As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts. — Michael Ossipoff

And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information. But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.

"As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence."

Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).
— Sir2u

" If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it."
— Michael Ossipoff

No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist. Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?

Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". — Michael Ossipoff

It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.
Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief : An indication that makes something evident :

Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. — Michael Ossipoff

But which ever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it. And if there is no evidence then, obviously, it will never be found. And that statement is true for both sides, believers and non believers.

You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.

You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.

But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.

And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.

Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no idea why you are blathering on about what every Theist's belief is, or the rest of this for that matter, I never mentioned it. I have no idea what their beliefs.

You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. — LD Saunders

No I do not, I said that there is no reason why science should not be able to investigate the existence of things. Including gods, ghost and a host of supernatural things. And I have also said that there are scientists that do try to explain them and therefore have to study them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

A basic introductory science textbook will typically explain to beginning students that science does not address the God issue, or issues regarding alleged angels, demons, ghosts, any supernatural claim. — LD Saunders

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/

Some one had better tell these guys about that. We would not want them to look silly would we?

Please give me the names of these typical text books as I have looked in those on my shelf and none of them do that. I also looked in several sociology, psychology and a couple of physics text books and none have that disclaimer either. Sounds like BS to me. I have worked in education for almost 30 years and have never seen that written in any book.

Certainly. no scientist to date has ever devised an experiment to falsify God existing. What would that experiment even consist of? It's nonsense that you are advocating, and it's certainly not science. — LD Saunders

How sure are you of this statement? Many scientist have tried to explain god in other ways from the common image of it. And many have used scientific data to reason their way to the conclusion that there is or is not a god.

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5bKALeSyM

But all they have done is to say that science does not prove that gods don't exist, they cannot say that that it never will. The simple fact that they are investigating the workings of the universe might mean that at any time they could find proof of its existence or lack of existence. The book is not closed yet.

When I was studying for my physics degree in college, I never once dealt with the issue of God or anything supernatural. It simply falls outside the scope of science. — LD Saunders

Sixty years ago quantum physics was not in many physics courses either, go figure. Maybe it did not exist back then. Or maybe they had not researched it enough to include it.
And I find it strange that a person with a college degree in physics has not figured out how to use the "QUOTE" function on a Philosophy Forum.

Sir2U: I noticed you failed to cite to any science textbook that supports your position, nor were you able to state any experiment that could falsify the existence of any and all Gods. — LD Saunders

That would mostly be because I never claimed that they existed so why should I even bother to try and cite them. But by the same standard you have failed to cite any of the textbooks used at any of the major western universities that you talk so much about.

You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, — LD Saunders

Neither do you, so I guess that makes us even.

so you are simply an irrational person. — LD Saunders

So you cannot find anything of value to say, so you start insulting people. Typical of your type of bullshitter.

You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. — LD Saunders

How do you know this? How do know that I do not have a reasonable basis for what ever claim you think I made. I would like to know exactly what claim you think I made as well.

I, on the other hand, am rational in my position. I don't believe in any God because I find the evidence insufficient, — LD Saunders

What evidence? How can you rationalize nothing? It seems to be nothing more than a whim that you have become a non believer because there is exactly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. Did you flip a coin to decide.

but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. — LD Saunders

And where exactly did I make that statement?

I also am rational in recognizing the scope and limits of science, and do not let my religious views, atheism, distort science so it coincides with my beliefs. — LD Saunders

The only limits that sciences has ever had are the ones put on it by religious views. Where would we be now if the church had not screwed up the beginnings of the scientific endeavor with the inquisition.
Only those that have religion have beliefs, the rest of us reasoning folks have educated opinions.
Period

Red team says; scientist are incapable of nor should be allowed to opine on the existence of god and are unable to prove its non existence.

Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence.

Most scientist really don't have strong opinions that they want to share, so a ban on them saying things would be basically worthless. And time is not up yet to prove there is no god, maybe someone will one day take a shot at it.

