It would seem that you have to have the facts, or the possibility of those facts in order to create the picture. — Sam26

You can't have the picture unless there is something to picture, so the picture isn't first. — Sam26

So objects are independent of their properties but the properties are dependent on the objects.

The world isn't made up of things. The world is made up of a particular arrangement of things. Things don't tell us anything. So facts are the arrangement of things in a particular way. The world is the world because things are the way they are in a particular way — Sam26

So which came first, the picture or the thing that is made up in the arrangement described in the picture?

You cannot make friends, you cannot have friends. The nearest you can make is a robot, the nearest you can have is a slave. — unenlightened

Would that include sex robots and willing slaves? :wink:

I struggle with making friends. — Posty McPostface

I don't.
I got used to not having friends since I was young. We moved around a lot so I never got to know anyone really well. I have come to be friends of a sort with work mates in the different places I have worked but when I moved on the relationships more or less ended.
I spend most of my time working. If not at school then on school work at home. Then I have my projects, building my house, fixing the car, cutting the grass, looking after the animals(cats and dogs only at the moment). But I enjoy doing these things, I get pleasure from them when I see another project done.
I do a lot of reading, listening now that my eyes are not too good any more. Not just university stuff but different types of novels and stories. It gives you something to think about and to talk about.

I hear people talking about the best buddies from school 30 years ago, they see at least a couple of times every year and I think "What the fuck for?". I don't even speak the same language as the people I left in England forty something years ago. I hear them on the radio and on television shows and I wonder what the hell they are talking about. It is not that I don't speak English any more, it is just that they talk about some many things I don't know about.

I don't know what it is like where you live, but even here in the murder capital of the world you can still meet and talk to people by going to the shopping centers or even supermarkets. Go to the movies if there still exist where you live, if you go several times you will probably start running into the same people and have a chance to talk with them.

I need a much-needed change in surroundings. — Posty McPostface

If you can find your way here, you could work teaching English and live in a relatively cheap place with lots of pretty girls. You can back track along the immigrant caravan trail to get here. Maybe Trump would even pay you to come if you promised to bring some of those people back here with you.

Maybe I need a girlfriend; but, I'm way too Platonic to entertain one. — Posty McPostface

Maybe you don't need a girl friend, but having a girl for a friend can be nice without being a burden.

There is no universal rule to making friends or better friends, it is just a get out there and do it kind of thing. You have to know people to become their friend.

Online life makes things very linear and straightforward. A definite shift in consciousness when engaging in online activities is unconsciously processed. — Posty McPostface

Life is a line between birth and death, I don't think you are helping yourself by making it linear and straight forward. Take side trips into the unknown.
Go to an AA meeting.
Sign up for tutoring where kids are struggling to keep up with school.
Get a job washing dishes in the crappiest restaurant in town.
Go help out at an old folks home.

Then go find a nice garden or park to sit in and think about how crappy other peoples lives can be.
You have a good brain, I am not sure but I don't seem to remember anything about you having any physical impediments.
I see no reason why you should not make the decision to change things and then find a way to do it.

Excuse me for going on so much and if I have said anything that might offend you I am sorry. I could not think of any jokes to cheer you up.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. — LD Saunders

Yeah, OK, whatever. I have had enough of trying to clear you highly bigoted, extremely narrow minded and under educated view of the world. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just realize this, that whatever is in those classes and textbooks is the result of science having done its job already. The job of science is to explain the world we live in, and the rest of the universe. Science is the method used to find out how and why events happen. And whether you want to believe it or not there are scientist that have tried to discover what ghosts really are. There are scientists that investigate UFOs. There are scientist that have studied life after death and previous lives of people. There are scientist that study the possibility of multiple universe that just like ghosts have no way to be detected, YET.

What is in every book that you keep talking about is history, things that have be proven to be true(in most cases at least). What is not in those books is the research that they are doing to find knew information that might appear in next year's edition. Fifty years ago high school kids did not study genetics, they did not learn how people went to the moon and a whole bunch of other stuff that is a part of today's curriculum.
A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed if you had told them that an atom is not the smallest particle. And many would have had you locked up if you had told them that there are ways to cure certain types of insanity.

Books are about history, things that have already happened. They are written after the scientist have discovered a method to investigate things. Have you read in any of these books that you have read so many of about the eleventh planet in the solar system, of course not because even even though the scientist are sort of sure it is there they cannot prove it.

Have you ever read about a pill that that with one dose can cure several sexually transmitted diseases? NO, but that is a fact. Why is it not in one of these books?

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

Pathetic. Are you really trying to make people believe that you have checked every one of the major universities? Did you try looking at some of the small ones? You have made this statement so many times now it appears that it is the only thing you know how to say. I even started to think that someone had set up a bot for a while, but they are usually better at arguing their point of view.

I even gave you a link to one that does study things that some would call supernatural. There are several others that, if you would open your mind, you can find quite easily on the internet.

And if you want to have people take you seriously then learn to use the QUOTE function so that they know you have written to them. Not everyone bothers to go and look for replies.

