And again a gods thread! Damned! I haven't seen thamuchothem as in the last 10 days before. If someone can show me 10 days with more threads about gods than in these last 10 days then they are in for an eternal reward!

It could be me though, seeing god everywhere.

They can be reconciled by accepting them in an asymmetric relationship fundamentally or disjoint where they may be particularly

550
Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

Cosmological knowledge is the basis even for the existence of gods. If the fundamental physical laws are known, if the gaps are closed, what else can we but logically conclude that gods are the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe?

And lemmetellya, they were not mathematicians. Well, a small part of the homonid gods were actually. If only greater attention was paid to them in the run to creation. Godkind, in its enthusiasm, forgot to do. It became clear in heaven recently. Now they try to reach us. It's hard though. They hadn't anticipated this. It appears they found a way though. But it's too early to tell.

It could be me though, seeing god everywhere — EugeneW

Haha well in my defence i havent posited a thread about god in a while. But yeah I feel when you come across a topic it tends to come to the forefront of you awareness and you usually see it a lot more in the coming weeks after that. Like when you learn a new word you never came across before and then suddenly you see everywhere.

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

It can if a God can be shown within the natural sciences. And by natural sciences, I mean testable reality.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Some people say God talks to them and directs them to a higher purpose. Keep a log of when people feel God talks to them. Ask them what God says. See what happens when a person follows God. See what happens when they don't. Compare it with a control group that does not hear God.

Some people say God can grant miracles. Have people pray for those who are beyond medical help. Have a control group that does not pray for those that are beyond medical help. Compare the two and see if there is any significant difference.

The problem with God as presented by most people, is that it is a personal feeling and experience. There is no actual impact on the world outside of this personal feeling and experience, and thus it is not considered anything which can be tested in reality.

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world.

That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth.

However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire.

FWIW, my personal worldview is that "they" are indeed describing the same fundamental principle from different superficial perspectives. Hence, my holistic philosophy is labeled "BothAnd". It's based on merging the 21st century sciences of Information & Quantum, not on ancient beliefs in Materialism or Spiritualism. Instead, the "atom" of reality is mundane Enformation : the power to create novel forms of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Psyche. If that sounds absurd, NOMA also sounded ridiculous to those on opposite poles of the Knowledge continuum. :smile:


Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

But yeah I feel when you come across a topic it tends to come to the forefront of you awareness and you usually see it a lot more in the coming weeks after that. Like when you learn a new word you never came across before and then suddenly you see everywhere. — Benj96

Im gonna do a research. Count god threads over all 10 days of the forum. How should I proceed? I cant start from the first 10, ten 11-20, 21-30, etc. How can one find the "densest" 10 days?

I have a feeling its no coincidence...

For example, I looked at a random sequence of threads of 2 months ago. One thread only! Compare with last week!

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete — Gnomon

:lol:

Wholey cow!

Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

How could spirituality and science be describing the same thing? What is spirituality?

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

This can be done in some forms of Hinduism, but not in the Abrahamic religions.
The salient difference is that generally, in the Abrahamic religions, there is said to exist a type of separation between God and his creation that can be pervasive and eternal, but no such separation exists in some forms of Hinduism.

As a matter of fact, this can be done with the Abrahamic God par excellence. The two realities are perfectly compatible, as the derive from a common root in Greek philosopy of Greek philodohers in (Platonic) love: Plato and Xenophanes.

The problem with God as presented by most people, is that it is a personal feeling and experience — Philosophim

I see what you’re saying and it does follow a sound reason from an objective sense. I do feel that to qualify everything that exists in an objective way omits a large part of the human condition, of being. I don’t believe the scientific method can prove things that are highly rare, illusion, unique or individual due to the fact that such things are not repeatable or testable. I think it would be unwise to assume that all things can be tested under the rigorous eye of science. For example a mans love for his wife cannot be objectively proven, not in any repeatable standardised way. You can merely interpret his behaviour as coherent with the state of being in love. Again you cannot test objectively my experience of the colour green or your personal memory of your grandmother, or what beauty is, or if someone feels the same exact emotions that you do.
In this sense objectivism reaches a limit. And I often wonder could an entity such as god be vaguely described in scientific terms, but on a personal level be impossible to prove in its various idiosyncrasies/ specifics? I feel that when people talk of “god” it’s often in this personal sense as you cited and thus I can’t imagine how one begins to test those with scientific method. That isn’t to say of course that it doesn’t exist because we fail to have a took adequate to quantify it qualify it as we do with so much of nature.