If red team comes up with proof of existence it might change the game, but I wont wait around for that to happen.

Red team has to lose.

Identify a single textbook in science used at any major western university that states science can even answer the question of whether a God exists? — LD Saunders

Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders

Show me the books you have read, from primary school on up, on the scientific method and maybe I will consider answering any further posts as long as you use the "quote" function so that I you you have replied.

Sorry there, but you do not understand the scope of science. Physics does not address the existence of everything. Does it address the existence of numbers? Or morality? Of the supernatural? Of God? No. Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders

So some scientists comes up with a wonderful idea, from a mathematical equation it appears that there should be more mass in the universe than there is visible. "Let's look for dark matter" they say and start trying to prove it exists by designing experiments to detect it.

A lot of their work is trying to prove the existence of things. The cause of a rare sickness is unknown until they prove that a gene dysfunction that no one new existed was the cause.

There are plenty of examples of scientists trying to prove the existence of things.

If there is a god somewhere there must be evidence, lots of christian scientists try to find that evidence. Some religions use scientific knowledge to prove that god exists, how could that be possible?

It is only in philosophical think that they are kept apart.

Physics addresses many "supernatural" claims. Are ghosts really nothing more than the energy leaving the body at the moment of death? The claim was investigated and the results were never neither for or against the idea, mainly because they have not figured out the way to investigate it properly. But they did find that there was a certain loss of bodily wait a short while after death.

https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/

Oh dear and then there is this guy Sir Roger Penrose that claims to be a physicist,(one of those people that studies physics I think) making these weird claims about supernatural things called souls. The actual article about his ideas is sort of beyond my idea of reading for pleasure so this a fun SUN version.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2123380/researchers-claim-that-humans-have-souls-which-can-live-on-after-death/

There have been many scientific studies on morality.
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality

Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period. — LD Saunders

Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions. That covers everything in the universe and quite a lot of what is thought to be outside of it, other universe maybe.

Science itself has no limit to what it can investigate, but neither general science nor physics in particular go about making any claims about anything unless it has been investigated first.
PERIOD.

Galileo didn't try to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. He studied and advanced physics.

In fact, Galileo famously clarified and emphasized the inapplicability of science and religion to eachother. — Michael Ossipoff

According to the way of thinking in those days he was way out of line with what was acceptable. Both by the Scientific and religious leaders. The fact that he emphasized the in-applicability of science and religion to each other made him more unpopular.

But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god, after all religions have been trying for years to explain science religiously.

As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence. If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it. I wont be waiting around for that to happen though.

There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.

Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience. — Michael Ossipoff

Tell that to Galileo.

Science has no fixed range of applicability. Everything anything can be investigated scientifically.

A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists — LD Saunders

Physics addresses the existence of everything. Do you think that the Pope has any better proof that god exists?
Most believers state that everything that exists is proof of god, so why would a scientist's evidence (after investigating the universe) that there is no god be viewed as less worthy than the Pope's evidence that there is one?

Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form? — Posty McPostface

Faery tales.

What's that? — Posty McPostface

Everything that is not covered by philosophical pessimism. I would have thought that it was obvious. :wink:

Excessive self-reflection and the issue that philosophy must deal with being philosophical pessimism. — Posty McPostface

I guess that that is as good a reason as anything.

Maybe if you stop staring at your bellybutton you will lean more towards philosophy optimism.

I'm acutely aware of this fact and feel compelled to express my satisfaction with self-absorbed topics of my interest. — Posty McPostface

And just which topics might those be?

Others would agree. — Posty McPostface

I guess that there is a possibility that it is so, but what do you base this pronouncement on?

I just had a week off. Does that count? — Banno

I had 5 days of holidays, and it rained on every single one of them. Murphie's Law rules the universe.

Just as a joking thread, what's the remission rate around here if we are to believe philosophy as therapy? — Posty McPostface

Would philosophy not be the disorder and this forum the therapist's office?

