Proof of God

[Paulhoff]

Yes, by "quantity of believers" I mean "number of believers", "number of adherents of a certain religion".

Where's your point?

Herzblut

Well numbers have nothing to do with truth, which is a shame.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Well numbers have nothing to do with truth, which is a shame.

We were talking about relevance, not truth.

Herzblut

 

[cyborg]

I think the question remains the same:

What is the number of relevance?

 

[Paulhoff]

Sorry but that is the problem, when truth is not what is Relevant.

 

[Herzblut]

Sorry but that is the problem, when truth is not what is of relevance.

Paul

Our brain is not at all geared towards detecting "the truth", but towards detecting what is relevant (for our survival).

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Our brain is not at all geared towards detecting "the truth", but towards detecting what is relevant (for our survival).

Herzblut

Sorry again, but no, that is what education is for, for teaching the brain on how to find the truth in how things really work, that is relevant for our survival.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Sorry again, but no, that is what education is for, for teaching the brain on how to find the truth in how things really work, that is relevant for our survival.

Paul

That's surely one part of the equation, to detect "what is?". Where you should be cautious with the phrase "truth" because science is not backing you.

On the other hand, however, the question "what should be?" is equally important, talking about morality and ethics. Science does not give any answers here. It's a matter of philosophy and, still, religion.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

That's surely one part of the equation, to detect "what is?". Where you should be cautious with the phrase "truth" because science is not backing you.

On the other hand, however, the question "what should be?" is equally important, talking about morality and ethics. Science does not give any answers here. It's a matter of philosophy and, still, religion.

Herzblut

BS, you love to play the word game. Science give lots of answers, there just not the ones you what to hear. Morality and ethics are science, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, when one lives in a sociality, one learns the rules that work and the ones that don't work. The root word of science is knowledge.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

BS, you love to play the word game. Science give lots of answers, there just not the ones you what to hear.

I am a scientist. Your ad hom is absurd.

Morality and ethics are science, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,

Wrong. Which science teaches which ethics?

when one lives in a sociality, one learns the rules that work and the ones that don't work.

That has nothing to do with science.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

For one who says he is a scientist, you have a very narrow view of science. I see nothing in religion that is not base on fear to make people behave with so-called ethics. I have no religion and have lots of ethics and many people are surprise when they found out that I'm not religious. To learn how a sociality works and doesn't work is a science, like social sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

For one who says he is a scientist, you have a very narrow view of science.

A correct one. Science is a process to gain knowledge. That's it.

Again: name the science and which ethics it imposes! Which ethics imposes physics, for instance?

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Again, science is not just getting knowledge, it is also using knowledge, and learning how to live in a sociality can be science and is a science. Also you do not impose ethics, you learn them. If you impose ethics on a person, then at heart that person in not truly ethical.

Paul

 

[thaiboxerken]

Has anyone shown how to disprove an unfalsifiable claim yet?

 

[Herzblut]

Again, science is not just getting knowledge, it is also using knowledge,

To get even more knowledge.

and learning how to live in a sociality can be science and is a science.

Wrong. "How to live" is normative and identical to "How you should live". This is outside the realm of science - which does never make normative claims - and within the realm of philosophy/religion.

Also you do not impose ethics, you learn them.

How? What is telling you right or wrong? Religion does, that's for sure. What else?

Also, ethics is the fundamental ground of legal systems. Law is based on ethics. How do you punish different crimes? Why should you at all? Why is murder more severe than fraud? Why?

You don't overlook the ethics topic and get lost. To seek the answers in science is hopeless. You don't understand the nature of science.

If you impose ethics on a person, then at heart that person in not truly ethical.

Certainly. Like only a real Scotsman is a Scotsman.

Again: Which ethics is implied by physics?

Herzblut

 

[Z]

Wrong. The relevence of a religious belief depends on the quantity of believers, social impact etc. Not on the scientific verifiability of its transcentental claims.