I do feel that to qualify everything that exists in an objective way omits a large part of the human condition, of being. I don’t believe the scientific method can prove things that are highly rare, illusion, unique or individual due to the fact that such things are not repeatable or testable. I think it would be unwise to assume that all things can be tested under the rigorous eye of science. — Benj96

Agree. The problem with the way you've framed the question is that it tends to equate 'God' with the other objects of science, as some object, being or thing that is out there somewhere, or not, or can be considered a factor, or not.

The argument of natural theology is not that 'God' is some testable theory, but the reason that anything exists at all in the first place. Of course that is not a 'testable theory' in that you can't then replicate the entire universe under controlled conditions of there being God or no God. At best it is an argument that can be supported from what has been called an abductive inference, which means, reasoning from effect to likely cause - given that the Universe exists and has just those attributes and qualities required for the appearance of intelligent life, when it might much more easily not have, then ... . But at best this argument is only suggestive, it can never be conclusive.

There was an OP published years ago in popular media, God does not Exist, Pierre Whalon. Reading the headline, one could easily assume that it was a piece of standard atheist polemic. But it doesn't turn out to be. Pierre Whalon is a Bishop of the European Episcopal Church, and what he's talking about is the limited nature of the notion of 'existence':

God does not exist.

People exist. Things in the universe exist. The planets in their courses exist. While there are clear limits to our knowledge, everyone knows what it means to exist.

God does not exist.

If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are relative to one another in various degrees. It is actually impossible to imagine a universe in which there is, say, only one hydrogen atom. That unique thing has to have someone else imagining it. Existence requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation.

In other words, God could not be God. He would be at best some sort of super-alien, flitting about the creation flashing super powers, seemingly irrationally. That is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. Its "worshippers," the "Pastafarians," are the latest in a long line of skeptics, though with perhaps a finer sense of humor. And even if said Monster existed, it could not be God. — Pierre Whalon

This OP is harking back to an ancient doctrine, apophatic theology - that what transcends existence is not simply another kind of existent, a 'super-existent' of some kind, which is what many atheist critiques seem to imagine - God as a super-director pulling strings behind the scenes, so to speak. But if you let go of that, there's simply no need to posit a conflict between natural philosophy (science) and religious faith, even though such conflicts often occur.

Well, God isn't an unfeasible hypothesis, tested through faith. IMO it can be a scientific endeavor, though I'm not sure any true evidence could ever be verified. So my question would be, are all things that are actualized always verifiable? And can such things still be considered "science," If humored by an objectively responsible observer.

Not unless there is a VERY clear and VERY detailed definition of what is meant when someone says ‘god’.

Claims of some supreme being existing can only only be verified if said being is understood to a reasonable degree. Given that a ‘god’ is usually outlined as something mostly outside our natural understanding and experience of the world it is often a dead end.

If we’re just talking about a superior race of beings, more or less living as we do, then that seems viable. The question would then be about where they are, why they are hiding from us and why we should care about them (other than as a potential threat to our existence given the assumption their technological capabilities far out stretch our own).

The argument of natural theology is not that 'God' is some testable theory, but the reason that anything exists at all in the first place. Of course that is not a 'testable theory' in that you can't then replicate the entire universe under controlled conditions of there being God or no God. — Wayfarer

I think that this is the right way of looking at things. In this sense, all empirical evidence supports God, and we can know that God is the truth, stronger than we can know any other fact. The argument is basically that each and every aspect of existence, as observed, is an organized, or ordered, arrangement of parts. And, organized or ordered arrangements require something which orders them. The thing which ordered the parts is called God, So God is a necessary conclusion.

Now, having said that, there is some issues with the appearance of disorganization, or disorderly activity in fundamental parts (particles). I see two distinct ways to approach these issues. We can say that this appearance of disorder in the universe is evidence of not-God, or we can say that this appearance of disorder is evidence of a failing in our capacity to understand, what is really organized and orderly. Of course the latter is the rational approach, because it inspires us to subject our scientific theories to strict skepticism, in an attempt to determine their deficiencies, and why these theories render basic parts of an organized and ordered universe as unintelligible to us. The alternative approach, that fundamental parts of the universe are disorganized and disorderly, and an organized and orderly structured universe magically sprang into existence on top of a disorganized foundation, hence not-God, is clearly irrational.

