I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[Jarhyn]

How is "meaningful" defined? Is a change in the state of one degree of freedom at one point "meaningful"?

I am speaking of "meaningful" to the idea of "meaningful" as relates to Planck distances and quantities.

To wit: there is an activation energy on a transistor. A single electron leaking through is not "meaningful", the field interacting in whole and discrete ways and never diverging from this "discrete" nature in it's most basic properties.

OK. But what do we gain from this observation? Is our universe (the one we live in) completely describable, i.e. fully determinate

Our universe as we observe it will have one series of events that proceed from beginning to end. Whether the determinancy is "just so" or "pseudorandom", the same series of virtual interactions will drive the same systemic output. This means that all such systems are describable in deterministic terms.

Math may describe what happened, in relation to initial conditions (which include the "pad" of the "run"). That the initial conditions are absurd does not change that they are still describable in these terms in their entirety.

What does this have to do with the universe we actually live in?

The universe we live in, if it is describable by math (which it is, as pointed out), is being described by math in quantum physics whose axioms are not invented to make new room for the math of physics in particular.

The math of physics is being described by a limited set of axioms demanded of math that just so happen to continue to be useful for describing everything that happens, without making new additions to those axioms.

This means that any reality so describable is, trivially, describable as a member of a class of such realities, and properties can be general to those objects of such a class, variant as they are by their fundamental absurdity within the set and varied across them by the relationship that defines the field.

Things defined in this way can, in fact, have creator gods.

Thus there are zero or more "creator gods" of such constructions, and they may be omnipotent and omniscient, though they may also be evil assholes.

What this means, philosophically is that "no 'creator god' deserves worship"

Such is a much more philosophically useful position as regards gods, because it prepares those who accept "zero or more" to make informed decisions even if for whatever reason, "or more" happens to pan out; and it acknowledges that there are potential cosmologies, metaphysics, that allow for this.

Doing right by one another is more important and it just so happens that any universe so trivial bound up to be defined by axioms of math as it may be is unequivocally so bound as systems of existence within systems of math are themselves inextricably bound up by game theory; and if it is not so bound up as a mathematical system subordinated under such axioms as demand game theory sensibly understands existing within it, one is DECLARING there to be some ineffable 'thing' unto god that resists the possibility of understanding or describing with axioms and that logic is null and void.

Nowhere in our universe is the ability to make a positive claim that there are exactly zero creator gods. One can make statements which allow such as may or may not exist to be trivial and unimportant ethically speaking; or even ethically repugnant.

I will of course ACT as if there are zero gods until such a time as circumstance proves otherwise. But I will not limit myself to false certainties so as to blind myself to come-whatever-may.

Some of those potentialities demand some tiresome work to be done...

 

[steve_bank]

At the end of the day science comes down to an equation free of context, interpretation, and semantics. Anythimng else is s[eculation, religion, and philosophy.

On the forum pepole appear to think they are arguing science but are arguing philaophy and metaphysics.

I still have not seen any explicit science invoked that says a god can not exist.


A sign that was outside an office "In god we trust, all else bring data'. Provide data in quantified variables that either proves or disproves a god.

Science doas not 'say' anything. People use science to infer a position, subjective.

 

[Politesse]

When someone tells me that they are making an argument from science but then, pressed for detail, cannot objectively demonstrate the basis for the claim they are making, their position relative to science as scientists generally practice it is made clear. We do not do our work by saying "well, it's 'obvious' to any intelligent person, so it must be right" or "Well someone else said something I know to be wrong, therefore I must be right by contrast". This is the language of rhetoric, not science. In the sciences, empirical confirmation is held to be the firm foundation of valid inferences concerning the material world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...concerning the material world.

To my experience this IS the world. Those who claim immaterial worlds, god worlds, must be talking about imaginary worlds, aka worlds that aren't real. Because there is no evidence for such worlds (How would one even present evidence?) we can make the positive claim that such worlds and their gods are not real.

 

[abaddon]

... Because there is no evidence for such worlds (How would one even present evidence?) we can make the positive claim that such worlds and their gods are not real.

Not scientifically though.

This is the thing about positivists... They metaphysicize by declaring what all reality is like, and what's in it and what's not in it. Then they pretend that's not metaphysics, instead it's science. But science has got jackshit to say about matters beyond its limited purview. So what they've done is conflate science with metaphysics and pretend it didn't happen. They won't acknowledge it's metaphysics because they re-defined that to being "angels on pinheads" blather about unreal things; metaphysics is what those other people, the "woo" people, do. So, to positivists, their unscientific declarations about the entirety of existence aren't about "imaginary things" so it must be about science, the body of knowledge about "the real"!