Not according to the coordinate space between Banno and the cup. Or even panpsychism, — Posty McPostface

That would be the subject of another discussion, but I think that most of us have heard enough about Banno's red cup for this lifetime. No offense meant there Banno.

I heard the next big thing in science is string theory. So, it might strings all the way down. — Posty McPostface

Or tie itself in knots.

It is not a mere matter of classification, but the discovery that 'thinginess' as in having a definite size, shape, position, — unenlightened

Like Banno's red mug(or was it a cup). It had a definite size, shape, color but not position. He sometimes left in the kitchen sometimes on the porch. Because it had those characteristics it was Banno's red cup, but the characteristics themselves do not make the mug. There has to be an object to describe.

these are emergent properties, not fundamental ones. — unenlightened

I am not sure about this, I would say that it was fundamental for that cup(mug) to have those specific properties or it would not be Banno's red cup. And if he did not have a mug there would be no properties of it.

I would say it is an attempt to come to terms with modern physics; substance dissolves under the microscope into fields, probabilities, relations. Things are made of atoms, but atoms are not things.
Process and relation are the new 'substances', and so 'atomism' becomes a theory of human understanding (logic) rather than a claim about the world. — unenlightened

This changes what is being talked about from the world itself to human understanding of it.

The statement should not say,

"The world is the totality of fact not things."

but,

"Our understanding of the world is the totality of the facts we have about it, not the things themselves."

We always come back to the same point, is the world real or is it a simulation we live in?

To accept that the world is real then one must have objects before one can obtain facts about them.

I am not sure about atoms not being things them selves, if you can smash and dismantle something it must be a thing. To say that they are not things because they are the basic blocks to build things with is akin to saying bricks are not things because they are just the basic parts of a house.

Ask Trump.

The world is the totality of fact not things.
What doe this mean to you? — Posty McPostface

What are the facts about?
I can only see one answer.

That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

I never said it did, I said that science can and does investigate anything that there is a possible scientific explanation for.

If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material. — LD Saunders

Unexplained technology is the equivalent of magic. Unexplained happens are the equivalent of supernatural. All that is needed is an explanation, which is the job of the scientists.

If someone had said to the non scientific minded people of the Enlightenment that horseless changes and metal birds would one day move people around the earth they would have been burnt at the stake. The scientific minded would have said that it is possible that one day it will happen.

If enough people told a scientist that they had seen a ghost, he would not run out to find evidence of ghosts but would would investigate the cause of the peoples statements. Did the people actually see something? Was it a case of mass obfuscation of natural happenings?
Scientist are interested in finding an explanation for things that happen and whether you like the idea or not scientist do study the supernatural for the purpose of making it natural.

Science still does not have any idea about how much they DO NOT know about this world let alone the universe. So do not expect to see everything about the universe in the college text books you keep mentioning.

So I now ask you to answer a question, how do you know that there is not a material god in the universe?
If you can answer this question and learn to use the quote function then we might be able to continue discussing some aspects of this topic. If not, sorry but I have no time for closed mind people that think they know everything just because they went to college. I also have been there and done that.

Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings.
But there is no rule against them investigating anything they feel is worthy of investigation, and believe that science has investigated some really weird things.

Dogs bark a lot at night.
Science discovered that dogs can hear things that other animals and people cannot hear, like another dog barking a mile, away and bark because of that.
The religious people blamed demons and evil spirits for making their dogs bark at night.

One or the other is right I suppose.
Or is it possible that there are demons that dogs can hear and they make them bark at night and scientist have just not gotten around to investigating all of the possibilities and proving that demons and evil spirits do exist?

Did you check out the link I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it.

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

the concept of a God – one that is on par with the greatest conceivable being – usually refers to that being as worthy of worship. — Francesco di Piertro

If there was such a god, everyone would give unconditional obedience and devotion to it. Humans are by nature worshippers of things that are above what is considered normal, natural or beyond their realms of existence. Exceptional beauty, great athletes, great artists of all kinds, even Kartrashians backside are worshipped by many.

If such a god said do not kill, steal, lie, cheat on the missus, who would have the courage or desire to go against its wishes? No one, all would willing give up their free will and moral autonomy to live the good life under its guidance. Why not, there would be nothing to lose and lots to gain by doing so.
Unconditional obedience to such a God would not requireabandonment of one’s moral autonomy, but no one would want to invoke the privilege of moral autonomy because they would be living in paradise.

In real life everyone goes against its wishes at some time or other. Most people also think they know what is best for them better than anyone else(god included) does.

If an advance civilization came to visit us tomorrow and gave us all of the knowledge we needed to save our planet and build a future that is easy, healthy, and eliminates all kinds of barriers in mankind and asked nothing in return except that we use the knowledge for well being, what do you think would happen?
Would we be able to follow their simple directive? Could we eliminate discrimination and biases? Or would we still want to "do what ever we wanted"?

