's only a nutty world for humans when it involves humans. "Nutty humans" the animals of the wild must often be saying to themselves.

Biblically speaking...
..that is the result and consequence as its been told for millennia: humans can't run the world by themselves!

'Thall shalt not be nutty' ,sums up the overall essence of the commandments.

Join us my secular friends.
No Jew, no gentile, all are free from nuttiness in Christ.

 

[DBT]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

It's only a nutty world for humans when it involves humans. "Nutty humans" the animals of the wild must often saying to themselves.

Biblically speaking...
..that is the result and consequence as its been told for millennia: humans can't run the world by themselves!

Thall shalt not be nutty sums up the overall essence of the commandments.

Join us my secular friends.
No Jew, no gentile, all are free from nuttiness in Christ.

If a God - being omnipotent and omniscient - created the world and humans, He created them to be precisely the way they are.

 

[Learner]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

It's only a nutty world for humans when it involves humans. "Nutty humans" the animals of the wild must often saying to themselves.

Biblically speaking...
..that is the result and consequence as its been told for millennia: humans can't run the world by themselves!

Thall shalt not be nutty sums up the overall essence of the commandments.

Join us my secular friends.
No Jew, no gentile, all are free from nuttiness in Christ.

If a God - being omnipotent and omniscient - created the world and humans, He created them to be precisely the way they are.

Yes indeed... to be nurtured.

 

[steve_bank]

God exists and He is the prankster that created a nutty world?

It's only a nutty world for humans when it involves humans. "Nutty humans" the animals of the wild must often saying to themselves.

Biblically speaking...
..that is the result and consequence as its been told for millennia: humans can't run the world by themselves!

Thall shalt not be nutty sums up the overall essence of the commandments.

Join us my secular friends.
No Jew, no gentile, all are free from nuttiness in Christ.

If a God - being omnipotent and omniscient - created the world and humans, He created them to be precisely the way they are.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[bilby]

If a God - being omnipotent and omniscient - created the world and humans, He created them to be precisely the way they are.

Indeed.

If God had meant men to fly, he would have given us airline tickets.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes indeed... to be nurtured.

You have to realize how hollow those words sound, around here. God is demonstrably nurturing us just as much as you'd expect an imaginary entity to do. Who does the nurturing on earth? People do. They step in with firefighting, policing, disaster relief; with medical treatment, elder care, counseling; with education and social work; with philosophy; with scientific research to improve living conditions, agriculture, medicine, and knowledge. As for God nurturing mankind in Bible terms -- this God picked one ethnic group as special above all the rest and gave them explicit permission to enslave the others, and explicit orders to exterminate the others in real estate disputes. I'm beating a long-dead horse here, yes, but it's lying here, right out in the open, with bleached bones and fly-blown scraps of hide. There's such an unsavory undercurrent to the Bible narrative that I find the airbrushing of it to be absurd.

 

[pood]

Interpretation or theory is determined by observation and testing. Which appears to be a matter of science, not philosophy.

The choice to use observation and testing as our approach, rather than something else (for example, prayer, meditation and silent contemplation; or taking psychadelic drugs, in an effort to consult our spirit guide) is very much a matter of philosophy.

There is a distinction to be made between observation and testing which is scientific enquiry and philosophy as a rational enquiry into abstract concepts, the meaning of life, morality, ideology, etc. Empirical testing in contrast to rational exploration of ideas and concepts. There may be an overlap, but the two are not the same.

The overlap is 100%, but they are indeed "not the same". In the same way (and for the same reason) that 'red' is not the same as 'colour'.

Scientific enquiry is a subset of philosophy.

Not a hundred percent. The distinction to be made between philosophy and science is the reason why we have two words, science and philosophy. Science is not the same as philosophy...so at times it starts to sound like theists with their rationale ''it's all a matter of faith.''

No no one claims that science and philosophy are EXACTLY the same thing, but science is clearly a subset of philosophy, and was once called natural philosophy.

The issue at hand, and which should be in the Philosophy of Science thread, is the apparent allegation that philosophy is worthless. If it were, you’d be dead. You do philosophy all the waking time even if you don’t know it.

 

[DBT]

I think that the distinction to be made between science and philosophy is the separation. Where science can be done without philosophy - observation, information testing - and philosophy can be done without science - Aquinas, etc.

 

[bilby]

Where science can be done without philosophy - observation, information testing...

Without philosophy, how would anyone decide that these things need to be, or should be, done?

Choosing to do science (rather than, for example, to pray for divine guidance) is philosophy.

 

[DBT]

Where science can be done without philosophy - observation, information testing...

Without philosophy, how would anyone decide that these things need to be, or should be, done?

Choosing to do science (rather than, for example, to pray for divine guidance) is philosophy.

Scientific inquiry in terms of understanding the natural world produces practical benefit, medicine, technology, astronomy, physics......which is something that philosophy alone did not, and could not achieve. Of course it need not be a matter of one or the other, but both.

 

[bilby]

Scientific inquiry in terms of understanding the natural world produces practical benefit, medicine, technology, astronomy, physics......which is ...

... your philosophy to justify scientific inquiry in the first place.

I agree with your philosophy. I just fail to comprehend your aversion to calling it what it is - Philosophy.