Something else about goats that I just found out, they like human piss.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/goats-airlifted-national-park-developing-thirst-human-urine-084218375.html

But this misses the point. Even if I have no faith at all in the eternal and ubiquitous existence of the Great Goat, my question of his origin still remains. — Hanover

No, it clearly addressed your question. Being everything he is the origin, the end and everything in the middle. There was nothing before him and naught will there be after him because he is all there is.

:up: :point: :pray:

Where did goats come from? Isn't that the fundamental question, regardless of the failed attempts to answer it? — Hanover

The Great Goat is, and always has been. He is timeless and exist everywhere at all times.

Have a little faith and just believe.

Evidence? Doubt makes no sense here. This is not a question that is liable to the vagaries of justification.

That is, your doubt tells us nothing about goats, but much about you. — Banno

Oh, now I see the light. Of course all i need is faith, the rest will follow.

I am convinced, I have become a believer.

Hail the Great Goat.

Do you think he would mind if we called him GG from now on, The Great Goat is just so over whelming.

Indeed, most of the criticisms here have been to the effect it is not the case that goats eat everything. — Banno

As is the case of a god knowing everything, facts that cannot be proven are not facts. Show show your evidence.

This thread lacks direction. I suggest we close it. — Posty McPostface

Just thought of something else a thread should not have, negativism.

As a wise Martian, Uncle Martin, once said "The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open"

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of.

Other than that, you seem a bit confused, — BaldMenFighting

So you don't know Banno.

That's your hard luck.

We know that goats eat everything. This is undeniable. — Banno

My friend has both goats and sheep, never has a sheep been eaten by a goat. First premise wrong.

If A eats B, B cannot eat A; a moment's reflection will show this must be true. — Banno

If B has been eaten already this is true, but if B eats A first then it is not.

SO it follows that either there is an indefinite gastronomic chain, such that goat 1 is eaten by goat 2, which in turn is eaten by goat 3, and hence that there is never a goat that is not eaten by some other goat; — Banno

Actually it does not follow, there could quite easily be a case where one goat is more interested in eating your underpants and has no interest in other goats. Or several goats eating other goats at the same time which would make it a multi-thread gastronomic chain instead of an indefinite gastronomic chain.

or there is one goat that eats every goat; the Great Goat. — Banno

Either goats would have to reproduce like rabbits before being eaten or the Great Goat would soon go hungry and become non-existent.

But since goats eat everything, there is something that eats the Great Goat. — Banno

Already dismissed as a fallacy.

The traditional answer is of course that the Great Goat eats itself. The self-inflicted suffering of the Great Goat gives meaning to our own suffering. — Banno

OH NO! That would start another thread on infinite eternity. Please don't do that.

Now I hope that this short commentary helps divest you of any gnawing doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental mastication hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe. — Banno

Now I hope that this reply to your short commentary helps divest you of any chewing (excuse the pun) doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental masturbation hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe.

But all is not lost, there is still hope for the Great Goat.
A benevolent Great Goat would not want his followers to suffer, so at the end of their non cannibalistic lives he invites then to the Great Pasture in the sky. And then eats them.

Has anyone one else thought about how well this thread is progressing?

And I was just thinking of a piece of blueberry pie! — Bitter Crank

Some call a moderator, this is definitely off topic.

And thank you for the detailed explanation of a duck's sex organs. Thank the lord you did not find a video about it.

Maybe you were having a touch of oppositional defiant disorder that day and just couldn't accept the authority of the guide. — Bitter Crank

That's doubtful, he was one of those honey voiced, sweet talking people. I can still hear him saying "Gather around but let the little ones come to the front so that they can see".