If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are relative to one another in various degrees. — Pierre Whalon

This is similar to Taoism in which there is something that cannot be defined. Any definition is drastically short of precise or accurate in any useful way. To define something is to give it some parameter... to enclose it or separate it from something else by contrast. For example “light” is defined darkness and sound is defined by silence. If no contrast existed no definition, no distinction, could ever be made.
Applying this to god - if god were supposedly everything, including all things that were but are no longer and all things that could possibly be in the future, there indeed is no means to define god at all other than this extreme totalitarian vaguery.

The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world — Gnomon

:up: The point of the theism is to push God out of our line of sight so that we can't see Him at all:

1. God's nonphysical

2. God is beyond space and time

3. God is beyond our mental capabilities

With just these 3 simple statements, God is nudged out of our field of view, never to be seen, not even in principle mind you. It reminds me of the so-called cosmological horizon (beyond which we can't see for space is expanding faster than the light from the regions beyond can reach us).

However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me!

That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth. — Gnomon

Nice! Well done! When you put it that way, it become crystal clear: Religion is metaphysics and science is physics and its allied subjects. The difference must matter, oui? As @Wayfarer makes it a point to mention, science invariably ignores/treats very superficially the final cause of things, their telos. Where there's purpose, there's a God?!

However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire. — Gnomon

Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? Reason, ok, but as skipper Kirk says in Star Trek "I don't wanna know what it isn't, I wanna know what it is!" I hope it's not too much to ask.

Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. That makes a whole lotta sense; when we form a search party [this is the search to end all searches, the search for truth which Taoist legend says is subtle (yi), faint (shi), and wei (elusive)], the more the merrier. Did you know that herbivores team up against predators? Some hear better than they see and others have good eyesight and a poor sense of hearing, and together they make up for each others' weaknesses (alloying).

The argument is basically that each and every aspect of existence, as observed, is an organized, or ordered, arrangement of parts. And, organized or ordered arrangements require something which orders them. The thing which ordered the parts is called God, So God is a necessary conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, akin to Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds argument.

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. If we could approach the universe from the outside, and found it to be well-ordered, then we might correctly be surprised. But we are products of this universe - we evolved to survive, and even thrive, in this universe. Therefore, it seems ordered to us. It would be much more shocking to find that it lacked order.

Personally, I'm with Voltaire.

:up:

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? — Benj96

Spinoza's natura naturans (i.e. substance ... which he calls "deus, sive natura"). Epicurus' void. Buddhism's sunyata. Hinduism's brahman. Laozi's dao. Schopenhauer's will. Etcetera.

Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives?

Science explains, spirituality mystifies; they're not "different perspectives on the same thing" but rather different, incommensurable domains of inquiry like e.g. astronomy and astrology or mathematics and numerology.

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. If we could approach the universe from the outside, and found it to be well-ordered, then we might correctly be surprised. But we are products of this universe - we evolved to survive, and even thrive, in this universe. Therefore, it seems ordered to us. It would be much more shocking to find that it lacked order. — Real Gone Cat

Do you think that the universe is inherently able to create order or is it merely our conscious inclination to organise, categorise, define and group phenomenon that we observe.
Two things I would consider here is 1). One could reason the inverse does generate order despite our views - the cycles of orbits, the tides, the geometry of crystals, consistent steady patterns, laws and constants however 2). Order as perceived by humans depends on the capacity to remember. It is our memory that permits us to notice that yes the stairs have been at this angle before, yes winter has come before at the same predicted time. Without any memory, the present moment is a forever unpredictable, changing and confusing thing.

So what makes order in nature. Us? The cosmos? Both?

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

It kind of depends on what you define as "God". If you are talking about the "God" that is more or less defined in Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and there various sects), the answer is most definitely "No".

First there is the problem of whether God's power comes from him having access the incredibly advance technology or if it through some kind of "magic", and if it is through "magic" then how does this magic even work? Second whether or not God's power comes from either of these things (or even something else), does the fact that a being is either omnipotent or something very close to omnipotent necessarily mean that such a being is actually "God". In ancient times, people often accepted the idea of just bowing down to whomever had the most power. But in modern times if such a person was either corrupted or insane this could big problem. I could be wrong but bowing down to a being just because they are the most powerful if they are morally no better than Satan would not be a good thing. And ironically there are some forms of religions that claim that the "God/god" that created this world is actually evil and the true God only resides in the spiritual world such as Gnosticism.

I could go on but in a nutshell we really can't even define God because it is all but a given that we can't comprehend an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-whatever else would be like and so we can only imagine and/or guess as to what God is. And when it comes to when we try to guess at such things, it is always best to remind ourselves that such things are in the realm of fiction and to reality and mixing up the too doesn't work when doing real science.