Herzblut

No, you're wrong - I said nothing of belief in God. I only said that God was irrelevant.

Belief in God is another matter entirely.

But as long as the majority of believers hold to the idea that God itself punishes or rewards, and that it is not for man to judge (part of the central tenants of biblical teaching), God remains irrelevant.

The followers of God may not be, however.

Really, Herzy, before attacking someone's statement in defense of religion, make sure you understand what's been stated.

 

[Z]

Actually, one could determine optimal ethical codes based on the nature and structure of a given society with a purely scientific method, in which we define a desirable state for the society as a whole, and then determine the necessary codes of ethics that will allow us to achieve that state.

Of course, we can still argue that how we go about defining a desirable state is itself left to philosophy or religion, and to an extent I'm forced to agree. But we can leave religion entirely out of it, and embrace a philosophy which eschews the unscientific and emotive, the unproven and irrelevant, and embraces overall positive benefits for our species based upon known facts and provable methods.

Of course, there are many who would undoubtably cry out against such a philosophy, because obviously it would mean going against many of their cherished beliefs; for example, by viewing the human as merely another animal - and one which can be tailored to more suitable forms as the society requires - we dehumanize the human animal and reduce its divine nature. This is, of course, repugnant to many people, even those not of religious bent.

But the process has been in place for centuries, and with a few minor setbacks, proceeds apace. Our children's children may very well see the dawn of an age where reason and logic supplant emotion and faith entirely, and religion is relegated to a few fringes of society, where it belongs.

Sincerely,

Rev. Tohausen

 

[Herzblut]

No, you're wrong - I said nothing of belief in God. I only said that God was irrelevant.
Belief in God is another matter entirely.

False.

You said G is irrelevant and can be disregarded completely. There is no way to analyse the belief in G and totally disregard G itself.

Also, as andy pointed out, proof of existence of G is irrelevant for the relevance of G.

You're wrong all together.

Really, Herzy, before attacking someone's statement in defense of religion, make sure you understand what's been stated.

Start understanding your own statements before publishing them.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

Of course, there are many who would undoubtably cry out against such a philosophy, because obviously it would mean going against many of their cherished beliefs; for example, by viewing the human as merely another animal - and one which can be tailored to more suitable forms as the society requires - we dehumanize the human animal and reduce its divine nature. This is, of course, repugnant to many people, even those not of religious bent.

Ethics unable to convince major parts of the society is irrelevant. It's useless cause it will never be applied in reality.

Herzblut

 

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

God does not exist !

The structure of reality calls for four dimensions.

We are stuck in three, and have a thin slice of the forth dimension, and it is know as the present.

What exists beyond our scope, meaning the complete 4 dimensional reality, is beyond our scope.

And so we look up to what we think is out there, what is over on the other side, as it is sometimes described.

But, the point is, it is THERE, and we are HERE. Therefore what does exist over the on the other side, ONLY exists over there on the other side. And so we can not truly know what it is, because if we did, then we would be part of the other side, yet we are not.

Therefore people are trying to prove that something exists that at the same time is a something they know nothing about, something that is beyond that which we call God.

And so what does exist is beyond what the human mind thinks of as a God.

That which lies just over the boarder that divides us and them, is the simplest level on that other side. From there it becomes even more complex. From our point of view, we can't even see the simplest details of the other side, which to them is their equivalent of the molecular level of the their side.

 

[Z]

False.

You said G is irrelevant and can be disregarded completely. There is no way to analyse the belief in G and totally disregard G itself.

Of course there is. To believe otherwise is ignorant and foolish.

God is irrelevant in any form. Belief in God is otherwise.

Also, as andy pointed out, proof of existence of G is irrelevant for the relevance of G.

Again, incorrect. The relevance of belief in God is more relevant by far than the relevance of God itself.

Think, Herzy, think.

You're wrong all together.

You keep believing that. That way, it might become relevant.

Start understanding your own statements before publishing them.

No problem there.