Dear Mister Saunders'

Please learn to use the "QUOTE" function that is incorporated in the forum.

When you select the text that you desire to quote, a little black box should appear on you screen with the letters QUOTE in it. Just click on it and the text will appear like magic in the reply box at the bottom of the page.
If for some reason clicking on the box does not work, try right clicking on it. I have to do that with one of the computers I use.

Regards

Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;) — DingoJones

If someone does not try to feed them, they will die of ignorance(sorry) hunger.

"Going from stupid to well-read, what essential classics would get a person there fastest?"

Start by calling yourself ignorant instead of stupid. That always helps.

Isaac Asimov - The foundation Collection
Daniel C. Dennett - From Bacteria to Bach and Back
Daniel Klein - Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life
Lawrence Krauss - The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far Why Are We Here

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

And there you go again, missing the point entirely and continuing to harp on about your assertions that you have never made that science cannot study god.

I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you. — Michael Ossipoff

Which is what I asked for.

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

The "suggested so far" of the statement is the key there.
And no one has any evidence to the contrary either. And it is not of great interest to me. I could not care one way or the other. But you appear to be most sure of what you say.

Compared to a few years ago the knowledge that science has acquired is astounding, but science still knows so little about our own planet that there are new animals, plants, and sicknesses being discovered almost daily.

Science studies black holes, or so they say.
Along with that they study the background radiation that they say is the remains of the BIG BANG.
Science studies germs and microscopic little beasties that are too small to see.
Science studies thought processes through the use of electronic brain scans.
Plants and animals are being genetically engineered.
And a whole load of other things that were unknown and even unimaginably at one time.
This is just the science of today, what will the science of tomorrow be like? What might be "suggested" by the science of the future?

Many people got laughed at and ridiculed because of their ideas. It was not so long ago in the history of mankind that if you talked to people that were not present you could be in for problems, nowadays almost everyone does it.

Science is full of discoveries made by accident but a lot of discoveries have come from small bits of information or ideas about what to look for. Not all of them had been observed before the theory about them appeared.
The "god particle" had never been observed but mathematics said it might be there. So they devised a plan to find it.
Neutrinos are something else that science has spent lots of time trying to detect, but they only have the results of them passing through other mediums to show their existence as they are not in any way visible.

To say that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed is naive. Sometimes theories about something are what leads to an experiment that leads to a discovery. If it were true that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed we would still be living in caves.

But back to the point you missed. The question I asked you was.

How do you know there is not a material god?

It has nothing at all to do with science studying god, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in god and it is certainly not a religious question. It is just a simple question about something you know.

But please don't spend any of your time trying to answer, it would be better spent doing some reading of scientific journals.

And yes, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone else and for the insulting behavior you used.
Oh sorry, forget that last line.

You asked me a question about religion. — Michael Ossipoff

No I did not. I quite simple asked you how you know there is no god in the physical world. That is not a religious question, but an inquiry about your knowledge. 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?

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

I am not trying to prove anything, I have made no claims that need to be proven.

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

So why do you keep answering me if it is not to try to prove that you are right? And it is not my debate, I just gave my opinion and then you jumped all over it try to tell me I am wrong.

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? I thought that you wanted a discussion, so let's talk about 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.

You mean your issue about God being physical?
Believe in a physical God if you want to. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no issue with non existing things being physical. It does not make sense that after I tell you (several times) that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a god that you keep on mentioning this.
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?

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

I am not promoting any belief, why should I? I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a rude person no matter what you think, so I will not stoop to answer.

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.
I do not propose a physical god, I ask you how you know that one does not exist. And there are so many things that go against what is suggested by physics so far, for the simple reason that physics has not gotten very far explaining the universe.

You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, if you read the thread properly, I did not. Even though I do agree with Jeremiah when he calls you names.
But lets look at the gentle slurs and put downs you like to throw around shall we.
astounding naiveté
your naïve delusional conceit
a bit irrational
dogmatic bigotry
loud aggressive Atheists
dogmatically-wedded
aggressive-Atheist persuasion
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
Dream on.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:

You called dragons fiction, but they have found fossils that quiet easily could have been the base for those ideas.
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?

Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that. — Jeremiah

I told him that, he did not seem to understand the concept.

But you almost got it right.
.Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction, having had way to much of that is why I am a non believer. What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world. You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong even though I have not stated the there is a god that is part of the physical world.
It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it there it is impossible. I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.
You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.
So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.

What name did I call you and where did I do it? Where you by any chance looking at the mirror or reading your own posts when you wrote this.
— Michael Ossipoff

Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it. — Michael Ossipoff

If, from the beginning you had tried to understand what I said instead of inventing your own versions you would know that I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions. I have stated so in many of my posts here. You are the one that is being competitive and trying to force people to agree with you by making silly childish remarks about their posts.

If you want a worthwhile discussion then you have to put your part into it. Making claims about textbooks and telling others their ideas are absurd will not get you anywhere at all.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world the explain the following.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.
Why are scientist studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?
Why are some scientist religious?

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.