Scientists are specially-qualified to study and describe the physical universe and the relations among its constituent parts. That's all. — Michael Ossipoff
You asked me a question about religion. — Michael Ossipoff
Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). — Michael Ossipoff
Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue) — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff
You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. — Michael Ossipoff
You mean your issue about God being physical?
Believe in a physical God if you want to. — Michael Ossipoff
What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes. — Michael Ossipoff
Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff
But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far. — Michael Ossipoff
You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling. — Michael Ossipoff
A dictionary is no authority in such matters. Talk about not understanding limits. — Jeremiah
Just lay your argument down and supply your evidence. Stop beating around the bush and just give us your proof, as would be the standard in any other setting. — Jeremiah
Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if there would be any way to make the idea of nonphysical existents coherent. — Terrapin Station
.You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?
.”Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god
., yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science.
.Again, how do you know that?
.”You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.
.It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists.
.How can you be so certain?
.I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.
.”But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.
.Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?
We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept — Jeremiah
If someone can't even put their own argument forward then this tells me that they don't even have confidence in their own position. — Jeremiah
The idea that a few lines in a dictionary is sufficient to cover the vast subject of something like religious faith is stupid. — Jeremiah
Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
. — Michael Ossipoff
Which is what I asked for.I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you. — Michael Ossipoff
Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you. — Michael Ossipoff
Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;) — DingoJones
that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, — LD Saunders
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.