I don't disagree about "immaterial worlds" being imaginary. Several religions contain a lot of blah-blah about transcendent realms, and IMV that's entirely escapism and a tragic misdirection. They must feel very disappointed by "materiality" to need to dream up otherworlds "out there" beyond the one thing everyone knows exists - the immanent "realm" of experiential phenomena. But what I'm talking here is more metaphysics, and I'm fine with that. My point is, these convos would be more forthright if everyone would acknowledge they're philosophical convos and that everyone engaging in them ventures into the speculative. By all means, support your speculations or "extrapolations" with science... but don't pretend they are themselves science.

 

[Jarhyn]

... Because there is no evidence for such worlds (How would one even present evidence?) we can make the positive claim that such worlds and their gods are not real.

Not scientifically though.

This is the thing about positivists... They metaphysicize by declaring what all reality is like, and what's in it and what's not in it. Then they pretend that's not metaphysics, instead it's science. But science has got jackshit to say about matters beyond its limited purview. So what they've done is conflate science with metaphysics and pretend it didn't happen. They won't acknowledge it's metaphysics because they re-defined that to being "angels on pinheads" blather about unreal things; metaphysics is what those other people, the "woo" people, do. So, to positivists, their unscientific declarations about the entirety of existence aren't about "imaginary things" so it must be about science, the body of knowledge about "the real"!

I don't disagree about "immaterial worlds" being imaginary. Several religions contain a lot of blah-blah about transcendent realms, and IMV that's entirely escapism and a tragic misdirection. They must feel very disappointed by "materiality" to need to dream up otherworlds "out there" beyond the one thing everyone knows exists - the immanent "realm" of experiential phenomena. But what I'm talking here is more metaphysics, and I'm fine with that. My point is, these convos would be more forthright if everyone would acknowledge they're philosophical convos and that everyone engaging in them ventures into the speculative. By all means, support your speculations or "extrapolations" with science... but don't pretend they are themselves science.

Which is my whole point! I have done the math on the metaphysics, and it works out that there are zero or more gods. "Exactly zero" is unprovable, "more" is provable but unproven, and in the event of "or more", "does it matter" is also a part, though is entirely contextual.

"It matters" to those who don't care about doing what is right by each other but rather are only looking out for themselves: these people may "look out for themselves" by "worshipping" whatever proves as "god" if any thing may.

"It does not matter" to those who wish to do right by each other, and who understand that the best way to accomplish that is by working together against "that which be assholes."

 

[Politesse]

...concerning the material world.

To my experience this IS the world. Those who claim immaterial worlds, god worlds, must be talking about imaginary worlds, aka worlds that aren't real. Because there is no evidence for such worlds (How would one even present evidence?) we can make the positive claim that such worlds and their gods are not real.

That does not contradict my point in any way.

 

[steve_bank]

To be balanced in the evolution of science there was always speculation thought to be improbable but was true.

Einstein had a hard time selling relativity. The idea of time being variabke was too much for many.

In the 19th century some thought a human body could not survive 40-50mph on a train. Some thought science was at an end, everything there was to be known was known,

As to other than scientifc proof, that has been dated ad infinitem. It boils down to how do you validate non scientific proof. There is a reason why religion is called faith not science.

I coud start yet another thread on philosophy of objective vs subjective knowledge, pointless. As a defense some say there is n objective, science is subjective and is a faith.

I have had some pretty real dreams. When I was in the hospital I had vivid clear audio and visula hallucinations. My doctors said it was a drug combo.

It was like watching TV. If I reached out to touch something the hallucination went away.

I am inclined to think all belifs such as relgion are based on perceptions manufactured in the barin. We are conditioned to believe from s young age. Through movies, books, TV and cultrue the seeds are planted. The mond then grows perceptions out of the seeds.

 

[skepticalbip]

To be balAnced in the evolution of sciEnce there was alwAys speculATION THT SEEMD NOT POSSIBLE BUT WAS.

eINSTEIN HAD A HRD SELL ON RELTIVITY. tHE IDEA THAT TIME WAS VARIBLE WAS TOO FAR OUT FOR MANY.

iN THE 19TH CENTURY SOME THOUGHT A HUMAN BODY COUD NOT SURVE 40-59MPH ON A TRAIN, AN SOME THOUGHT SCINC WAS AT AN NED. wE KNEW EVERYTHING THERE WAS TO KNOW.

Einstein didn't "come up with the idea" that time was relative to the observer. That was a mathematical conclusion (one of many in his theory of relativity) of accepting the scientific measurements that the showed speed of light was a constant.

ETA:
But then that should be in the science forum rather than religion.

 

[steve_bank]

To be balAnced in the evolution of sciEnce there was alwAys speculATION THT SEEMD NOT POSSIBLE BUT WAS.

eINSTEIN HAD A HRD SELL ON RELTIVITY. tHE IDEA THAT TIME WAS VARIBLE WAS TOO FAR OUT FOR MANY.

iN THE 19TH CENTURY SOME THOUGHT A HUMAN BODY COUD NOT SURVE 40-59MPH ON A TRAIN, AN SOME THOUGHT SCINC WAS AT AN NED. wE KNEW EVERYTHING THERE WAS TO KNOW.

Einstein didn't "come up with the idea" that time was relative to the observer. That was a mathematical conclusion (one of many in his theory of relativity) of accepting the scientific measurements that the showed speed of light was a constant.

ETA:
But then that should be in the science forum rather than religion.

The points arce clear. Be skeptical but a;so open minded.

The sub forum is science vs religion. Religion is a product of the mind.

Still waiting for somebody to cite science that says gods can not exist. I expect I have a long wait.

AE did have a hrd time with relativity. H emade his name with The Photo Electric Effect which had ex[experimental demonstrative. Initilly relativity did not, as such some considered it too far out. The point being there is no science that oppositely rules out a god.

 

[DBT]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

 

[Jarhyn]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

The only beliefs an absence of evidence of gods rules out here is "that the number of gods is > 0" and "that the number of gods is < 1".

These are the beliefs the evidence rules out.

"That there are between 0 and infinity gods" is not ruled out by the evidence. It is the only thing the evidence does not rule out.

 

[steve_bank]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

 

[DBT]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

 

[skepticalbip]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Maxwell was able to calculate the speed of light from his equations that mathematically described the E and H fields interdependence that had been measured.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Extrapolation of observation. Break a rock and you have smaller rocks. Break the smaller rocks and you have even smaller rocks... etc. etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

That's my point. Science is about observations and we can add hypotheses and conjectures based on observation. But how does one get to immaterial worlds? One clearly does not unless one abandons scientific observation.

 

[steve_bank]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

I woud sau so. They had no ability to descern atoms. There were observed indirectly in the late 19th century by xray diffraction of a crystalline material. It shiowed a regular structure e quay spaced dots.

It was pure conjecture by the Greeks.

 

[skepticalbip]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

That's my point. Science is about observations and we can add hypotheses and conjectures based on observation. But how does one get to immaterial worlds? One clearly does not unless one abandons scientific observation.

Doesn't that question assume that there are "immaterial worlds"? Sorta like asking what fairies eat without first determining that there are fairies.

 

[steve_bank]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

That's my point. Science is about observations and we can add hypotheses and conjectures based on observation. But how does one get to immaterial worlds? One clearly does not unless one abandons scientific observation.

I amsorry, nut you are avoiding he point as the theists do.

Theist: God exists because it is obvious.
Atheist: God does not exist, it is obvious.

Neither side is provable. Trying to prove a god can not exist reduces to the same type of subjective argumnts made by theists. Subjective reasoning and logic.

The qusetion can not be addressed by sceince.

To be as unbiased and objective as I can, I have to say the proofs offered for the existence of a god are not provable, which is not the same as saying a god does not exist.

Looking at it solely from a logical pepectiv putting aside all the issues with religion, the hypothesis or conjrcture of the existence of a god creator is perfectly logical.

The Watchmaker Argument says you gind a watch never having seen one before and you conclude it had to be manufactured, it is not natural. You lok at the inverse and its complexity and think there must e a creator.

It is a valid logical deduction. The problm for theists is that the argument while logical, does not prove a god actually exists.

All a valid argument requires is no logical fallacies. An argument can be valid yet unfprovable or not able to manifest in reality. A valid argument or syllogism is not a proof.

The question of hod is not reducible to a repeatable experiment or test, therefore science has nothing to say about gods.

A creationist says by interpreting the bible the Earth is 3500 years old. My response is the claim is refuted by carbon dating and archeology. However,there is no science I can quote that says a god can not exist.

 

[DBT]

Absence of evidence rules out justified belief.

Playing Devil's Advocate, absence of evidence can precede scientific theory.

Maxwell predicted speed of light C without any ability to make an observation or test.

Ancient Greeks theorized that matter reduced to an irreducible element that had the properties of the macro object like a rock. The atom.

Without observation or understanding of physical principles?

I woud sau so. They had no ability to descern atoms. There were observed indirectly in the late 19th century by xray diffraction of a crystalline material. It shiowed a regular structure e quay spaced dots.

It was pure conjecture by the Greeks.

No purely conjecture. If something ground down to finer and finer particles, it's fair to assume that matter comes down to some fundamental particle as a building 'block' - their proposed "atomos."