Since I've already been in enough debates regarding whether "God Exists" I stop here and just add a few YouTube links where other people add there two cents to this issue. Hopefully after watching them they will clear up and other issues I didn't have the time to get around to and address them.

if it is through "magic" then how does this magic even work? — dclements

It's partial magic partial hard science. It took them a pretty long time to create and develop spacetime and the two elementary particles fit to let them evolve into the universe we know with all of life in it.
The particle creation involved magic, the subsequent research, development, and tinkering involved science.

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. If we could approach the universe from the outside, and found it to be well-ordered, then we might correctly be surprised. But we are products of this universe - we evolved to survive, and even thrive, in this universe. Therefore, it seems ordered to us. It would be much more shocking to find that it lacked order. — Real Gone Cat

Sure, it's not at all surprising to find order in the universe, we ourselves are organized beings, so it would be very surprising, actually false, if we found a universe without order. But whether or not we are surprised is not the point. I don't see how this element of surprise refutes the premise that order is caused. Do you have an explanation of how we might conceive of uncaused order? Or do you appeal to magic to account for how order suddenly appears from disorder? If the latter, doesn't magic require a magician?

I could go on but in a nutshell we really can't even define God because it is all but a given that we can't comprehend an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-whatever else would be like and so we can only imagine and/or guess as to what God is. And when it comes to when we try to guess at such things, it is always best to remind ourselves that such things are in the realm of fiction and to reality and mixing up the too doesn't work when doing real science. — dclements

The questionable assumption made here is the gods being omnipotent and omniscient beings. Which makes the conclusions you draw invalid.

"God bless Joe Pesci!" :lol: :pray:

First, we must define order. Does order mean subscribing to a pattern we find pleasing? Give an example, and let's parse it.

Second, consider the fine-tuning "problem" - the idea that certain constants need to fall within very narrow ranges for life to exist. This ignores the fact that the real numbers are uncountably infinite between, say, 1.99 and 2.01, and may be put in a one-to-one correspondence with values between -1,000,000 and +1,000,000. Thus, the fine-tuning "problem" is actually due to our choice of units not the required accuracy of some Creator.

Third, requiring order (if you can find it) to have a cause, is a case of trying to find a question to match an answer. Why does order require a cause? Are you asking, "Why does the number line have small numbers on the left and large numbers on the right?" (This goes back to my first question.)

Did you watch the first video provided by dclements? Try with an open mind. It's quite good.

Thus, the fine-tuning "problem" is actually due to our choice of units not the required accuracy of some Creator — Real Gone Cat

Not sure I understand. We can set most equal to one, but at least one other has to be different from one then. Only divine creation can explain this.

First, we must define order. Does order mean subscribing to a pattern we find pleasing? Give an example, and let's parse it. — Real Gone Cat

Order means have things in their right place. So any sort of pattern is an order. If each part of the pattern were not in the place required to make that pattern, the group of parts would not be ordered in the way required for the pattern, and there would not be that pattern. If there was a different pattern instead, the parts would be ordered in the way required for that pattern. Only if there was no pattern would there be no "right place", consequently no order.

Second, consider the fine-tuning "problem" - the idea that certain constants need to fall within very narrow ranges for life to exist. This ignores the fact that the real numbers are uncountably infinite between, say, 1.99 and 2.01, and may be put in a one-to-one correspondence with values between -1,000,000 and +1,000,000. Thus, the fine-tuning "problem" is actually due to our choice of units not the required accuracy of some Creator. — Real Gone Cat

I don't see how this is in any way relevant. I was talking about empirically verified order, in the observable universe. That the order in mathematics is somehow related, is an idea that hasn't been justified.

Third, requiring order (if you can find it) to have a cause, is a case of trying to find a question to match an answer. Why does order require a cause? Are you asking, "Why does the number line have small numbers on the left and large numbers on the right?" (This goes back to my first question.) — Real Gone Cat

I am not asking a question, "why does order require a cause?", I am stating a brute fact, a self-evident truth, that order requires a cause. "The right place" for the parts to be implies something other than random positioning. And, other than random positioning, implies that they must be caused to be there, because if they weren't caused to be in the position they are, their positioning would be random. Therefore the difference between random positioning and ordered positioning implies that the ordered positioning must have been caused. And the fact that random positioning might be caused does not negate the fact that ordered positioning is necessarily caused.

I am not asking a question, "why does order require a cause?", I am stating a brute fact, a self-evident truth, that order requires a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Disorder also requires a cause. Everything that exists requires a cause. Scientifically, can we determine that God is the cause for everything's existence?