Better to develop this problem as a child than when you grow older -- people really don't like it when adults behave that way, I've found. Especially when it persists. I developed the problem sometime around 30. Bosses tend to be annoyed when employees dismiss their authority as nothing but some sort of sham. — Bitter Crank

I had the bad fortune to develop it at about 17. The family split up and we went back to live in England and I hated everything and everyone that thought they knew what was best for me. Didn't take too long for me to get into enough trouble that I did not want to live there anymore. So I did what everyone told me was the last thing I should do and came to live in Central America. Best decision of my life. But I still have problems with authorities, especially those that don't know what I know but try to tell me how to do things.

I had an experience when I was about 10, while visiting one of the many English stately homes our family loved touring.

The guide asked everyone to gather around him and let the kids come to the front, it was a rather restricted area. All of the other kids pushed to the front but I had this feeling that it was not a good thing to do so I stayed at the back.
The guide explained that the place they had found the remains of one of the mistresses of the 17th century owner of the place, that had gone missing when his wife had found out, was exactly where these kids were standing. Shrieks and screams rang out while I laughed about it.

No idea what why I did not want to move but I can still remember saying to myself "Don't go"

Alright now, cut it out, there are many children present. — Jake

And most of them could probably teach you and me a thing or two. :yikes:

For example, a person could build an incredibly intelligent robot with AI that would pass any Turing Test, yet the person would not know what it is truly like to feel or think as that robot. The creator might know every mechanical piece in the robot and how it works, but that would not give the creator a personal level in terms of experiencing the same things that the robot experiences.

To summarize, God being a creator does not signify that He knows His creations on a personal level, that knowledge (or lack of) would fall under the question of His omniscience. — Abecedarian

Your explanation is reasonable with a robot and the creator, but the god of the bible is supposed to know the thoughts of everyone. That is the basis of his omniscience.

So to declare that god cannot know about lust is either just plain silly or an admittance of his lack of omniscience.

:up:

Darn, that's some pretty cheap beer. Now I'm thirsty. — Posty McPostface

Want me to pass you an ice cold CEZKA?

Still, though, on a hot semi-tropical day a big bottle of ice-cold Orion Beer is a beautiful thing. — tim wood

On a hot tropical day, which I see almost everyday, there is nothing more beautiful than finishing one ice cold can of what ever beer is available and knowing that there are still 5 just as cold in the fridge.

One of our local super markets has been bringing in Portuguese beers this last year or so. They are better than the local stuff and cost about 30% less. It costs about 50cents US a can.

Every so often there's proof of culture above and beyond my own. The Japanese, for example, do not waste time with 12 ounce beer bottles, but just sell liter bottles. — tim wood

I will stick to 330ml cans, they are cheaper, you can sell the cans later, and I can still count them up to about ten.

A good thread should have the following ingredients:
Posters that have the following;
A good measure of knowledge on the topic.
The willingness to learn what is not known about the topic.
The ability to express clearly their ideas without biases.

The topic should be;
Something that would be interesting to the people you wish to post in the thread.
Presented at the right time
Off limits to assholes.

Does anyone agree that ideally all disputes should end in a Rogerian manner? — Posty McPostface

I hope that word is not the one that was in use a lot in England.

roger: have sexual intercourse

Cracking good stories. Lots of science fiction novels feature sentient machines. Apparently the authors and enthusiastic readers of these novels are not members here. — Bitter Crank

I am here to represent them. :up:

The question I have asked and never got a decent answer to is how can people believe that god has no knowledge of some part of the universe, if he created the it he must know everything on a personal level.

The Paradox of Omniscience sets up the argument that because God is omniscient, He must know how to learn what he doesn’t know and therefore know by acquaintance lust, envy, and other such things He can’t know. — Play-doh

Where did the idea that god cannot know about these things come from?

Just saying that he cannot know about lust rules out omniscience. Knowing by association is not knowing. You can listen all day to people lecturing about lust, even watch people experiencing it but that does not mean that you know it.

It's a SHOUTBOX, if it had ANY philosophical content in it it was probably placed there by mistake. :lol: