A True Scientist [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otrqzITuSqE]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CopperCicada · M
I guess I'm curious how we prove the existence of God by logic when Goedel showed us any formal language is incomplete and can't even be proven to be consistent one way or another.
And I guess I'm curious how prove the existence of God by science when we quickly are stuck by computational complexity-- and when simple phenomena like pattern recognition of images on the retina are trans-computational.
We are faced with the fact that logic and science shows us, if anything, that God is utterly unknowable by language or science...
... and so we end up back at apophasis. We only know what God is not. And God is beyond all categories, including even being and non-being.
Which explains why logic/language and science are worthless for proving the existence of God. What is the use of reason, analysis, logic when the subject of inquiry is beyond concept much less category?
And I guess I'm curious how prove the existence of God by science when we quickly are stuck by computational complexity-- and when simple phenomena like pattern recognition of images on the retina are trans-computational.
We are faced with the fact that logic and science shows us, if anything, that God is utterly unknowable by language or science...
... and so we end up back at apophasis. We only know what God is not. And God is beyond all categories, including even being and non-being.
Which explains why logic/language and science are worthless for proving the existence of God. What is the use of reason, analysis, logic when the subject of inquiry is beyond concept much less category?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Please note that while you use the term Logic in it´s proper meaning, they equate logic with the rethorical discursive scholastic way of thinking.
A one that don´t recognize it´s formal relational nature and thinks that propositions assert about the ontological existence of the conditionals.
A one that don´t recognize it´s formal relational nature and thinks that propositions assert about the ontological existence of the conditionals.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada Because we don't care about proving the existence of god. Do you think I have any fucking idea if God exists or not? Of course I don't. We care about proving that creationism is false. And we already have but apparently it's not enough.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Personally, I'm not interested in trying to prove the existence or otherwise of God. The question of whether the Bible is the literal word of God or should be taken as a historical document, or that the earth is around 6,000 years old is, on the other hand, open to discussion.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@Bushranger What you said.
CopperCicada · M
@Bushranger I see the debate at hand a little differently.
For some, asserting "creation" as true/false is the same as asserting God exists/doesn't exist.
For others that's not the case. The origin of life or the world is one question. The theological question of the existence of God is another. This is my camp. And I'm not an atheist.
Usually when these debates about "creation" come up, the arguments are posed by people who hold that belief/disbelief in "creation" is the same ad belief/disbelief in God.
And let's be honest. People don't debate this because of a sincere interest in rocks or monkeys or supernova.
The subtext is really asserting the existence of God through an alternative form of science that proves "creation"... and God by extension.
Which is why I start right at the foibles of proving the existence of God through science.
For some, asserting "creation" as true/false is the same as asserting God exists/doesn't exist.
For others that's not the case. The origin of life or the world is one question. The theological question of the existence of God is another. This is my camp. And I'm not an atheist.
Usually when these debates about "creation" come up, the arguments are posed by people who hold that belief/disbelief in "creation" is the same ad belief/disbelief in God.
And let's be honest. People don't debate this because of a sincere interest in rocks or monkeys or supernova.
The subtext is really asserting the existence of God through an alternative form of science that proves "creation"... and God by extension.
Which is why I start right at the foibles of proving the existence of God through science.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Yep, people are going to come to this discussion with different backgrounds and agendas.
Not all theists believe in creation, so it's an open question as to whether or not a belief in creation is the same as a belief in God. As I stated previously, I'm not interested in whether or not God exists, but to find the anti-science sentiment of some people wrong and very misleading. Science doesn't have all the answers, but is willing to admit it. Some theists seem to believe that the Bible has all the answers. That is my concern.
Not all theists believe in creation, so it's an open question as to whether or not a belief in creation is the same as a belief in God. As I stated previously, I'm not interested in whether or not God exists, but to find the anti-science sentiment of some people wrong and very misleading. Science doesn't have all the answers, but is willing to admit it. Some theists seem to believe that the Bible has all the answers. That is my concern.
CopperCicada · M
@Bushranger I understand that concern as a science educator. It doesn't come up in an instructional setting often, but when it does I come back to sorting out which tools are for which questions.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Right!!!
Speedyman · 70-79, M
You again miss the point. No-one is saying the Bible has all the answers. It is a sufficient not a complete revelation. It tells us how God created the universe - obvious to any think g man - but he doesn't tell us how we did it. Your problem is that you appear to want to dispense with this obvious fact and tell us something can arise out of something. This contradicts the very science claim to be upholding. But of course atheism is a contradiction in terms anyway@Bushranger